benediction

Against this is quoted : If radishes and olives were before him, he pronounces the benediction over the radishes and he is exempt from saying it over the olives ! With what are we here dealing? With the case where the radishes are the principal item.

If so, I will quote the continuation : R. Judah says : He pronounces the benediction over the olive, because it belongs to the seven species ! Does not R. Judah agree with the Mishnaic teaching : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it is something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter? Shouldest thou declare that here also R. Judah is not in agreement, lo there is a teaching : R. Judah says : If the olive is only there on account of the radish, he pronounces the benediction over the radish and it is unnecessary over the olive !

If so, I will quote the continuation : R. Judah says : He pronounces the benediction over the olive, because it belongs to the seven species ! Does not R. Judah agree with the Mishnaic teaching : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it is something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter? Shouldest thou declare that here also R. Judah is not in agreement, lo there is a teaching : R. Judah says : If the olive is only there on account of the radish, he pronounces the benediction over the radish and it is unnecessary over the olive !

If so, I will quote the continuation : R. Judah says : He pronounces the benediction over the olive, because it belongs to the seven species ! Does not R. Judah agree with the Mishnaic teaching : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it is something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter? Shouldest thou declare that here also R. Judah is not in agreement, lo there is a teaching : R. Judah says : If the olive is only there on account of the radish, he pronounces the benediction over the radish and it is unnecessary over the olive !

If so, I will quote the continuation : R. Judah says : He pronounces the benediction over the olive, because it belongs to the seven species ! Does not R. Judah agree with the Mishnaic teaching : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it is something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter? Shouldest thou declare that here also R. Judah is not in agreement, lo there is a teaching : R. Judah says : If the olive is only there on account of the radish, he pronounces the benediction over the radish and it is unnecessary over the olive !

We certainly deal here with the case where the radish is the principal item ; and where R. Judah and the Rabbis differ is in another matter. The text is defective and should read thus : [There were before him] If radishes and olives were before him, he says the benediction over the former and it is unnecessary over the latter. Of what does it speak here? When the radish is the principal item ; but should that not be so, all agree that he says the benediction over one and then over the other. Where there are two species, the benediction for which is the same, he says the benediction over any one he pleases R. Judah says : He utters it over the olive, because it is one of the seven species.

We certainly deal here with the case where the radish is the principal item ; and where R. Judah and the Rabbis differ is in another matter. The text is defective and should read thus : [There were before him] If radishes and olives were before him, he says the benediction over the former and it is unnecessary over the latter. Of what does it speak here? When the radish is the principal item ; but should that not be so, all agree that he says the benediction over one and then over the other. Where there are two species, the benediction for which is the same, he says the benediction over any one he pleases R. Judah says : He utters it over the olive, because it is one of the seven species.

We certainly deal here with the case where the radish is the principal item ; and where R. Judah and the Rabbis differ is in another matter. The text is defective and should read thus : [There were before him] If radishes and olives were before him, he says the benediction over the former and it is unnecessary over the latter. Of what does it speak here? When the radish is the principal item ; but should that not be so, all agree that he says the benediction over one and then over the other. Where there are two species, the benediction for which is the same, he says the benediction over any one he pleases R. Judah says : He utters it over the olive, because it is one of the seven species.

We certainly deal here with the case where the radish is the principal item ; and where R. Judah and the Rabbis differ is in another matter. The text is defective and should read thus : [There were before him] If radishes and olives were before him, he says the benediction over the former and it is unnecessary over the latter. Of what does it speak here? When the radish is the principal item ; but should that not be so, all agree that he says the benediction over one and then over the other. Where there are two species, the benediction for which is the same, he says the benediction over any one he pleases R. Judah says : He utters it over the olive, because it is one of the seven species.

R. Ammi and R. Isaac Nappaha are at variance over this matter. One declares that the difference of opinion arises when the benediction is the same, for R. Judah holds that one of the seven species is to be given preference, whereas the Rabbis hold that the kind which is best liked is to be given preference. Where, however, the benediction is not the same, all agree that he says the benediction over one and then over the other. The second [Rabbi] declares that there is difference of opinion even where the benediction is not the same.

R. Ammi and R. Isaac Nappaha are at variance over this matter. One declares that the difference of opinion arises when the benediction is the same, for R. Judah holds that one of the seven species is to be given preference, whereas the Rabbis hold that the kind which is best liked is to be given preference. Where, however, the benediction is not the same, all agree that he says the benediction over one and then over the other. The second [Rabbi] declares that there is difference of opinion even where the benediction is not the same.

R. Ammi and R. Isaac Nappaha are at variance over this matter. One declares that the difference of opinion arises when the benediction is the same, for R. Judah holds that one of the seven species is to be given preference, whereas the Rabbis hold that the kind which is best liked is to be given preference. Where, however, the benediction is not the same, all agree that he says the benediction over one and then over the other. The second [Rabbi] declares that there is difference of opinion even where the benediction is not the same.

R. Ammi and R. Isaac Nappaha are at variance over this matter. One declares that the difference of opinion arises when the benediction is the same, for R. Judah holds that one of the seven species is to be given preference, whereas the Rabbis hold that the kind which is best liked is to be given preference. Where, however, the benediction is not the same, all agree that he says the benediction over one and then over the other. The second [Rabbi] declares that there is difference of opinion even where the benediction is not the same.

It is quite right according to him who declares that there is difference of opinion where the benediction is the same; that is clear. But according to him who declares that they disagree where the benediction is not the same, in what do they differ? R. Jeremiah said : In which is to come first ;

It is quite right according to him who declares that there is difference of opinion where the benediction is the same; that is clear. But according to him who declares that they disagree where the benediction is not the same, in what do they differ? R. Jeremiah said : In which is to come first ;

for Rab Joseph (another version : R. Isaac) said : Whatever is given precedence in the Scriptural verse must take precedence for the benediction ; as it is said, "A land of wheat and barley, and vines and fig-trees and pomegranates, a land of olive trees and honey" (Deut. viii. 8).

Rab Hisda and Rab Hamnuna were sitting at a meal, when dates and pomegranates were set before them. Rab Hamnuna took and pronounced the benediction over the dates first. Rab Hisda said to him, "Does not the master agree with the statement of Rab Joseph (another version : R. Isaac), viz. : That which is given precedence in the verse (Deut. viii. 8) must precede for the benediction?"

Rab Hisda and Rab Hamnuna were sitting at a meal, when dates and pomegranates were set before them. Rab Hamnuna took and pronounced the benediction over the dates first. Rab Hisda said to him, "Does not the master agree with the statement of Rab Joseph (another version : R. Isaac), viz. : That which is given precedence in the verse (Deut. viii. 8) must precede for the benediction?"

It has been reported : If they set before them figs and grapes in the middle of a meal, Rab Huna declared that they require a benediction before partaking thereof but not after. Similarly said Rab Nahman : They require a benediction before partaking thereof but not after. But Rab Sheshet said : They require a benediction both before and after, because there is nothing which requires a benediction before partaking thereof which does not require one after it, bread offered as a dessert being alone excepted. This is at variance with the statement of R. Hiyya who said : [The benediction over] bread exempts all other articles of food, and that over wine exempts all other kinds of beverage [from the necessity of another benediction].

It has been reported : If they set before them figs and grapes in the middle of a meal, Rab Huna declared that they require a benediction before partaking thereof but not after. Similarly said Rab Nahman : They require a benediction before partaking thereof but not after. But Rab Sheshet said : They require a benediction both before and after, because there is nothing which requires a benediction before partaking thereof which does not require one after it, bread offered as a dessert being alone excepted. This is at variance with the statement of R. Hiyya who said : [The benediction over] bread exempts all other articles of food, and that over wine exempts all other kinds of beverage [from the necessity of another benediction].

It has been reported : If they set before them figs and grapes in the middle of a meal, Rab Huna declared that they require a benediction before partaking thereof but not after. Similarly said Rab Nahman : They require a benediction before partaking thereof but not after. But Rab Sheshet said : They require a benediction both before and after, because there is nothing which requires a benediction before partaking thereof which does not require one after it, bread offered as a dessert being alone excepted. This is at variance with the statement of R. Hiyya who said : [The benediction over] bread exempts all other articles of food, and that over wine exempts all other kinds of beverage [from the necessity of another benediction].

It has been reported : If they set before them figs and grapes in the middle of a meal, Rab Huna declared that they require a benediction before partaking thereof but not after. Similarly said Rab Nahman : They require a benediction before partaking thereof but not after. But Rab Sheshet said : They require a benediction both before and after, because there is nothing which requires a benediction before partaking thereof which does not require one after it, bread offered as a dessert being alone excepted. This is at variance with the statement of R. Hiyya who said : [The benediction over] bread exempts all other articles of food, and that over wine exempts all other kinds of beverage [from the necessity of another benediction].

It has been reported : If they set before them figs and grapes in the middle of a meal, Rab Huna declared that they require a benediction before partaking thereof but not after. Similarly said Rab Nahman : They require a benediction before partaking thereof but not after. But Rab Sheshet said : They require a benediction both before and after, because there is nothing which requires a benediction before partaking thereof which does not require one after it, bread offered as a dessert being alone excepted. This is at variance with the statement of R. Hiyya who said : [The benediction over] bread exempts all other articles of food, and that over wine exempts all other kinds of beverage [from the necessity of another benediction].

It has been reported : If they set before them figs and grapes in the middle of a meal, Rab Huna declared that they require a benediction before partaking thereof but not after. Similarly said Rab Nahman : They require a benediction before partaking thereof but not after. But Rab Sheshet said : They require a benediction both before and after, because there is nothing which requires a benediction before partaking thereof which does not require one after it, bread offered as a dessert being alone excepted. This is at variance with the statement of R. Hiyya who said : [The benediction over] bread exempts all other articles of food, and that over wine exempts all other kinds of beverage [from the necessity of another benediction].

Rab Pappa said : The Halakah is — Articles of food which are brought in connection with the meal, in the course of the meal, require a benediction neither before nor after; if they are not brought in connection with the meal, in the course of the meal, they require a benediction before but not after ; if brought after the meal, they require a benediction before and after.

Rab Pappa said : The Halakah is — Articles of food which are brought in connection with the meal, in the course of the meal, require a benediction neither before nor after; if they are not brought in connection with the meal, in the course of the meal, they require a benediction before but not after ; if brought after the meal, they require a benediction before and after.

Rab Pappa said : The Halakah is — Articles of food which are brought in connection with the meal, in the course of the meal, require a benediction neither before nor after; if they are not brought in connection with the meal, in the course of the meal, they require a benediction before but not after ; if brought after the meal, they require a benediction before and after.

They asked Ben Zoma : Why is it said, "Articles of food brought in connection with the meal, in the course of the meal, require a benediction neither before nor after"? He replied : Because [the benediction over] the bread makes it unnecessary. If so, let the bread make [a benediction] unnecessary also for the wine ! It is different with wine,

They asked Ben Zoma : Why is it said, "Articles of food brought in connection with the meal, in the course of the meal, require a benediction neither before nor after"? He replied : Because [the benediction over] the bread makes it unnecessary. If so, let the bread make [a benediction] unnecessary also for the wine ! It is different with wine,

They asked Ben Zoma : Why is it said, "Articles of food brought in connection with the meal, in the course of the meal, require a benediction neither before nor after"? He replied : Because [the benediction over] the bread makes it unnecessary. If so, let the bread make [a benediction] unnecessary also for the wine ! It is different with wine,

because it necessitates a benediction for itself.

Rab Judah was holding the wedding-feast for his son in the house of Rab Judah b. Habiba. They set before him bread as dessert ; and when it came, he heard them say hammosi. He said to them, "What is the sisi I hear? Perhaps it is the benediction hammosi' that you have said ?" They replied, "It is ; for there is a teaching : R. Mona said in the name of R. Judah : We do pronounce hammosi over bread-dessert, and Samuel declared that the Halakah is in agreement with R. Mona."

He said to them, "The Halakah is not in agreement with him." It is reported that they said to him, "But lo, the master has himself declared in the name of Samuel : The bread-wafers used as dessert may be utilised as an 'Erub and we say the benediction hammosi' over them!" [He replied,] "It is different there [with the 'Erub)] because one makes a meal of them ; but here where one does not make a meal of them, no [benediction is necessary]."

He said to them, "The Halakah is not in agreement with him." It is reported that they said to him, "But lo, the master has himself declared in the name of Samuel : The bread-wafers used as dessert may be utilised as an 'Erub and we say the benediction hammosi' over them!" [He replied,] "It is different there [with the 'Erub)] because one makes a meal of them ; but here where one does not make a meal of them, no [benediction is necessary]."

Abbai declared : We also add : A benediction [immediately alights upon him who entertains] disciples of the wise ; as it is said, "The Lord hath blessed me for thy sake" (Gen. xxx. 27); or, if thou wilt, from this passage, as it is said, "The Lord blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake " (ibid. xxxix. 5).

MISHNAH If a man said the benediction over wine before the meal, he is exempt from saying it over the wine after the meal. If he said it over the dainty served before the meal, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty served after the meal. If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty; over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread. Bet Shammai declare : Nor from saying it over a cooked dish.

If wine is set for them in the course of the meal, each one says the benediction for himself; after the meal, one may say it for all. The same one says the benediction over the perfume, although they do not bring the perfume until after the meal.

If wine is set for them in the course of the meal, each one says the benediction for himself; after the meal, one may say it for all. The same one says the benediction over the perfume, although they do not bring the perfume until after the meal.

GEMARA Rabbah b. Bar Hannah said in the name of R. Johanan : The teaching applies only to Sabbaths and Festivals, for then a man arranges his meal with wine; but on other days of the year, a benediction is to be said over each cup of wine.

It has been similarly reported : Rabbah b. Mari said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi : The teaching applies only to Sabbaths and Festivals and the time when one comes from the bath-house and the meal after blood-letting, for then a man arranges his meal with wine; but on the other days of the year, a benediction is to be said over each cup of wine.

Rabbah b. Mari visited the house of Raba on a week-day, and noticed him pronounce the benediction [over the wine] before the meal and again after it ; and he said to him, "That is correct, and so also said R. Joshua b. Levi."

Rab Isaac b. Joseph visited the house of Abbai on a Festival and noticed that he pronounced the benediction over each cup. He said to him, "Does not the master agree with the opinion of R. Joshua b. Levi ?" He replied, "It only just occurred to me."

The question was asked : How is it if wine is brought in the course of the meal — does it make the benediction over the wine after the meal unnecessary? Shouldest thou wish to quote our Mishnah : If a man said the benediction over wine before the meal, he is exempt from saying it over the wine after the meal — this is because both of them are for drinking ; but here, since one is for steeping and the other for drinking, it is not so ; or perhaps that makes no difference ?

The question was asked : How is it if wine is brought in the course of the meal — does it make the benediction over the wine after the meal unnecessary? Shouldest thou wish to quote our Mishnah : If a man said the benediction over wine before the meal, he is exempt from saying it over the wine after the meal — this is because both of them are for drinking ; but here, since one is for steeping and the other for drinking, it is not so ; or perhaps that makes no difference ?

Rab said : He is exempt [from repeating the benediction] ; but Rab Kahana said : He is not. Rab Nahman said: He is exempt; but Rab Sheshet said : He is not. Rab Huna, Rab Judah and all the pupils of Rab say : He is not. Raba quoted against Rab Nahman : If wine is set for them in the course of the meal, each one says the benediction for himself ; after the meal, one may say it for all! He replied : This is what he means to say, If no wine was set for them in the course of the meal, only after it, then one may say the benediction for all.

Rab said : He is exempt [from repeating the benediction] ; but Rab Kahana said : He is not. Rab Nahman said: He is exempt; but Rab Sheshet said : He is not. Rab Huna, Rab Judah and all the pupils of Rab say : He is not. Raba quoted against Rab Nahman : If wine is set for them in the course of the meal, each one says the benediction for himself ; after the meal, one may say it for all! He replied : This is what he means to say, If no wine was set for them in the course of the meal, only after it, then one may say the benediction for all.

Rab said : He is exempt [from repeating the benediction] ; but Rab Kahana said : He is not. Rab Nahman said: He is exempt; but Rab Sheshet said : He is not. Rab Huna, Rab Judah and all the pupils of Rab say : He is not. Raba quoted against Rab Nahman : If wine is set for them in the course of the meal, each one says the benediction for himself ; after the meal, one may say it for all! He replied : This is what he means to say, If no wine was set for them in the course of the meal, only after it, then one may say the benediction for all.

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

When Rab died, his disciples followed his cortege. On their return they said, "Let us go and have our meal by the River Danak." After they had eaten, they sat on and the question was asked : Does our Mishnah intend that only when they recline [does one say the benediction for all] and not if they sit ; or is it perhaps that where people say, "Let us go and eat our meal in a certain place" this is to be regarded the same as reclining? They were unable [to answer the question].

Against this teaching is quoted : What is the procedure of reclining? The guests enter and seat themselves upon stools and chairs until all are assembled. Then water is brought to them, and each washes one hand. Wine is set for them, and each says the benediction for himself. They thereupon ascend [the couch] and recline, and water is brought before them ; and although each one has washed one hand, he again washes both hands. Wine is brought to them, and although each has said the benediction for himself, one may now say it for all !

Against this teaching is quoted : What is the procedure of reclining? The guests enter and seat themselves upon stools and chairs until all are assembled. Then water is brought to them, and each washes one hand. Wine is set for them, and each says the benediction for himself. They thereupon ascend [the couch] and recline, and water is brought before them ; and although each one has washed one hand, he again washes both hands. Wine is brought to them, and although each has said the benediction for himself, one may now say it for all !

If wine is set for them in the course of the meal. Ben Zoma was asked : Why is it stated : If wine is set for them in the course of the meal, each one says the benediction for himself; after the meal, one may say it for all ? He replied : Because the gullet is not empty.

The same one says the benediction over the perfume, etc. Since he teaches, The same one says the benediction over the perfume, it is to be inferred that there may be somebody more worthy than he ; why, then, [is it his privilege] ?

The same one says the benediction over the perfume, etc. Since he teaches, The same one says the benediction over the perfume, it is to be inferred that there may be somebody more worthy than he ; why, then, [is it his privilege] ?

R. Zera said in the name of Raba b. Jeremiah : From what time may we say the benediction over the smell [of the perfume]? From the time its column of smoke ascends. R. Zera said to Raba b. Jeremiah , "But one has not yet smelt it!" He replied, "According to thy reasoning, one says the Grace before meals but has not yet eaten ! His intention is to eat, and so here likewise it is his intention to smell."

R. Hiyya b. Abba b. Nahmani stated that Rab Hisda said in the name of Rab (another version : Rab Hisda said in the name of Ze'iri) : Overall kinds of perfumes the benediction is "...Who Greatest fragrant woods," excepting musk which comes from a species of animal and its benediction is "...Who createst various kinds of spices."

R. Hiyya b. Abba b. Nahmani stated that Rab Hisda said in the name of Rab (another version : Rab Hisda said in the name of Ze'iri) : Overall kinds of perfumes the benediction is "...Who Greatest fragrant woods," excepting musk which comes from a species of animal and its benediction is "...Who createst various kinds of spices."

Rab Hisda asked Rab Isaac, "What is the benediction over balsam-oil?" He replied, "Thus said Rab Judah : It is '...Who createst the oil of our land '." Rab Hisda said to him, "Leave out Rab Judah, because the land of Israel is very dear to him ; what is the benediction generally?"

Rab Hisda asked Rab Isaac, "What is the benediction over balsam-oil?" He replied, "Thus said Rab Judah : It is '...Who createst the oil of our land '." Rab Hisda said to him, "Leave out Rab Judah, because the land of Israel is very dear to him ; what is the benediction generally?"

Rab Adda b. Ahabah said: Over costum the benediction is "...Who createst fragrant woods," but not over the oil in which it is steeped. Rab Kahana said : [That is the benediction] even for the oil in which it is steeped, but not the oil with which it is ground. The men of Nehardea said : [That is the benediction] even for the oil in which it is ground.

Rab Adda b. Ahabah said: Over costum the benediction is "...Who createst fragrant woods," but not over the oil in which it is steeped. Rab Kahana said : [That is the benediction] even for the oil in which it is steeped, but not the oil with which it is ground. The men of Nehardea said : [That is the benediction] even for the oil in which it is ground.

Rab Adda b. Ahabah said: Over costum the benediction is "...Who createst fragrant woods," but not over the oil in which it is steeped. Rab Kahana said : [That is the benediction] even for the oil in which it is steeped, but not the oil with which it is ground. The men of Nehardea said : [That is the benediction] even for the oil in which it is ground.

Rab Giddel said in the name of Rab : Over jasmine the benediction is "...Who createst fragrant woods." Rab Hananel said in the name of Rab: Over sea-rush the benediction is "...Who createst fragrant woods." Mar Zotra said : What is the Scriptural authority? "She had brought them up to the roof, and hid them with the stalks of flax" (Josh. ii. 6).

Rab Giddel said in the name of Rab : Over jasmine the benediction is "...Who createst fragrant woods." Rab Hananel said in the name of Rab: Over sea-rush the benediction is "...Who createst fragrant woods." Mar Zotra said : What is the Scriptural authority? "She had brought them up to the roof, and hid them with the stalks of flax" (Josh. ii. 6).

Rab Mesharsheya said : Over the garden-narcissus the benediction is "...Who createst fragrant woods," but over the wild narcissus "...Who createst fragrant herbs." Rab Sheshet said : Over violets the benediction is "...Who createst fragrant herbs." Mar Zotra said : He who smells the citron or quince should say "Blessed be He Who setteth a beautiful fragrance in fruits."

Rab Mesharsheya said : Over the garden-narcissus the benediction is "...Who createst fragrant woods," but over the wild narcissus "...Who createst fragrant herbs." Rab Sheshet said : Over violets the benediction is "...Who createst fragrant herbs." Mar Zotra said : He who smells the citron or quince should say "Blessed be He Who setteth a beautiful fragrance in fruits."

Rab Judah said : He who goes out during the days of Nisan and sees the trees budding should say "Blessed be He Who has caused nothing to be lacking in His Universe and created therein beautiful creations and beautiful trees where-from men may derive pleasure." Rab Zotra b. Tobiah said in the name of Rab : Whence is it learnt that one should pronounce a benediction over a fragrant smell? As it is written, "Let every soul praise the Lord" (Ps. cl. 6). From what is it that the soul, but not the body, derives enjoyment? Say it is a fragrant smell.

Our Rabbis have taught: If they set before him oil and myrtle, Bet Shammai declare : He first says the benediction over the oil and then over the myrtle ; Bet Hillel declare : He first says the benediction over the myrtle and then over the oil. Rabban Gamaliel said : I will decide — Oil we use for its fragrance and for anointing, whereas we use the myrtle only for its fragrance and not for anointing. R. Johanan said : The Halakah is in accord with him who decided.

Our Rabbis have taught: If they set before him oil and myrtle, Bet Shammai declare : He first says the benediction over the oil and then over the myrtle ; Bet Hillel declare : He first says the benediction over the myrtle and then over the oil. Rabban Gamaliel said : I will decide — Oil we use for its fragrance and for anointing, whereas we use the myrtle only for its fragrance and not for anointing. R. Johanan said : The Halakah is in accord with him who decided.

Rab Pappa visited the house of Rab Huna b. Rab Ika; they set before him oil and myrtle. He took and made the benediction first over the myrtle and then over the oil. Rab Huna said to him : Does not the master hold that the Halakah is in accord with the words of him who decided ? He replied : Thus said Raba : The Halakah is in accord with Bet Hillel. But it was not so, and he only did this to extricate himself.

Our Rabbis have taught : If oil and wine are set before him, Bet Shammai declare : He should take hold of the oil in his right hand and the wine in his left, say the benediction over the oil and then over the wine ; Bet Hillel declare : He should take hold of the wine in his right hand and the oil in his left, say the benediction over the wine and then over the oil. And he should rub the oil upon the head of the attendant ; but if the attendant be a disciple of the wise, he should rub it upon the wall, because it is a disgrace for a disciple of the wise to go into the street perfumed.

Our Rabbis have taught : If oil and wine are set before him, Bet Shammai declare : He should take hold of the oil in his right hand and the wine in his left, say the benediction over the oil and then over the wine ; Bet Hillel declare : He should take hold of the wine in his right hand and the oil in his left, say the benediction over the wine and then over the oil. And he should rub the oil upon the head of the attendant ; but if the attendant be a disciple of the wise, he should rub it upon the wall, because it is a disgrace for a disciple of the wise to go into the street perfumed.

MISHNAH If they set before him salted food first and with it bread, he says the benediction over the salted food and this makes it unnecessary over the bread, because the bread is something accessory to it. This is the general rule : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it is something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter.

MISHNAH If they set before him salted food first and with it bread, he says the benediction over the salted food and this makes it unnecessary over the bread, because the bread is something accessory to it. This is the general rule : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it is something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter.

MISHNAH If they set before him salted food first and with it bread, he says the benediction over the salted food and this makes it unnecessary over the bread, because the bread is something accessory to it. This is the general rule : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it is something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter.

MISHNAH If one ate grapes, figs or pomegranates, he says after them the three benedictions. These are the words of Rabban Gamaliel ; but the Sages declare : One benediction which is an abstract of three. R. 'Akiba says : Even if one eats [nothing but] boiled vegetables and makes a meal of it, he pronounces thereover the three benedictions. If one drinks water to slake his thirst, he says the benediction "...By Whose word all things exist "; R. Tarphon says : "...Who createst many living beings and their wants."

MISHNAH If one ate grapes, figs or pomegranates, he says after them the three benedictions. These are the words of Rabban Gamaliel ; but the Sages declare : One benediction which is an abstract of three. R. 'Akiba says : Even if one eats [nothing but] boiled vegetables and makes a meal of it, he pronounces thereover the three benedictions. If one drinks water to slake his thirst, he says the benediction "...By Whose word all things exist "; R. Tarphon says : "...Who createst many living beings and their wants."

R. Jacob b. Iddi said in the name of R. Hannina : Over any food which belongs to the five species, before partaking thereof one says the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of foods," and afterwards one benediction which is an abstract of three.

R. Jacob b. Iddi said in the name of R. Hannina : Over any food which belongs to the five species, before partaking thereof one says the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of foods," and afterwards one benediction which is an abstract of three.

Rabbah b. Mari said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi : Over any food belonging to the seven species, before partaking thereof one says the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the tree," and afterwards one benediction which is an abstract of three.

Rabbah b. Mari said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi : Over any food belonging to the seven species, before partaking thereof one says the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the tree," and afterwards one benediction which is an abstract of three.

Abbai asked Rab Dimai : What is the one benediction which is an abstract of three? He replied : For the fruit of the tree it is: "[Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe,] for the tree and the fruit of the tree and for the produce of the field; for the desirable, good and ample land which Thou didst give as an heritage unto our fathers, that they might eat of its fruits and be satisfied with its goodness. Have mercy, O Lord our God, upon Israel Thy people, upon Jerusalem Thy city, upon Thy Sanctuary and altar. Rebuild Jerusalem, Thy holy city, speedily in our days ; lead us up thither and make us rejoice in its rebuilding ; for Thou art good and beneficent unto all."

For the five species it is : "[Blessed... universe] for the sustenance and the nourishment, and for the produce of the field," etc. And the benediction is concluded : "[Blessed art Thou, O Lord,] for the land and for the sustenance."

In the case of fruit how should the benediction conclude ? When Rab Dimai came he said : Rab concluded on the New Moon thus, "Blessed [art Thou, O Lord] Who sanctifiest Israel and the beginnings of the months." So how should it be concluded in this case of fruit ?

Rab Nahman b. Isaac objected : They eat and we make the benediction ! Nay, the wording should be reversed ; Rab Hisda said : "For the land and for the fruits" and R. Johanan said : "For the land and its fruits."

Rab Isaac b. Abdemi said in the name of our teacher : Over an egg and various kinds of meat, before partaking thereof one says the benediction "...By Whose word all things exist" and afterwards "...Who createst many living beings" etc. ; but not over vegetables. R. Isaac declared : Even over vegetables, but not over water. Rab Pappa said : Even over water.

We have a Mishnaic teaching : Everything that requires a benediction after it requires one before it ; but there are things which require a benediction before but not after. This is quite right for Rab Isaac b. Abdemi, since it is to exclude vegetables, and for R.Isaac to exclude water ; but for Rab Pappa what is it to exclude ?

We have a Mishnaic teaching : Everything that requires a benediction after it requires one before it ; but there are things which require a benediction before but not after. This is quite right for Rab Isaac b. Abdemi, since it is to exclude vegetables, and for R.Isaac to exclude water ; but for Rab Pappa what is it to exclude ?

But for the sons of the West who on removing the Tefillin say the benediction, "[Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe] Who didst sanctify us with Thy commandments and commanded us to observe Thy statutes," what is it to exclude ?

"Everything near to the soul restores the soul." Rab Aha b. Jacob said : This is the neck. Raba said to his attendant, "When thou bringest me a piece of meat, take the trouble and obtain it from a place near to where the benediction is pronounced."

May we return unto thee : What benediction do we say !

Rab Hanan b. Abba said : Whence is it that he who responds "Amen" must not raise his voice above him who pronounces the benediction? As it is said, "O magnify ye the Lord with me, and let us exalt His name together."

Abbai responded ["Amen" to his benediction "Who...rebuildest Jerusalem"] with a loud voice for the day-labourers to hear and stand up, because "Who art kind and dealest kindly" is not ordained by the Torah. Rab Ashe used to make that response softly, so that the day-labourers should not hold "Who art kind and dealest kindly" in contempt.

What benediction does he use? "May it be Thy will that the master of this house may not be put to shame in this world nor confounded in the world to come."

Up to where is the benediction of Zimmun?

Let us say [that their difference is] like that of the Tannaim ; for one taught : The Grace after meals [may be said by] two or three ; and there is another teaching : Three or four. They hold that everybody admits that "Who art kind and dealest kindly" is not ordained by the Torah. Are we, then, not to suppose that they differ on the following point : He who says, "[The Grace may be said by] two or three" holds that [the benediction of Zimmun extends] until "Who givest food unto all" ; and he who says "Three or four" holds that it extends until "We will bless"?

Rab Nahman reconciles them according to his opinion — Everybody agrees that [the Zimmun benediction extends] until "We will bless" ; that is quite right for him who said "Three or four," but as for him who said "Two or three," he could tell thee that we are here dealing with the Grace of the day-labourers ; for the teacher has said: Such an one opens with "Who feedest" and includes "Who ...rebuildest Jerusalem" in the benediction of "the land."