Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Berakhot

Berakhot 42 for kids: Blessings Over Bread and Wine

ברכות מ״ב

🍷 This daf is about which blessing covers which food, and when you need a new one. It talks about dessert bread, wine before and after a meal, and whether sitting together counts as one meal.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Berakhot 42a in Daf QuestOpen Berakhot 42b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Berakhot 42

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Berakhot 42 in simple English

Rashi on Berakhot 42a, in English Tab translation (19)
  1. דגורם ברכה לעצמו — Because [wine] causes a blessing for itself: in several places one brings it and recites a blessing over it even though people did not particularly need to drink it.
  2. רב הונא אכל תליסר ריפתי — Rav Huna ate thirteen loaves: from the category of bread that comes as dessert, and he did not recite Grace after Meals over them.
  3. אמר רב נחמן עדי כפנא גרסי' — Rav Nahman's statement should be read as 'edei kafna' (that is hunger).
  4. עדי — 'Edei' means 'these.' That is to say: these were eaten out of hunger, and such a large quantity of eating is not exempted from a blessing [by the earlier dessert-bread blessing]. Rather, over anything which others base their meal upon, Grace after Meals is required. This is how Rav Hai explained it. Our teachers explained instead that the 'thirteen loaves' were of our ordinary bread, and he did not recite Grace after Meals because he was not satiated, as it is written (Deuteronomy 8:10), 'And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless.' Rav Yehudai Gaon explained it this way as well. But this does not seem correct to me, for Rav Huna would not hold by this reasoning, since they [the Sages] were stringent with themselves [requiring Grace after Meals] even for an olive's or an egg's volume (above, Berakhot 20b), unlike the view of Rabbi Meir and unlike the view of Rabbi Yehuda (below, Berakhot 49b).
  5. לחמניות — Sweet rolls: called 'oblies' in Old French.
  6. אסור מלאכול — He is forbidden to eat: until he recites Grace after Meals; he must then recite a new blessing over what is brought before him afterward, since once he has finished, his mind is diverted from the first blessing and from his meal.
  7. סלק אתמר — 'Removed' was the actual wording of the tradition: if the bread and all the food were removed from the table and he had not yet recited the blessing, he is forbidden to eat [without a new blessing].
  8. ריסתנא — A term meaning a small portion of food (in Old French, 'amnistrution').
  9. אתכא דריש גלותא סמכינן — We rely on the table of the Exilarch: our removal of the table was not a true conclusion of the meal, since we had in mind that if he sends us more portions from his table, we would eat them.
  10. הרגיל בשמן — One accustomed to oil: to anoint his hands after eating.
  11. שמן מעכבו — The oil delays him: with regard to the blessing — even if he had finished and the table was removed, but he had not yet anointed his hands, the meal is still considered ongoing, and he may eat without a new blessing.
  12. ולית הלכתא ככל הני שמעתתא — And the halakha is not in accordance with any of these teachings: the end of the meal depends neither on finishing eating, nor on the table's removal, nor on the oil, but rather on the final washing of the hands (mayim acharonim). As long as one has not washed, he may continue eating; once he has washed, he may not eat without a new blessing.
  13. לנטילת ידים — Referring to the final washing of hands before Grace after Meals; he may not eat anything until he recites the blessing over his food [again].
  14. תכף לת״ח — Immediately following a Torah scholar: one who brings him near and hosts him in his home.
  15. ברכה — Rests in his home.
  16. מתני' ברך על היין כו' — They were accustomed to bring a cup of wine to drink before the meal, as is taught below (Berakhot 43a): What was the order of reclining, etc. And they would bring before them appetizers to stimulate the appetite, such as young fowl and fish, and afterward they would bring the table. After the meal was finished, they would sit and drink and eat again — what would they eat? Appetizers, such as pastries that are good for the heart, and sweet rolls, together with wine; and the appetizer eaten after the meal, both of these preceding Grace after Meals.
  17. מעשה קדרה — A cooked dish: such as a porridge of coarse grain or ground grain.
  18. היו יושבים — Were sitting: without reclining on couches lying on their sides on the couch — meaning they were eating and drinking without the formal reclining that establishes a joint meal.
  19. כל אחד ואחד מברך לעצמו — Each one recites a blessing for himself: because there is no formal joint meal without reclining.
Tosafot on Berakhot 42a, in English Tab translation (8)
  1. Lachmaniyot (rolls) — Rashi explains this as 'oblias' (a kind of fried cake), but this is not correct, for if so, even when one did not base his meal upon it, he should also recite 'Who brings forth bread from the earth,' since it is genuine bread, as it ultimately becomes dough. It seems better to explain that this refers to 'nilish' (a thin wafer). However, when one does base his meal upon it, he recites 'Who brings forth bread' over it, just as on Purim. Rabbeinu Shimshon, however, explained that one should not recite 'Who brings forth bread' over it, since it is like a porridge.
  2. 'Removed' was stated — This implies that it was their practice to remove the table before Grace after Meals. At first glance this is difficult according to our custom, since we are careful not to remove the bread beforehand. Perhaps in their time, too, they did not remove the table from before the one reciting the blessing, but only from before the other diners, since each had his own small table and ate at it individually. But we, who are accustomed to all eating together at one table, it is not proper to remove the table until after Grace after Meals.
  3. Rabbi Zeira did not eat — This is difficult: according to the common explanation that saying 'Give us [bread] and let us bless' forbids drinking without a prior blessing, why did Rabbi Zeira not recite a blessing over the food and eat it? Perhaps it was a cooked dish containing bread, which would require the blessing 'Who brings forth bread' and handwashing, and it would have been too much trouble to do all that.
  4. We rely on the table of the Exilarch — One who forgot to eat the afikoman and said 'Give us [bread] and let us bless' has not thereby created a disqualifying interruption, since we rely on 'the table of the Merciful One' (God). And if he forgot and recited the blessing without eating the afikoman, he need not go back, for all such acts are performed for the sake of the mitzvah. And the statement that once one says 'Give us and let us bless' it is forbidden to drink, and likewise all present are forbidden — this applies specifically when the host says it, but not when a guest says it. (And the statement that all are forbidden applies when the host says it, but on account of a guest's statement they are not forbidden.) And even he himself may go back and eat together with the host.
  5. We rely on the table of the Exilarch — When one is accustomed to eating various fruits brought one after another, some say he must recite a blessing on each one, since he does not know whether the host will bring him more. But it seems that no blessing is required, since one relies on the host's table, just as was the case with the table of the Exilarch's house.
  6. Immediately following handwashing comes the blessing — Therefore, since he washed his hands for the final time after the meal, it is forbidden to eat until he recites the blessing; the same applies if he said 'Give us and let us bless,' even without washing.
  7. He who recited a blessing over the bread exempted the appetizer — It appears that this refers to an appetizer eaten during the meal, for if it referred to one eaten after the meal, Rav Pappa already ruled that food eaten after the meal requires a blessing both before and after it. Rashi explained 'parperet' as fish dishes and poultry, but this is somewhat difficult, for then what would be taught by saying that a blessing over the parperet does not exempt the bread? It seems rather like the explanation of Rabbeinu Chananel, who explained that parperet is bread crumbled into a bowl, which lacks the form of bread and over which one recites 'Who creates various kinds of nourishment.' This fits well, explaining why we must be taught that a blessing over the parperet does not exempt the bread, even though it is a type of bread. This is also implied in the Gemara, which counts a cooked dish as parperet, and a cooked dish refers to chalka, targis, and tisni, as stated earlier (Berakhot 37a).
  8. If they reclined, one recites the blessing for all — We have no reclining except regarding bread, and bread is effective [in joining a group for blessing purposes] even without reclining, for it was specifically for them, who were accustomed to eating while reclining, that reclining was necessary; but for us, sitting together constitutes a fixed joint setting equivalent to their reclining, since they were accustomed to each person reclining on his own couch at his own table, whereas we all eat at one table, and when we eat together that is our fixed joint setting. And here, where the Gemara says 'they were sitting, etc.,' it implies that this applies both to the blessing 'Who brings forth bread' and to Grace after Meals, as in the incident with Rav's students regarding the blessing over bread, from the dispute about wine as to whether it requires reclining. However, people eating while walking on the road, who did not sit, each recite a blessing for himself. And if you ask: why is it different that with incense, even without reclining, one person recites the blessing for all? The Jerusalem Talmud asks this and answers that with incense, all benefit simultaneously, but eating and drinking do not come to all at once, but to each one in turn.
Rashi on Berakhot 42b, in English Tab translation (19)
  1. Wine came to them during the meal, etc. — The Gemara explains the reason for this on page 43a.
  2. And he says the blessing over the incense — The one who recited the blessing over the wine also recites the blessing over the incense, since it was customary to bring spice powder before them after the meal, placed on coals in a censer for a pleasant fragrance, and they would recite over it the blessing 'Who creates fragrant trees.'
  3. After the meal — After Grace after Meals, which is not a requirement of the meal itself; nevertheless, the one who recited the blessing over the wine, since he had already begun the sequence of concluding blessings, completes them [by also blessing on the incense].
  4. GEMARA: This was only taught — that wine before the meal exempts wine after the meal.
  5. But [only] on Shabbat, etc. — because one's intention is to sit after the meal and continue drinking, and when he recited the blessing at the start, he did so with this in mind.
  6. Over each and every cup — because it is considered as though he reconsidered and is beginning anew to drink with each and every cup.
  7. Well done — you acted properly.
  8. And so too Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said — that this is the proper way to act.
  9. Does the Master not hold, etc. — [meaning:] for on a Festival, this is not considered reconsidering [since one plans in advance to drink].
  10. I reconsidered — I am not accustomed to basing my meal on wine [so each cup is a new decision].
  11. Wine came to them during the meal — but not before the meal.
  12. If you say — to bring proof from our mishna, which teaches that wine before the meal exempts wine after the meal, this is not proof; for there, both are drunk for the sake of drinking, but wine during the meal comes to moisten the food in one's stomach, and people were not accustomed to drinking during the meal except a little, for this purpose of moistening.
  13. After the meal, one person blesses for all — the initial understanding was that this means: when a second round of wine is brought after the meal, one person blesses for all, and since the mishna already stated that each person blesses for himself over the wine during the meal, it requires an additional blessing for the wine after the meal.
  14. Exempted the appetizer — even though it is not needed for the meal to fill the stomach, but rather to stimulate the appetite for eating.
  15. And all the more so a cooked dish — which is eaten for actual nourishment.
  16. In such-and-such a place — meaning, a place had been designated for them in advance by speech, planning, and invitation; this constitutes a fixed gathering. But if they sat down on their own in one place together, it is not considered a fixed gathering.
  17. His students went after him — for they buried him in another city.
  18. Nehar Deka — that was its name.
  19. The first clause is precise — for it teaches that when they sat without a prior designation of place, it is not considered a fixed gathering; but in our case, where we invited them for this purpose, it is considered a fixed gathering, and one person blesses on behalf of all.
Tosafot on Berakhot 42b, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. And although they only bring the incense after the meal — and they have already recited Grace after Meals, and there is an interruption between the wine and the incense. [The Gemara cites:] Rav Sheshet said it does not exempt, and Rav Nachman said it exempts, and all the students of Rav, etc. It appears that the halakha follows the students of Rav, since Rav Sheshet is aligned with them; and the halakha follows Rav Nachman in monetary matters and follows Rav Sheshet in ritual matters. And although we hold that in disputes between Rav and Shmuel the halakha follows Rav in ritual matters, here it is different, since all the students of Rav disagree with him — presumably that is what they heard from Rav himself. In any case, we do not need that ruling, since nowadays we do not withdraw our hands from the bread at all [i.e., we do not have a formal 'after the meal' wine-drinking period]. It appears that wine before the meal exempts wine during the meal, even though we rule here that wine during the meal does not exempt wine after the meal — the difference is that here [wine during the meal] is for soaking [the food] and this [wine after] is for drinking, but where this [wine before] is for drinking and that [wine during] is for soaking, it certainly does exempt — such as wine before the meal exempting wine during the meal. And the fact that the Gemara mentions Shabbat and Festivals is not exclusive; the same applies if they based their meal on wine on other days of the week. And if a person brought wine before the meal in order to drink it during the meal, obviously the wine before the meal exempts it, since his intent was to drink it. Similarly, the wine of Kiddush exempts the wine during the meal, and likewise Havdalah — if one brought it to the table to recite Havdalah, it exempts the wine afterward that is drunk during the meal. The mention of Shabbat and Festivals is not exclusive, and comes only to exclude a case where one changed his mind [to drink more]. Even if one says that Shabbat and Festivals are stated precisely, nevertheless one can say this applies only regarding exempting wine after the meal, which occurs after they have withdrawn their hands from the bread — since it is not common to regularly drink wine after the meal except on Shabbat and Festivals, not on other days. But regarding exempting the wine during the meal, which is a common practice, certainly even on other days the wine before the meal exempts it, even though one is for drinking and the other for soaking — for the dilemma was raised only regarding whether wine for soaking is not considered as 'bringing out' wine for drinking; but wine for drinking, which is of greater significance, namely wine before the meal — obviously that exempts wine for soaking. This is also implied in Tractate Pesachim (101a) regarding one who recited Kiddush in the synagogue, where Rabbi Yochanan said that he has even fulfilled his obligation regarding wine, and does not need to recite a new blessing on the wine during the meal, even though he recited Kiddush not in the place of the meal. Rabbi Yochanan holds that since he fulfilled his obligation of Kiddush, he also fulfilled his obligation regarding wine. And although Rabbi Yochanan's opinion was refuted, that was specifically regarding a change of location. If so, it appears from there that the same applies to Havdalah — there is no reason to distinguish between Havdalah and Kiddush — contrary to those who disagree and say that only Kiddush exempts, because Kiddush can only be recited in the place of the meal, but the wine of Havdalah does not exempt, even if one recited Havdalah after washing hands — for that is the implicit case in our ruling that wine before the meal exempts wine during the meal, namely that one has already washed his hands, as will be implied shortly from the baraita 'What is the order of reclining,' etc. Nevertheless, it appears that since one has washed his hands with the intent to eat and drink there, it exempts even in the case of Havdalah, as explained from that passage in Pesachim. Moreover, the wine of Havdalah is not inferior to the wine before the meal, which exempts. However, there are those who are stringent and recite Havdalah before washing hands, in order to remove themselves from the dispute — in which case one certainly must recite the after-blessing [borei nefashot] over it, and it does not exempt the wine during the meal.
  2. Wine during the meal — what is the law as to whether it exempts wine after the meal — This refers to a case where they did not have wine before the meal.
  3. Rav Sheshet said it does not exempt, and Rav Nachman said it exempts, and all the students of Rav, etc. — It appears that the halakha follows the students of Rav, since Rav Sheshet is aligned with them; and the halakha follows Rav Nachman in monetary matters and follows Rav Sheshet in ritual matters. And although we hold that in disputes between Rav and Shmuel the halakha follows Rav in ritual matters, here it is different, since all the students of Rav disagree with him — presumably that is what they heard from Rav himself. In any case, we do not need that ruling, since nowadays we do not withdraw our hands from the bread at all. It appears that wine before the meal exempts wine during the meal, even though we rule here that wine during the meal does not exempt wine after the meal — the difference is that here [wine during the meal] is for soaking and this [wine after] is for drinking, but where this [wine before] is for drinking and that [wine during] is for soaking, it certainly does exempt — such as wine before the meal exempting wine during the meal. The mention of Shabbat and Festivals is not exclusive; the same applies if they based their meal on wine on other days of the week. And if a person brought wine before the meal in order to drink it during the meal, obviously the wine before the meal exempts it, since his intent was to drink it. Similarly, the wine of Kiddush exempts the wine during the meal, and likewise Havdalah — if one brought it to the table to recite Havdalah, it exempts the wine afterward drunk during the meal. The mention of Shabbat and Festivals is not exclusive, and comes only to exclude a case where one changed his mind. Even if one says that Shabbat and Festivals are stated precisely, nevertheless one can say this applies only regarding exempting wine after the meal, which occurs after they have withdrawn their hands from the bread — since it is not common to regularly drink wine after the meal except on Shabbat and Festivals. But regarding exempting the wine during the meal, which is common practice, certainly even on other days the wine before the meal exempts it, even though one is for drinking and the other for soaking — for the dilemma was raised only regarding whether wine for soaking is considered as 'bringing out' wine for drinking; but wine for drinking, of greater significance, namely wine before the meal — obviously exempts wine for soaking. This is also implied in Tractate Pesachim (101a) regarding one who recited Kiddush in the synagogue, where Rabbi Yochanan said that he has even fulfilled his obligation regarding wine, and does not need to recite a new blessing on the wine during the meal, even though he recited Kiddush not in the place of the meal. Rabbi Yochanan holds that since he fulfilled his obligation of Kiddush, he also fulfilled his obligation regarding wine. Although Rabbi Yochanan's opinion was refuted, that was specifically regarding a change of location. If so, it appears from there that the same applies to Havdalah — there is no reason to distinguish between Havdalah and Kiddush — contrary to those who disagree and say that only Kiddush exempts, because Kiddush can only be recited in the place of the meal, but the wine of Havdalah does not exempt, even if one recited Havdalah after washing hands — for that is the implicit case in our ruling that wine before the meal exempts wine during the meal, namely that one has already washed his hands, as will be implied shortly from the baraita 'What is the order of reclining,' etc. Nevertheless, it appears that since one has washed his hands with the intent to eat and drink there, it exempts even in the case of Havdalah, as explained from that passage in Pesachim. Moreover, the wine of Havdalah is not inferior to the wine before the meal, which exempts. However, there are those who are stringent and recite Havdalah before washing hands, in order to remove themselves from the dispute — in which case one certainly must recite the after-blessing over it, and it does not exempt the wine during the meal.
  4. If they reclined, yes; if they did not recline, no — This is difficult: why does the Gemara raise the question from the inference? Let it raise the difficulty directly from the first clause of the mishna, which explicitly states, 'If they were sitting, each one recites a blessing for himself.' One can answer: had the question been raised from the first clause alone, one might have thought that they sat for some other purpose, not originally intending to eat; but if they sat with the intent to eat, even without reclining it would be effective. Ten people who were walking, etc. — 'Let us go and eat our bread,' etc. — is like a case of sitting and reclining. Now it fits well why the mishna was explained to refer both to the blessing over bread [HaMotzi] and to Grace after Meals, as is implied here from the baraita about the ten people, etc. One might ask: why did they wait to raise this question until Grace after Meals — how did they recite the blessing over the bread initially [i.e., together]? One can answer: perhaps this refers to a case where they sat down to eat one after another, and each one recited HaMotzi for himself.
  5. Ten people who were walking, etc. — 'Let us go and eat our bread,' etc. — is like a case of sitting and reclining — Now it fits well why the mishna was explained to refer both to the blessing over bread [HaMotzi] and to Grace after Meals, as is implied here from the baraita about the ten people, etc. One might ask: why did they wait to raise this question until Grace after Meals — how did they recite the blessing over the bread initially [i.e., together]? One can answer: perhaps this refers to a case where they sat down to eat one after another, and each one recited HaMotzi for himself.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Berachot, Brachos, Berachos, Brachot 42.