MISHNAH: Three persons who ate together are required to “invite” [Three adult males who ate together are obliged to recite Grace as a group and start with a special invitation to all participants to join in the praise of the Lord by Whose kindness we live. The text of the “invitation” is given in Mishnah 3.] . If one ate demai [Newly harvested produce is subject to several obligatory gifts and tithes. The first one is the heave, תְּרוּמָה, that can be given to any Cohen. This terumah must be eaten by a Cohen’s family in ritual purity. There is no rate set for terumah in the Torah but in times when ritual purity can be observed, the rabbinically established rate was 2 percent. Next, the tithe of 10% must be given to a Levite. This maäser again is subject to a 10% terumah of the tithe to be given to the Cohen. The remainder of this first tithe is secular private property of the Levite and need not be kept in purity. However, consumption by a non-Cohen of any food containing still terumah (and of impure terumah by a Cohen) is a deadly sin. In Temple times it was established that all Jews, educated and uneducated, observant and nonobservant alike, did separate terumah and give it to a Cohen. However, the first tithe was not given by a substantial minority of uneducated and nonobservant. Since untithed produce still contains the terumah of the tithe and its consumption would be a deadly sin, it was instituted that observant Jews have to separate at least the terumah of the tithe for produce bought from unreliable sources. Since a majority of all agricultural producers did give the tithe, the obligation to tithe is conditional and is waved for the poor. Produce sold by unreliable persons is called demai; the rules under which demai has to be given are spelled out in a separate Tractate. In any case, since any person might give away all his property and then become poor and eat demai without tithing, demai is potentially permitted food for everybody and the person who eats it does not commit blasphemy in reciting Grace.] , or first tithe of which the heave was taken [The Babli explains, even if the heave was taken somewhat irregularly. There is no mention of that in the Yerushalmi.] , or second tithe [The second tithe remains the property of the farmer but either it must be eaten in Jerusalem or it must be redeemed and the proceeds taken to Jerusalem and spent there for food. Second tithe that was redeemed is normal food permitted to everybody.] or dedicated foods [This is food from an animal not of the kind that may be sacrificed, or vegetables that may not be sacrificed, but were given to support the upkeep of the Temple. These gifts are then sold and the money used for the Temple. After the sale, the food is profane, for everybody to eat. Also, an animal dedicated for the altar that develops a blemish before it is sacrificed, can be redeemed and then becomes secular food which, however, must be consumed in a dignified manner.] that were redeemed, or the waiter who ate the volume of an olive [Nobody may recite Grace who did not eat at least food of the volume of an average olive. The waiter is acceptable even though he did not sit down with the guests he served.] , or a Samaritan [The descendants of the people settled in Samaria by the king of Assyria (2Kings 17) who accepted the written Torah but not the oral law. [Since they did not resist the effort made by Diocletian to unify the Roman Empire in pagan rite, this statement of the Mishnah no longer applies. It does apply, however, to Karaites.]] , these can be invited. But if one ate untithed produce, or first tithe of which the heave was not taken, or the second tithe [Outside of Jerusalem.] or dedicated foods that were not redeemed [Except for the second tithe, the consumption of the foods mentioned here is a deadly sin; hence, pronouncing a benediction over that food would be the additional sin of blasphemy.] , or the waiter who ate less than the volume of an olive, or a Gentile [He is not obliged to recite Grace and has no part in the Land for which we give praise.] , these cannot be invited.
HALAKHAH: Here [Mishnah 5: Three who ate together are not allowed to split. [There the emphasis is on the fact that six people who ate together may split into two groups of three.] The Yerushalmi is discussed at length by Tosaphot Berakhot 45a and Talmid Rabbenu Jonah,Rosh on Mishnah 5.] it has been said “they are not allowed to split” and here it has been said “they are required to ‘invite’ ” [The two Mishnayot seem to say the same thing, so one of them would be superfluous.] . Samuel said, one is at the start and one is at the end. What means “beginning” and what means “end”? Two Amoraïm; one said if they decided to eat together that is the start [They are no longer allowed to split.] , when they ate the volume of an olive that is the end [They are required to recite Grace together with the formal “invitation.”] . But the other one said, if they ate the volume of an olive that is the start [They are no longer allowed to eat each one for himself.] , when they finished their meal that is the end [They must recite Grace together; if one of them finishes early he is not allowed to recite Grace for himself and then leave.] .
Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Huna, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Abba bar Jeremiah: Three are required, two have permission. Rebbi Zeïra said this before Rebbi Yasa. He said to him: I have only the Mishnah, three who ate together are required to “invite” [But two may not recite Grace together with the formula of invitation. The Babli (45a/b) comes to the same conclusion that the old tradition of Babylonia was that two may say Grace together but three must do it, but the Israeli tradition was always to exclude two if three are required.] . The rabbis of here stick by their opinion, the rabbis of there [Babylonia. The disagreement between Samuel and R. Yoḥanan / R. Simeon ben Laqish belongs to tractate Sanhedrin; in Babli Sanhedrin (5b/6a) this is a disagreement between Samuel and Rebbi Abbahu, student of R. Simeon ben Laqish and R. Yoḥanan. The Babli (Berakhot 45b) only hints that the difference has its roots in different local traditions.] stick by their opinion. Samuel said, two who judged, their judgment is valid but they are called an insolent court. Rebbi Yoḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, two who judged, their judgment is invalid.
Rav Huna said, three who ate each one by himself [Different food at different tables, or at one table but they are strangers to one another and each one eats his own food that he brought with him. The disagreement between Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda is explained differently in the Babli, 50a.] and then came together [At one table (or on one group of couches) befor they recited Grace.] do “invite”. Rav Ḥisda said, only if they came from three groups [Every one of the three was required to recite Grace with “invitation”; he may fulfill his obligation even in another group. But if three people were not obligated to “invite” during their meal they cannot become subject to “inviting” after they had finished eating.] . According to the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra [Here he is called by his Babylonian name זירא since, under the influence of Accadic, the Jews in Babylonia early on had lost the sound of ע. While his Israeli name appears in the list of R. Jonah, the entire piece seems to have had a Babylonian editor; so it uses the Babylonian Aramaic חזי “to see” instead of the usual Israeli חמי.] and his group, only if all three ate together [From the start. (In the Babli, 50a, this is the opinion of Samuel, but here it is the opinion only of the rabbis in Israel). Connected with this is the Tosephta (Berakhot 5:23, cf. end of Halakhah 5) that people in a caravan, if they eat while walking, cannot recite Grace together even if they all ate from the same food, but if they sit together at a rest stop, they must recite Grace together even if everyone ate his own provisions. In contrast to the Babli, the Yerushalmi never entertains the thought that for common Grace one would have to lie down on couches.] . Rebbi Jonah on that of Rav Huna: If he dipped three stalks of hyssop each one by himself and then took them together, he may sprinkle with it [Used for cleansing a person or utensils impure by contact with a corpse; cleansing needs sprinkling with a bunch of hyssop that was dipped in water in which some of the ashes of a red heifer were dissolved (Num. 19, Mishnah Parah). A “bunch” is a minimum of three stalks. The opinions here are attributed to the older authorities by Rebbi Jonah.] . Rav Ḥisda said, only if they came from three bundles. According to the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra and his group, only if all three were dipped together. If you want to say that we do not infer rules of hyssop from rules of benedictions, do we not see the rabbis deal with sukkah and learn from pourable mud? [This proof that one requires logical consistency even in fields that are rather remote from each other is also a belated justification of the previous comparison of the rules of Grace with the composition of a court of law.] . As we have stated (Mishnah Sukkah 1:10): “If the roofing was three hand-breadths away from the walls it is invalid. [The essence of the sukkah is that its roof must be botanical (but only materials that cannot become ritually unclean). The branches or other material must be arranged so that there is more shadow than sun inside the sukkah. If there is a place where that condition is not satisfied for three hand-breadths horizontally from a wall, the sukkah cannot be used to fulfill the commandment “to dwell” in it (Lev. 23:42).] ” Hence less than that is acceptable. May one sleep under that [The place, less than two hand-breadths wide, under which there is more sun than shadow. Instead of sleeping, the question could have been asked about eating.] ? Rebbi Isaac ben Elyashib [An Israeli Amora of the fourth generation, colleague of Rebbi Mana; a holy man and worker of miracles.] answered, pourable mud completes a miqweh [A ritual bath can be used for cleansing impurities only if it contains 40 seäh, about 135 gallons. If there is not enough clear water, the desired volume can be obtained by adding mud that is so moist that it can be poured from a bucket (Mishnah Miqwaöt 7:1). The complete argument is in Yerushalmi Sukkah 1:10, Babli Sukkah 19a.] but one may not immerse in it, here also it completes the sukkah but one may not sleep under it.
Three who ate together and one wants to leave, Rav said he should recite the first benediction, then he may leave. What is the first benediction? In the Yeshivah of Rav [After Rav’s death.] they said, the benediction of invitation. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Jeremiah: that is “He Who feeds all.” [The first benediction of Grace when recited without “invitation”. It seems that Rebbi Zeïra also agrees that the one who wants to leave has to recite the benediction “of invitation” aloud so that the other two may answer and fulfill their duty to recite Grace with “invitation”; the disagreement is only about how much he has to recite aloud, whether only the “invitation” or also the first benediction of Grace proper. [If all three recite Grace together, the one who recites the “invitation” has to recite all of Grace aloud; this custom has disappeared in Eastern European Ashkenazic Jewry after the invention of printing and the availability of inexpensive prayer books for everyone.]] Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Ḥanan in the name of Rav: that is “He Who feeds all.” Rav Sheshet objected, but a baraita disagrees: “Two, three are obliged to recite Grace. [It is generally agreed that ברכת הזימון is a scribal error and that the correct reading is that of Alfassi ברכת המזון “Grace”. The explanation of the elliptic baraita is according to Alfassi: If two or three people sit together and neither of them knows how to recite the entire Grace but each of them knows one or two benedictions that the others do not, then they take turns in reciting the benedictions and they all have fulfilled their obligations, the one reciting by pronouncing the benediction and the others by listening and answering “Amen”. The numbers are important to show that we require one person to recite an entire benediction; it is not permissible to split one benediction among several people. Hence, the maximal number of people who can share in reciting Grace is the number of benedictions in Grace.] ” If you want to say the benediction of invitation is the first one, one should state “four.” They found stated “four.” If you want to say this is “He Who feeds all”, it is difficult. If you want to say that it [The fourth benediction according to him who requires the first benediction to include “He Who feeds all.”] is “He Who is good and does good”, you cannot do that, there is a difference [Between the first three benedictions that are Torah obligations and the fourth one who seems to be Rabbinic in character.] because Rav Huna said that “He Who is good and does good” was fixed [It says “fixed”, not “instituted” as in the parallel in the Babli (48b). According to the Yerushalmi, the fourth benediction is old, probably Biblical, but it was not permanently required in earlier times; the problem is discussed in the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah (Northvale NJ, 1995) p. 358–359.] after permission was received to bury the slain of Betar [Roman law did not allow the burial of rebels against the government. Hence, the dead of Betar, the last of Bar Kokhba’s fortresses, could certainly not be buried during Hadrian’s lifetime. It is not known which of his successors gave permission to bury the dead. We may assume that it was the same emperor who permitted the re-establishment of the Synhedrion.] , “He Who is good” because the dead did not decompose and “He Who does good” that they could be buried. Rav Huna said, you may explain it following Rebbi Ismael since Rebbi Ismael said [Mekhilta deR. Ismael Ba 16.] , “He Who is good and does good” is an obligation from the Torah as it is written (Deut.8:10): You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise, that is the benediction of invitation; the Eternal, your God, that is “He Who feeds all” [Since the name “God” represents God as Creator of the physical world.] ; for the Land, that is the benediction over the Land; the good one, that is the benediction “builder of Jerusalem” [and so it says (Deut. 3:25) “this good mountain and the Lebanon [“Lebanon” means the Temple; this identification goes back at least to the time of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai who predicted to Vespasian that he would become emperor, since he would destroy the Temple and it is written (Is. 10:34) “the Lebanon will fall through a powerful one” (Babli Giṭṭin 56b; Yerushalmi sources: Abot deR. Nathan 4, Midrash Ekha rabba 1).] ”]; that He gave you, that is “He Who is good and does good”.
For Torah [Torah study, including Torah reading.] there is written a benediction before, but no benediction is written after. What is written before it? (Deut. 32:3) “For I am invoking the name of the Eternal, attribute greatness to our God.” For food there is written a benediction after, but no benediction is written before. What is written after it? (Deut. 8:10): “You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise”. From where that which is said about one on the other and vice-versa? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: The Name is mentioned in both verses as parallel expressions [In general, it is assumed in the system of Rebbi Aqiba that a word can have only one meaning. A stronger implication, agreed to by all tannaïtic authorities, is a “parallel expression”. The formal definition of the school of R. Ismael is that if one has a tradition that two equal or synonymous expressions are written in the Torah for purposes of comparison and if these two words are not used for any other inference, then all laws connected with one word apply to the other and vice-versa. The derivation here does not fulfill these conditions; hence, it is labelled to follow the rules of R. Aqiba who is not known to require too much formality in case the verse is used to give a biblical base to an old tradition.] . Just as the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction before, so the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction before. And just as the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction after, so the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction after. That follows Rebbi Aqiba [Who is an exponent of intensional interpretation, whereas R. Ismael is an exponent of extensional interpretation. The rules of R. Ismael are systematized in his “13 rules” given in the introduction to the halakhic Midrash Sifra on Leviticus. The problem of both Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ismael is that in its mishnaic-talmudic form, the rules of Jewish conduct form a logically consistent whole. It was shown earlier in this chapter, Notes 24 – 29, that rules must be consistent from one application to the next, such as rules of Grace and forming a court of law. But the basis of these laws, the words of the Torah, are unsystematic, fragmentary, and sometimes appear contradictory. Hence, one needs a method of translating the aphoristic text of the Torah in a legally consistent new language; cf. the author’s Logical problems in Jewish tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, ed. P. Longworth, Blond, London 1966, 171–196. The rules are discussed in the medieval texts Introduction to the Talmud by R. Samuel Hanaggid and Sefer Keritut of R. Simson of Sens.] . What following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an inference from the lesser to the greater [קל וחוֹמר, the first rule of R. Ismael. If there are two commandments, A and B, and if every rule for A is no more stringent than the corresponding rule for B, then a rule expressed for A that has no equivalent for B is valid also for B. The Babli (21a) quotes the following qal waḥomer in the name of R. Yoḥanan only and points out that the application here is not justified since it is self-contradictory. The Yerushalmi seems to be of the opinion that in the formulation given here, with “not more stringent” instead of “less stringent”, the argument is logically admissible.] . If food that needs no explicit benediction before, needs a benediction afterwards, regarding Torah that needs a benediction before, it is only logical that it should need a benediction afterwards. That works for Torah; what about food? If Torah that needs no benediction afterwards, needs a benediction before, regarding food that needs a benediction afterwards, it is only logical that it should need a benediction before. Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Nathan say, (1Sam. 9:13): “For he will recite the benediction over the sacrifice and after that the invited guests will eat.” [In the Babli (48b) and in the Mekhilta (loc. cit.) this is given in the name of R. Nathan only. A verse from Samuel (Biblical but not Pentateuchal) cannot prove a commandment but can prove a practice.] Rebbi Nathan [In the Babli and the Mekhilta, this appears in the name of Rebbi Isaac.] said, (Ex. 23:24) “you shall serve the Eternal, your God and give praise for your bread and your water”; when is it called your bread and your water, before you eat [The full verse seems to read: “You shall serve the Eternal, your God, then He will bless your bread and your water and I will remove sickness from your midst.” The switch from third to first person is awkward in any case. In the Babli (in particular, in the Sephardic incunabula print) it is spelled out: Do not read וּבֵרַךְ “He will bless” but וּבָרֵךְ “and praise”. However, the Bible Concordance of G. Lisowsky (Stuttgart 1958) takes the verse, as it stands, to mean “You shall serve the Eternal, your God, and praise for your bread and your water, then I will remove sickness from your midst.” One may recite a benediction one one’s bread and one’s water only before it is consumed; afterwards one may speak only of nourishment and sustenance.] . Rebbi said, if he has to give praise when he ate and is satiated, somuch more at a time when he is hungry for food. That is for food, what about Torah? If food, which sustains only temporary life, needs a benediction before and after, Torah, which sustains eternal life, so much more [In the Babli and the Mekhilta this is a קל וחוֹמר of Rebbi Ismael.] .
Rebbi Zeïra asked: These three that are called [For reading the Torah in public. Since the preceding arguments tied benedictions over Torah reading to Grace, one has to ask in which way they are comparable. In the Babli Megillah 21b there is a baraita: “(In reading the Torah) he who starts recites the benediction before and he who finishes recites the benediction after.” On that, the Gemara notes: But today, all recite benedictions before and after. This “today” may be long after the work on the Yerushalmi stopped. In any case, the baraita seems to represent the early Babylonian practice; we do not know of any direct Yerushalmi source that let people read the Torah without benediction. Rebbi Zeïra, the Galilean head of academy who had come from Babylonia, is the right person to ask for the reasons and the correct practice. Since his questions remain without answers, both practices might be acceptable. Both the preceding paragraph and R. Zeïra’s question presuppose that private Torah reading requires benedictions before and after, cf. מסכת סופרים Chap. 13 and Ezra Fleischer, קטעים מקובצי תפילה ארץ־ישראליים מן הגניזה, קובץ על יד יג (כג) 139–141, 188–189.] , how are you treating them? As three who ate together or as three who ate each one for himself? If you treat them as three who ate together then the first one recites the benediction before, the last one recites the benediction after, and the middle one does not recite any benediction at all. If you treat them as three who ate each one for himself then even the middle one recites benedictions before and after. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, they did learn the benedictions for the Torah from Grace [Text of the parallel in Megillah 4:1; the Venice print has here “benediction of ‘invitation’ ”, a scribal error הזימון for המזון.] only in public [R. Samuel ben Eudaimon seems to object to reciting a benediction after Torah study. Also, since Torah study is a permanent obligation (Jos. 1:8), one benediction in the morning is enough to cover all Torah study during the day and evening; one does not have to recite a new benediction for study after an interruption. The prayer manuals of Yerushalmi type (see Note 48) which have benedictions after the reading of Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographs require these only for reading the Bible, not oral Torah study.] . If in public, then in private one should not recite any benediction! Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose [An Amora of the fourth generation who is never mentioned in the Babli.] , said: They made it equal to other commandments of the Torah. Just as other commandments of the Torah need benedictions, this also needs a benediction [Most commandments need only a benediction before, not after their execution. Thus, the benediction for the Torah in private study follows the general rule of benedictions over commandments. The quote for benediction for the Torah before the reading, Deut. 32:3, is clearly addressed to the public and, therefore, not applicable to private study.] .
“If one ate demay.” [Quote from the Mishnah.] This means that, if one ate produce which perhaps was tithed [Food of which terumah and terumah of the tithe were taken so that it may be consumed without incurring guilt] and perhaps was not tithed, one invites him. Rebbi Simeon, the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah [He is not otherwise mentioned in the Talmud.] : At the time when they were instituting demai, most of the unlearned brought the harvest into their houses [The obligation to give terumah and tithe starts when produce is brought through the door of the house (or barn). The expression here implies that most of the unlearned followed the rules and ate only produce that was in order; only because of the severity of the offense of eating ṭevel was the rule of demai decreed since a minority of uneducated did not follow the rules for produce sold; in that case the probablity of having produce that was not in order was less than 50%. There is therefore no inference possible for the problem under discussion, where the probability of things being wrong is 50%.] . Which one says that [Which part of the Mishnah does speak to our problem?] ? “One invites the Samaritan.” And is that Samaritan not doubtful [Since Samaritans do not follow rabbinic rules, we cannot check on the status of their produce.] ? Rebbi Abba said, explain it following what is said [Referring to the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel in the baraita; for him the Mishnah simply declares that Samaritans are counted as Jews and no inference is possible for our case. The question is left without answer.] : A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a Samaritan is like a Jew in all respects.
MISHNAH: One does not ‘invite’ [To recite the invitation aloud and to count them for a group of three. [The Babli notes that women for themselves and slaves for themselves may recite Grace with “invitation”; we cannot know what was the position of the Yerushalmi in that matter.]] women, slaves, and minors. What is the minimum to ‘invite’? Down to the size of an olive, Rebbi Yehudah says to the size of an egg [That the total food consumed by each person is at least the volume of an average olive or chicken egg.] .
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Yose ben Shaul in the name of Rebbi: One makes a minor an appendix for ten [The next Mishnah explains that the formula of “invitation” for three is “let us praise Him of Whose bounty we ate” whereas for ten it is “let us praise our God of Whose bounty we ate”. The question is whether the ten all have to be male adults or whether they have to be just ten males (of which nine are certain adults and the tenth possibly a minor as “appendix”.) In the Babli (47b/48a), R. Joshua ben Levi is quoted as permitting the tenth (for reciting Grace) even to be a baby lying in a crib. However, from the continuation of the discussion here it seems that the Yerushalmi does not even consider allowing a minor to join for the long form of “invitation” but only for Torah reading or other public services. Rebbi Yose ben Shaul was a student of Rebbi. He transmits sayings of Rebbi only.] . But did we not state: One does not investigate a minor [One version of the full baraita is quoted in Babli 47b: “A minor who grew two pubic hairs may take part in ‘invitation’, a minor who did not grow two pubic hairs may not take part in ‘invitation’ but one does not investigate a minor.” The other version is in Tosephta Berakhot 5:18: “A minor who can eat an olive may take part in ‘invitation’, a minor who cannot eat an olive may not take part in ‘invitation’; one does not investigate a minor.” Most commentators refer the Yerushalmi to the version in Berakhot but it seems clear that the Yerushalmi is based on a text close to the Tosephta and emphatically disagrees with the Babli, cf. Tosephta Kifshutah, ad loc.] ? Rebbi Yose said, one confirms Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi [The entire text is also in Bereshit rabba 91; there it says correctly “Rebbi Yose said, one confirms Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi”. The last part of the Tosephta implies that if a boy is on the threshhold of manhood (bar miẓwah), one can make him take part in any ceremony that needs ten adults by simply asking him if he is of age; one does not have to investigate if what he says is true. The implication here is that if one has a boy who looks younger than the age of puberty, one certainly cannot take him as tenth man.] : it [The Tosephta which insists that one does not investigate but that the boy should not look too young.] is needed for two minors; if he is a minor, one considers him doubtful, if he is doubtful [If he has reached the age, but we do not know whether he started growing pubic hair. The sentence speaks of all other occasions where one needs ten adult males, such as public prayer and Torah reading, but not of Grace which depends only on whether the child is able to eat an olive-size piece made of grain (in a country and time where children were usually nursed for between three and five years.)] , one considers him certain. Rebbi Yehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose: nine that look like ten [Where the Babli (47b) agrees that one may recite the invitation formula for ten adults.] , does one “invite” only those that are certain? Also if a minor was among them?
Rebbi Berekhiah said that Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose: “What are we dealing with? There [In the case of public reading of the Torah, as given in the next paragraph.] one makes him an appendix for ten, one should say that here [Reciting Grace.] one should make him an appendix for three. Since there one makes him an appendix for the mention of the Divine Name, here, when one does not mention the Divine Name, a fortiori should one make him an appendix.” He answered him: “It is not a fortiori! There, since they must mention the Name [In an obligatory public service.] , one makes him anappendix; here, since one does not recite the Name [In private.] , there is no need to make him an appendix!”
It has been stated: One may take a minor and a Torah scroll as appendix. Rebbi Judan said: So is the baraita: One may take a minor as appendix for the purpose of Torah reading [But the Torah scroll is not a human and one never will get by with only eight adult males. The original baraita is close to a statement of Rav Huna in the Babli (47b) which there is corrected differently.] .
When does one start to make him an appendix? Rebbi Avina said: Rab Ḥuna and Rav Yehudah disagreed, both in the name of Samuel. One said, that he has to understand the nature of a benediction; the other one said that he has to understand to Whom one has to recite the benediction [In the Babli (48a), this is the opinion of Rav Naḥman, another student of Samuel.] . Rebbi Nassa said, many times did I eat with my father Taḥlipha and my uncle Aninia bar Sisai and they did not recite the ‘invitation’ with me until I grew two pubic hairs [Since report of an action is the best proof, it is shown that one never uses a minor as appendix for reciting Grace with ‘invitation’.] .
Samuel bar Shilat [A student of Rav who is regarded as the ideal teacher in the Babli. For nine years he did not have time to tend his garden because he was caring about the children in his school. The title “Ribbi” given him in the next sentence is a scribal error.] asked before Rav, but some say that it was asked before Rav Samuel bar Shilat: Nine ate bread and one ate vegetable [Nine are required to recite Grace. The tenth is only required to recite the short formula but he is there to form a quorum of ten adult males for the invocation of the Name.] ? He said to them: One ‘invites’. Eight ate bread and two ate vegetable? He said to them: One ‘invites’. Seven ate bread and two ate vegetable? He said to them: One ‘invites’. Rebbi Avina asked: What is the rule for half and half [Does one need a majority of those who are required to recite Grace or is it enough to have ten adult males present. In the Babli (48a), Rebbi Zeïra is of the opinion that not only does one need a majority but one even needs a qualified majority and seven is the minimal number for reciting the ‘invitation’ with the Name.] ? Rebbi Zeïra said, as long as I was there, I would have needed that. I regret that I did not ask.
Rebbi Jeremiah asked: May he who ate vegetable recite Grace? Rebbi Jeremiah seems to contradict himself [The contradiction will be explained in the following lengthy story.] ! It has been stated: 300 nezirim [People who made a vow to abstain from all grape products, let their hair grow, and kept themselves in strict ritual purity for a certain amount of time. At the end of that time, the nazir could terminate his vow only if he offered a sheep as holocaust sacrifice, a female sheep for a sin-offering, and a goat for a family sacrifice (Num. 6). Most of these nezirim were poor people who relied on charity to fulfill their obligations in the Temple.] came in the days of Simeon ben Shetaḥ [President of the Synhedrion in the times of the Hasmonean king Alexander Yannai and brother of queen Shlomẓion (Salome Alexandra).] . For 150 of them he found an opening [An “opening of regrets”, an argument that made the nazir regret his original decision to become a nazir; this invalidates the vow retroactively so that no sacrifice may be brought.] , for 150 of them he did not find an opening. He came to king Yannai and said to him: There are here 300 nezirim who need 900 sacrifices. You should give half of them from your side, I shall give half from my side. The king sent him 450 animals. An informer went around and said that the other one had not given anything from his own money. King Yannai heard about it and got angry. Simeon ben Shetaḥ feared and fled [In the parallel in the Babli (48ab), Simeon ben Shetaḥ went into hiding because Alexander Yannai sided with the Sadducees when it was reported to him that some Pharisees thought him to be unfit as priest.] . After some time, important people from the Persian empire came to king Yannai [During all of the Second Commonwealth and certainly during the reign of Alexander Yannai, the Jewish state relied on contributions from the Jews in the diaspora, both from Rome and from Persia (then, Parthia). It may be assumed that the delegation brought the yearly subsidy and, therefore, was in a position to enforce their will.] . At the meal, they said to him: We remember that there was here an old man who gave us a rabbinic discourse. He told them what had happened. They said to him, send and bring him! He sent and gave him his word [That it was safe and nothing would happen to him. In the Babli, it was the queen, Simeon’s sister, who arranged matters.] ; he came and sat between king and queen. He said to him, why did you trick me? He said, I did not trick you; you with your money and I with my learning, as it is written (Eccl. 7:12) “In the shadow of wisdom, in the shadow of money [Wisdom and money are equivalent to give protection.] .” He said to him, why did you disappear? He said to him, I heard that my lord was angry with me and I wanted to fulfill the verse (Is. 26:20) “Hide a little bit until the rage passes;” he used about himself (Eccl. 7:12): “Knowledge is an advantage, wisdom lets its possessor live.” He said to him, why did you sit between king and queen? He said to him, it is written in the book of Ben Sirach [This verse cannot be reconstructed with confidence, since the manuscripts of the Babli and parallel sources all have different versions.] : “Esteem it and it will raise you and set you between princes.” He said, bring him a cup that he may recite Grace. He took the cup and said: “Let us give praise for the food that Yannai and his company ate.” He said to him, are you still obstinate as ever? He said to him, what should I say, “for the food that we did not eat?” He said, bring him something that he may eat. They brought, he ate and recited: “For the food that we ate.” Rebbi Yoḥanan said, his colleagues disagree with Simeon ben Shetaḥ. Rebbi Jeremiah said, about the first action [That he tricked Yannai to give the animals for sacrifices under false pretenses, even though formally Simeon ben Shetaḥ was correct. The second action was that he refused to recite Grace without having eaten at least a minimal meal. The text here is clearly corrupt since by the statement of the Talmud, Rebbi Jeremiah disagrees with Simeon ben Shetaḥ about the recitation of Grace. The correct text, that R. Abba refers to the first action and R. Jeremiah to the second, is in the Yerushalmi source Midrash Bereshit rabba 51. [In the Babli, 48a, it is R. Abba the son of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of R. Yoḥanan who declares that Grace cannot be recited by someone who did not eat bread. But the Babli cannot be used for the text of the Yerushalmi.]] ; Rebbi Abba said, about the second action. Rebbi Jeremiah seems to contradict himself! There he wondered about it and here [In his theoretical question he wonders, in his critique of Simeon ben Shetaḥ following R. Yoḥanan he is certain.] it is obvious for him! He wondered following the Sages; it is obvious for him following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. We have stated about this: If one was lying on a couch and ate [In the Midrash, the Rome manuscript, the Tosephta, (and the Babli) “dipped (some vegetable in broth)”. Both in the Yerushalmi, here and Nazir 5:5, and the prints of the Midrash, this is labelled “words of the Sages.” But in the Tosephta (5:20) and manuscripts of the Midrash (and in the Babli 48a), the statement is attributed to Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. It seems that the attribution here to the Sages is a scribal error since the opinion attributed to Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel in the last baraita is the one given in the Tosephta and R. Jeremiah is reported as following the latter’s opinion in the interpretation of the story of Simeon ben Shetaḥ.] with them, even if he did not eat grain the volume of an olive one ‘invites’ with him, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: One never ‘invites’ anyone unless he had eaten grain the volume of an olive [In the restrictive spirit of the Yerushalmi as explained earlier.] . But did we not formulate, “two bread and one vegetable, then one ‘invites’?” This baraita follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.
MISHNAH: How does one ‘invite’? If there are three, he says: let us praise [The changes apply only to the start of the invitation; in all cases one continues with “Him, Whose food we ate”.] . If there are three in addition to himself, he says: praise! [Since there are three without him, he may address them without including himself.] If there are ten, he says: let us praise our God. If there are ten in addition to himself, he says: praise! There is no difference between ten and ten myriads [This is the majority opinion; the rest of the Mishnah is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s, as explained at the end of the Mishnah.] . If there are a hundred, he says: let us praise the Eternal, our God. If there are a hundred in addition to himself, he says: praise! If there are a thousand, he says: let us praise the Eternal, our God, the God of Israel. If there are a thousand in addition to himself, he says: praise! If there are ten thousand, he says: let us praise the Eternal, our God, the God of Israel, God of Hosts, Who thrones over the Cherubim, for the food that we ate. Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, the praise has to be according to the multitude of the assembled, as it is said (Ps. 68:27): “In assemblies [It will be clear in the Halakhah that the difference between the Sages and R. Yose the Galilean is in the interpretation of this word, whether it means “assemblies”, i. e., different assemblies recite different praises, or “choirs” that all sing together.] praise God, the Lord, from the root of Israel.” Rebbi Aqiba said, do we not find in the synagoge that one recites “Praise the Eternal” whether there are many or few? Rebbi Ismael says, “Praise the Eternal, the Praised One!” [This Mishnah is sequel to the preceding one and presents the argument of the Sages against Rebbi Yose the Galilean. The difference in text between the two authorities already was discussed in the preceding Halakhah.]
HALAKHAH: Clarification. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis, were sitting and eating together. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa took the cup [The cup of wine over which Grace is recited. Since there were four sages eating together, the Mishnah would require that he start with “praise!”.] and said “let us praise”, he did not say: “praise!”. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked him, why did you not say “praise!” He said to him, did we not state [Tosephta Berakhot 5:18, Babli 50a.] : “One does not insist on the formulation. Whether he says ‘let us praise’, or he says ‘praise!’, one does not criticize him, but the pedants [The reading of the Arukh is נקרנין “nitpickers.” The Babli (50a) interprets the Tosephta to mean that “praise!” is acceptable but not preferred; the Yerushalmi seems to accept Samuel’s statement (also Babli 49b) at face value that “praise!” should not be used in practice.] criticize him for that.” Rebbi Zeïra felt badly that Rebbi Jacob bar Abba had called Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba a pedant.
Samuel said: I do not want to exclude myself from the group [In the Babli, Samuel is quoted as saying “nobody should exclude himself from the group” as obligatory ruling, whereas here he is quoted as stating his personal preference for נברך against the Mishnah.] . They objected: look at the benediction for the Torah where he says “praise!” Rebbi Abun said, since he will conclude by “the Praised One”, he does not exclude himself from the group. [It is explained in the next Mishnah that the benediction for reading the Torah starts with “Praise the Eternal” according to Rebbi Aqiba, and “Praise the Eternal, the Praised One” according to Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Abun indicates that practice follows Rebbi Ismael. The Babli (50a) indicates that in Torah reading, the people forced adherence to the opinion of R. Ismael, apparently against the resistance of some rabbis (called “black vessels” by Rava) who preferred to follow Rebbi Aqiba. It seems that R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, a native Babylonian, felt that R. Jacob bar Aḥa was following the uneducated, but in Galilee everybody followed Samuel and popular opinion.]
Rebbi Abba bar Zamina waited upon Zeïra and mixed him a cup. He [The last two words are not in the Rome manuscript and are probably dittography.] said to him: Old man, make the benediction, and have the intention of drinking another one, as we have stated: The waiter makes a benediction for every single cup [Since he cannot expect to get another cup, he cannot have the intention to make one benediction for more than one cup. On the other hand, in the opinion of the Yerushalmi the waiter will always have occasion to eat some food from the kitchen, hence he may make a benediction for the future. In the Babli (Ḥulin 107b), this baraita is a statement of Rav and is restricted there to formal dinners. The Babli also quotes an opinion of the Galilean R. Yoḥanan that for solid food also the waiter cannot make a benediction for the uncertain future; since this is not mentioned here one has to conclude that the Yerushalmi rejects the distinction made in the Babli.] but not for every morsel. He answered him: Just as I have the intention of absolving you of your obligation by the benediction so you must have the intention of absolving me of my obligation [All commentators except R. Moshe Margalit declare this passage to be corrupt and that it should read מַפְקָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתָךְ “fulfill your obligation”; this seems to be required by the following quote (which is formulated for sounding the shofar but is valid for all obligations that may be fulfilled by listening.)] by “Amen”. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah [A student of R. Mana II of the fifth generation.] said, a Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 4:8) states this: The absent-minded [The word means usually “absentminded” but can also mean “practicing” and that probably is the primary meaning in this Mishnah, that one who blows the shofar in order to learn the technique cannot by the same act fulfill his obligation, neither can anyone who hears him. But in our application, the intended meaning is “absent-minded.” R. Abba bar Zamina’s implication is that in hearing a benediction one must answer “Amen” in order to make sure that the listener is not absent-minded either. This explains the placing of this paragraph here, following another one where also one person recites Grace in order for all others (even a hundred thousand) to be freed from their obligation.] did not fulfill his obligation and he who heard from the absent-minded did not fulfill his obligation.
“If there are a hundred” etc. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Jose the Galilean, but the Sages say “there is no difference between ten and ten myriads”. Rava [It seems that here an apostrophe is missing and the name is R. Abba who is frequently mentioned in the Yerushalmi, rather than Rava (Rav Abba), one of the architects of dialectics in the Babli who lived at the time when the work on the Yerushalmi came to an end. The latter is mentioned only once in the Yerushalmi [Beẓa 1:3 (fol. 60b)] as Rebbi (!) Abba bar Josef [in the parallel in the Babli, based on the Yerushalmi, his full name is given as Rava bar Rav Josef bar Ḥama in contrast to Babylonian material where his name consistently is only Rava]. In the Babli, (50a) Rava is quoted as saying that “the people follow R. Ismael”, i. e., there is no binding ruling in the matter but a silent consensus, whereas the statement in the Yerushalmi indicates a rabbinic ruling.] said, practice follows him who states that there is no difference between ten and ten myriads.
From where that “congregation” means ten people [The discussion here is to prove that for a public invocation of the Name one needs a congregation of at least ten adult males. The relevant verses are Lev. 19:2 “Speak to the entire congregation of the children of Israel and tell them: conduct yourselves in holiness because I, The Eternal, your God, Am Holy” and Lev. 22:32 “I shall be sanctified in the midst of the children of Israel.” The same discussion is reported Megillah 4:4, Sanhedrin 1:4. The parallel discussion in the Babli, Megillah 23a, in the name of the first generation Rebbi Ḥiyya, is based on the second verse and is intelligible only if it is understood as reference to the derivation in the Yerushalmi.] ? Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: It is said here “congregation” and it says there [“Here” refers to Lev. 19:2, “there” to Num. 14:27: “How long for this evil congregation”, speaking of the ten spies who argued against entering the Land. There were twelve spies in all; Joshua and Caleb were in the opposition; accordingly there were ten evil persons who formed the congregation.] “congregation”. Since “congregation” mentioned there means ten, so also “congregation” mentioned here must mean ten. Rebbi Simon said, it is said here “in the midst” and it is said there “in the midst” (Gen. 42:5): “The sons of Israel came to buy grain in the midst of those who came.” Since “in the midst” said there means ten, so also here it must mean ten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, if you deduce from “in the midst”, there are too many of them [In particular, in Lev. 22:32, “in the midst” must mean 600’000 adult males. In the Babli, Lev. 22:32 is used to establish a formal parallel, known as gezerah shawah, between this verse and the one from Genesis. The latter verse is then used to arrive at the number ten (since of the twelve tribes, Joseph and Benjamin were missing). From the Babli it seems that there was a tradition linking the two verses (since in its opinion, gezerah shawah must be based on a tradition) and, therefore, R. Simon is forced to quote a verse that in itself seems to be less adequate than the one used before.] . But it is said here “the children of Israel” and it is said there “the children of Israel.” Since “children of Israel” said there means ten, so here it also must mean ten.
How do the Sages use the reason of Rebbi Yose the Galilean? “In assemblies”, in each separate congregation. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written במקהלת [The opinion of the sages is that the plural “assemblies” points to different assemblies at different places and not to different categories of the same assembly. R. Ḥanina notes that in R. Yose the Galilean’s tradition, the word was written defective and could be read as a singular מִקְהֶלֶת “assembly”. Hence, if the word is vocalized as a plural, it is an ideal plural that refers to different stages of the same assembly. In all our sources, the word in Psalms is written plene to support the position of the Sages; the Masorah to Num. 32:25/26 (composed several centuries after the conclusion of the Talmudim) notes that מקהלת appears as geographical name only in Num. and that in Psalms, מקהלוֹת is a hapax legomenon. The parallel Babli (50a) refers the verse in Psalms, in the name of R. Meir, to the choir of children at the Red Sea, a tradition more justly attributed to Rabban Gamliel in Yerushalmi Soṭa 5:6.] .
Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi rose to read in the Torah and said “Praise the Eternal,” he did not add “the Praised One!” They wanted to silence him. Rav said to them, let him, because he follows Rebbi Aqiba [The title “Rebbi” found twice in the text is a scribal error; Rav Ḥiyya Bar Ashi never went to Israel. It seems that Rav, when he returned to Babylonia from his studies in Galilee, followed the Galilean order of prayers. [Even centuries later, we still find that Rav’s Yeshivah in Surah followed the minhag Eretz Israel in reciting liturgical poems in the prayers, whereas the autochthonous Yeshivah of Pum Beditha (Nahardea) never recited them.] Rav Ḥiyya Bar Ashi became a member of Rav’s Yeshivah but kept the old Babylonian minhag following Rebbi Aqiba. Rav had to explain to his students that this way also is acceptable. The parallel in the Babli (50a) tells a similar story about Rafrem bar Papa, a student of Rav’s student Rav Huna; there, Rava notes that even in Babylonia “the people follow Rebbi Ismaël.” This shows that common practice was settled only three generations after Rav. (The Rome ms. has “Rav Ada” instead of “Rav”. Since Rav Ada was one of Rav’s students, ranking much below Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, the reading has to be rejected.)] . Rebbi Zeïra rose to read as Cohen in place of a Levite and recited the benediction before and after. They wanted to silence him. Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said to them, let him, because that is their way of doing it [This second story deals with another subject. The original practice, as spelled out in the Mishnah Megillah 3:1, was that the first to read in the Torah pronounced the benediction before the reading and the last one the benediction after the reading. Even in Mishnaic times it became customary that every reader recited his own benediction. Here, Rebbi Zeïra had read his portion as Cohen; in the absence of a Levite he was called a second time to read and he started by reciting the benedictions again. It is reported in the Babli (Avodah Zarah 16b) that R. Zeïra studied some time in the Yeshivah of R. Ḥiyya bar Ashi after having been ordained by Rav Yehudah and before his immigration to Galilee. The action of R. Zeïra, therefore, reflects the practice of the Yeshivah of Nahardea.] .
It is written (Neh. 8:6): “Ezra praised the Eternal, the great God.” In what did he declare Him great? He declared Him great by the Explicit Name [The name YHWH pronounced with the correct vocalization that is unknown to us.] . Rav Mattanah said, he declared Him great by a benediction. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Why are they called the Men of the Great Assembly [The parallel is in Megillah 3:8; in Babli Yoma 69b it is spelled out that Rav Mattanah means the first benediction of the ‘Amidah that contains the sentence “the Great, Strong, and Awesome God” chosen by the Men of the Great Assembly, and the observation of R. Joshua ben Levi is intended to buttress the argument of Rav Mattanah.] ? Because they returned the Crown to its former status. Rebbi Phineas said, Moses fixed the formula of benediction, (Deut. 10:17) “the Great, Strong, and Awesome God.” Jeremiah said (Jer. 32:18): “the Great, Strong God,” but he left out “Awesome.” Why did he say “the Strong”? He may rightly be called strong because He sees the destruction and is silent. And why did he not say “the Awesome”? Awesome is only the Temple, as it is said (Ps. 68:36): “Awesome is the Eternal from Your holy place.” Daniel said (Dan. 9:4) [The same expression is used by Nehemiah, Neh. 1:5.] : “the Great and Awesome God,” he did not say “the Strong”; His sons are put in neck-irons [Latin collare “neck-iron.”] , where is His strength? Why did he say: “the Awesome?” He may well be called “the Awesome” by the wonders He did for us in the fiery oven. But when the Men of the Great Assembly came,they restituted Greatness to its former place, “the Great, Strong, and Awesome God.” Does flesh and blood have power to set limits in these matters? Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar [There were two sages of this name, one a student of R. Yoḥanan and the other in the fourth generation, a colleague of R. Mana. In the Babli, the statement is attributed to R. Eleazar.] said, the prophets know that their God is Truth and they will not fawn before him.
MISHNAH: Three who ate together are not permitted to split [Since three together are required to recite the “invitation” whereas two or one do not recite it; the minimum number required for two separate recitations of Grace is six. Nine may form three groups, but ten are required to recite the “invitation” with an invocation of the Name. Hence, 10 to 19 people in a group may not split in the recitation of Grace.] , neither are four or five. Six may split and so on up to ten. Ten may not split and so on unless they are twenty.
HALAKHAH: It was stated: If one was eating sitting down on Sabbath and forgot and did not mention Sabbath, Rav said: he must repeat, and Samuel said: he need not repeat [In the parallel in the Babli, 49b, the opinion of Samuel is not mentioned; even Rav Naḥman, the student of Samuel, is reported to follow the ruling of Rav. Later commentators state that, since on the Sabbath one may not fast, eating on the Sabbath is a consequence of it being Sabbath and the Sabbath has to be mentioned in reciting Grace. Samuel might be of the opinion that anything not mentioned in the verse Deut. 8:10 cannot be a reason for repeating Grace.] .
Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: If one is in doubt whether he mentioned the New Moon or did not mention it, one does not make him repeat [In the Babli (49b) there is a similar statement by Rav Naḥman in the name of Samuel that, if someone forgot the day of the New Moon in Grace, one does not make him repeat. According to the Yerushalmi, that seems obvious as the opinion of Samuel. However, the mention of Samuel is not in the Munich manuscript of the Babli, and the Spanish incunabula prints of Berakhot Babli have “Rav” instead of “Samuel”; this seems to be the correct reading. According to the Babli, one does not have to repeat even if he is sure that he did not mention the day; according to the way the Yerushalmi quotes the formulation, one has to repeat even if there was only a doubt that he did not mention the day.] . They found a dissenting statement: On every day that has a Musaph sacrifice (e. g., the day of the new moon and the intermediate days of holidays,) he must mention the occasion and if he did not mention it, one makes him repeat. But on every day that has no Musaph sacrifice (e. g., Hanukkah and Purim,) he must mention the occasion but if he did not, one does not make him repeat.
Ḥanan bar Abba and the colleagues were eating on Sabbath. After they had eaten and recited Grace he got up and left. When he returned, he found them reciting Grace. He said, did we not recite Grace already? They said to him, we recited, but now we recite again because we forgot to mention the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav [The titles of Huna and Jeremiah must be Rav, not Rebbi as in the Hebrew text, since the entire discussion is between students of Rav.] Huna (Rav Jeremiah extends it in the name of Rav) did not say so: If he forgot to mention the Sabbath, he says: He [The full benediction would be: Praised are You, Eternal, our God, King of the universe, Who gave.…] Who gave rest to His people Israel. Here [One has to repeat if he turned from reciting Grace to other activities; one recites an addtional benediction if he realizes the omission before he has finished. The Babli (49a/b) gives the full text of this benediction and the corresponding one for holidays, but there it is authorized only (in the name of Rav) if one realizes the omission before one starts the next benediction. This certainly is not the position of the Yerushalmi.] if he turned [הסיע “he moved away”, appears in the Babli as הסיח ; ע or ח were inaudible in Babylonian speech.] his mind away, there if he did not turn his mind away.
It is stated [A similar text appears in Babli 42a and Tosephta Berakhot 5:23. In both these texts, the second sentence reads “if they sat down to eat”; this is interpreted in the Babli to mean that they are sitting together by a common decision. Hence, they form a group and have to recite Grace together. The language of the Yerushalmi, “they sat down and ate,” points to a spontaneous act that would not require Grace to be recited in common in the opinion of the Babli.] : Ten people walking on the road, even if all of them eat from the same loaf, each one recites Grace for himself. If they sat down and ate, even though each one eats his own loaf, one recites Grace for all of them. Rebbi Jeremiah “invited” his colleagues at an inn [It is assumed that everybody pays for his own meal (or, if the hostelry has no restaurant, eats from his own provisions) in an inn and, also, that the formation of the group is casual rather than planned. Nevertheless, they have to recite Grace together; see the preceding note.] .
MISHNAH: Two groups that ate in one house, if some of one group saw some of the other group they join in “invitation”; otherwise, each group recites the “invitation” for itself. One does not recite a benediction over wine [It is assumed that everybody pays for his own meal (or, if the hostelry has no restaurant, eats from his own provisions) in an inn and, also, that the formation of the group is casual rather than planned. Nevertheless, they have to recite Grace together; see the preceding note.] unless he added water; these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, one may recite the benediction.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Abba bar Zamina in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: For two houses, there is a problem [The Mishnah gives the rule for two groups assembled at different places in one house. The problem of two groups which eat in different houses but see one another is not treated and one may make arguments both ways. {Tosaphot in Babli 50b read the statement as: “[The Mishnah] is only needed for two houses,” the inference being that if they see one another they can join in saying Grace. This transfers the meaning of Babylonian צריכא (“it is necessary”) to the Palestinian expression נצרכה (“it is problematic”) used here!}] .
Rebbi Yoḥanan said, it applies only if they entered with that in mind [R. Yoḥanan refers to the Mishnah: Two groups not in the same room may recite common Grace only if they started the meal with that intention. This corresponds to the opinion of Babli and Tosephta in the case of the caravan travelling together, discussed at the end of the previous Halakhah. However, since it is necessary to state this rule for people in two different rooms, it follows that the Yerushalmi does not require common intent for people in one room; R. Yoḥanan agrees with his student’s student R. Jeremiah in the preceding Halakhah.] .
What do you do with those at the house of the patriarch, like one house or like two houses [The Babli (50a) notes that at a dinner in the house of the Resh Galuta, the head of the Jews of Babylonia, one recites Grace in small groups since the place is so noisy that one could not hear a person at the dais reciting Grace. Here it seems that the Patriarch held his formal dinners in a very large hall with several groups forming circles and not communicating with one another. The question is whether the room acts as a common enclosure for all these groups or not.] ? Let us say that if they usually walk over from one group to the other then they “invite” together; otherwise they do not “invite” together. Rebbi Berekhiah used to place his speaker in the middle of the door of the house of study and he recited the “invitation” together with both groups [The meals in the Yeshivah were taken in two adjacent rooms. A similar note in the Babli (50b) states that if the same waiter waits upon several groups in a very large room, the waiter makes them one group.] .
“One does not recite a benediction over wine unless he added water; these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, one may recite the benediction.” Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The Sages agree with Rebbi Eliezer that one has to add a small amount of water into the cup used for Grace [Because that is the civilized way of acting and religious obligations should be executed with dignity.] . The rabbis do so for the Qiddush cup. The statement of Rebbi Yose disagrees with Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah tasted it and restored it [Rebbi Jonah tasted from the cup for Qiddush of Friday evening, then left the rest standing in the cup and “repaired” it the next morning by filling it again with more wine. As will be explained later in this Halakhah, a cup that has been drunk from cannot be used for another benediction; hence, it has to be replenished. The question is, if R. Jonah put water into his Qiddush cup, how could he leave it standing half full through the night?] . If you imply that it was mixed, did we not formulate: He who drinks mixed drinks that were standing through the night, his blood is on his head. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, that is only if it was standing in metal vessels [The last two statements are also in the Babli (Niddah 17a); the baraita is very close to the text in Derekh Ereẓ Rabba, Chapter 11. Both of these sources give a list of things that are dangerous to one’s health. In the Yerushalmi, the statement of R. Yoḥanan answers the question raised: R. Jonah might add water to his wine as long as his cup was not of metal.] .
Rebbi Jeremiah [The parallel statement in the Babli (51a) is in the name of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. The inferences are not given there but they follow from the parallel to the next statement.] in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: The first generations asked whether the left hand may help the right hand with the cup used for reciting Grace. You may infer from this three things. You infer that one must hold the cup with his right hand [If the left hand only is required to help, the main action is done by the right hand.] , that one’s hand must be lifted from the table at least a hand-breadth [For a lesser height than a handbreadth (one sixth of a cubit), no help would be necessary.] , and that one has to look at the cup [Otherwise, it would not be necessary to lift the cup during recital of the benedictions.] .
Rebbi Aḥa said: Three things were said about the cup of Grace: full, decorated, and washed. All three come from one verse (Deut. 33:23): “Naphtali is satiated with goodwill, full of the blessings of the Eternal.” Satiated - decorated [There are different lists in the Babli (51a); one also mentions “decorated” and different interpretations are given. Rav Yehudah is reported to have surrounded himself with his students when he recited Grace over a cup of wine; Rav Ḥisda surrounded the (larger) cup of benediction with smaller cups that presumably were filled with wine. This second interpretation seems to be the one original with the Yerushalmi which identifies satiated with decorated, i. e., more than enough wine to fulfill every desire.] , goodwill - washed [So that everybody would willingly take the cup and drink from it. The Babli is a little more explicit and requires “rinsed and dried.”] , full as its acception. Rebbi Ḥanina said, if you did so, what is written there: “West and South his inheritance,” you merit to inherit this world and the world to come [This homily is given in the Babli in the name of R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina; R. Yoḥanan says that he is given boundless property. Both seem to note the incongruence of Naphtali inheriting West and South when in fact his territory was the North-Eastern corner of the Land of Israel. Hence, the allusion cannot be meant to describe his territory but is either a geographic amplification or refers to another world.] .
Rebbi Eleazar said: One does not recite benedictions on a damaged cup. If one tasted from it, he damaged it. You may infer from this three things. You infer that one does not recite benedictions on a damaged cup. And that it must contain a measure. And if one tasted from it, he damaged it [Two of the three statements are exactly what Rebbi Eleazar said. The only inference to be drawn from the fact that the cup should not be “damaged” is that it must contain a minimum measure (a reviït, a quarter log) to be valid. In the Babli (Pesaḥim 105b/106 a), the derivation is both from the argument given here and from a baraita about Havdalah after the Sabbath. The parallel argument would have been to derive the necessity of a minimal volume of wine from the next paragraph which implies that if one does not have enough wine for Qiddush both Friday night and Sabbath morning one leaves all the wine for the morning. Otherwise, one simply could divide the wine and drink the volume of a liquor glass each time. The order of topics here does not exclude that this also is the Yerushalmi reasoning.] .
Rebbi Tanḥum bar Yudan said: The honor of the day takes precedence over the honor of the night. The Qiddush of the night takes precedence over the Qiddush of the day. What is the honor of the day? Rebbi Yosi in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, and Rebbi Eleazar bar Joseph [An otherwise unknown student of Rav.] in the name of Rav: “He Who created the fruit of the vine. [This means that the primary obligation of reciting Qiddush is in the night. The obligation of honoring the Sabbath is mainly during the day. Hence, if there is only one cup of wine, Qiddush of the night should be recited over bread. The honor of the day, referred to in the Babli euphemistically as “great Qiddush,” consists in reciting the benediction over wine only, without any additions, over a specially dedicated cup of wine. This is reported and endorsed in the Babli (Pesaḥim 106a) as the action “of an old man,” confirming a Yerushalmi practice.] ”
Rebbi Zeriqan, son of the father-in-law of Rebbi Zeriqan, mentioned Ḥanukkah in “the Land” and they praised him [It was stated in an earlier baraita in Halakhah 5 that Ḥanukkah should be mentioned. Here, the place of the mention is fixed in the second benediction of Grace. The Babli (Šabbath 24a) concurs, but notes that the mention is not obligatory.] . Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, mentioned “the true Judge [The prayer in a house of mourning. The Babli (Berakhot 46b) quotes a baraita in the name of Rebbi Aqiba which seems to imply that in a house of mourning the benediction “He Who is good” is replaced by “the True Judge”; the Talmud then reinterprets the baraita to mean that “the True Judge” is inserted in “He Who is good.” The Yerushalmi here gives a date for the re-interpretation.] ” in “He Who is good and does good” and they praised him.
Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: If one eats walking, he stands still for Grace. If one eats standing, he sits down for Grace. If one eats sitting, he reclines [On a couch, as for a formal dinner. The statement, that for Grace one always increases one step in dignity, is reported in the Babli (51b) as a baraita but is rejected. There it is declared that one always recites Grace sitting upright. There as here, this is the end of the Chapter; one has to see in the Babli an intentional answer to the Yerushalmi.] for Grace. If one eats reclining, he wraps himself in his toga [The tallit with tzitzit.] for Grace. If one acts in this fashion, he is like an Angel of Service [The angels who serve the Divine Presence.] . What is the reason? (Is. 6:2) “With two [wings] he would cover his face, and with two [wings] he would cover his feet.”