מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁבֵּין בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵין בֵּית הִלֵּל בַּסְּעוּדָה: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיּוֹם, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיַּיִן. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיַּיִן וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיּוֹם. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נוֹטְלִין לַיָּדַיִם וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹזְגִין אֶת הַכּוֹס. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מוֹזְגִין אֶת הַכּוֹס וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹטְלִין לַיָּדַיִם. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מְקַנֵּחַ יָדָיו בַּמַּפָּה, וּמַנִּיחָהּ עַל הַשּׁוּלְחָן. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: עַל הַכֶּסֶת. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מְכַבְּדִין אֶת הַבַּיִת, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹטְלִין לַיָּדַיִם. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: נוֹטְלִין לַיָּדַיִם, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְכַבְּדִין אֶת הַבַּיִת. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נֵר וּמָזוֹן, בְּשָׂמִים וְהַבְדָּלָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: נֵר וּבְשָׂמִים, מָזוֹן וְהַבְדָּלָה. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: ״שֶׁבָּרָא מְאוֹר הָאֵשׁ״, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: ״בּוֹרֵא מְאוֹרֵי הָאֵשׁ״. אֵין מְבָרְכִין לֹא עַל הַנֵּר וְלֹא עַל הַבְּשָׂמִים שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, וְלֹא עַל הַנֵּר וְלֹא עַל הַבְּשָׂמִים שֶׁל מֵתִים, וְלֹא עַל הַנֵּר וְלֹא עַל הַבְּשָׂמִים שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וְאֵין מְבָרְכִין עַל הַנֵּר עַד שֶׁיֵּאוֹתוּ לְאוֹרוֹ. מִי שֶׁאָכַל, וְשָׁכַח וְלֹא בֵּירַךְ. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: יַחְזוֹר לִמְקוֹמוֹ וִיבָרֵךְ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: יְבָרֵךְ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנִּזְכַּר. וְעַד מָתַי מְבָרֵךְ? — עַד כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְעַכֵּל הַמָּזוֹן שֶׁבְּמֵעָיו. בָּא לָהֶן יַיִן אַחַר הַמָּזוֹן, אִם אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא אוֹתוֹ כּוֹס, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיַּיִן וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַמָּזוֹן. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַמָּזוֹן וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיַּיִן. וְעוֹנִין ״אָמֵן״ אַחַר יִשְׂרָאֵל הַמְבָרֵךְ, וְאֵין עוֹנִין ״אָמֵן״ אַחַר כּוּתִי הַמְבָרֵךְ, עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁמַע כׇּל הַבְּרָכָה כּוּלָּהּ.
MISHNA: These are the matters of dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to the halakhot of a meal: One dispute concerns the order of blessings in kiddush. Beit Shammai say: When one recites kiddush over wine, one recites a blessing over the sanctification of the day and recites a blessing over the wine thereafter. And Beit Hillel say: One recites a blessing over the wine and recites a blessing over the day thereafter. Similarly, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagree with regard to drinking wine before a meal. Beit Shammai say: One washes his hands and mixes water with the wine in the cup thereafter, and Beit Hillel say: One mixes water with the wine in the cup and only washes his hands thereafter. The basis of this particular dispute is with regard to the laws of ritual purity, as the Gemara will explain below. Also with regard to the laws of ritual purity, Beit Shammai say: After washing, one dries his hands with a cloth and places it on the table. And Beit Hillel say: One places it on the cushion upon which he is sitting. Similarly, Beit Shammai say: One sweeps the area of the house where the meal took place and he washes his hands with the final waters before Grace after Meals thereafter. And Beit Hillel say: One washes his hands and sweeps the house thereafter. Just as they dispute the order of the blessings in kiddush, they dispute the order of the blessings in havdala. If a meal continued until the conclusion of Shabbat, Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the candle, then the Grace after Meals blessing, then the blessing over the spices, and finally the blessing of havdala. And Beit Hillel say: The order is candle, spices, Grace after Meals, and havdala. With regard to the blessing over the candle, Beit Shammai say: Who created [bara] the light of fire. And Beit Hillel say: Who creates [boreh] the lights of fire. One may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of gentiles, nor over the candle nor the spices designated to pay respects to the dead, nor over the candle nor the spices of idolatry. The mishna cites another halakha with regard to the blessing over the candle: And one does not recite the blessing over the candle until he derives benefit from its light. The mishna cites an additional dispute: One who ate and forgot and did not recite a blessing; Beit Shammai say: He returns to the place where he ate and recites the blessing. Beit Hillel say: That is unnecessary. He recites the blessing at the place where he remembered. Both agree, however, that there is a limit with regard to how long after eating one may recite Grace after Meals. And until when does he recite the blessing? Until the food is digested in his intestines. Wine came before the diners after the meal; if only that cup of wine is there, Beit Shammai say: One recites a blessing over the wine and recites a blessing over the food, Grace after Meals, thereafter. And Beit Hillel say: One recites a blessing over the food and recites a blessing over the wine thereafter. And one answers amen after a Jew who recites a blessing even if he did not hear the entire blessing, and one does not answer amen after a Samaritan [Kuti] who recites a blessing until he hears the whole blessing in its entirety, as perhaps the Kuti introduced an element inconsistent with the Jewish faith in that section of the blessing that he did not hear.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: דְּבָרִים שֶׁבֵּין בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל בִּסְעוּדָה. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיּוֹם וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיַּיִן. שֶׁהַיּוֹם גּוֹרֵם לַיַּיִן שֶׁיָּבֹא, וּכְבָר קָדַשׁ הַיּוֹם וַעֲדַיִין יַיִן לֹא בָּא. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיַּיִן וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיּוֹם. שֶׁהַיַּיִן גּוֹרֵם לַקְּדוּשָּׁה שֶׁתֵּאָמֵר. דָּבָר אַחֵר: בִּרְכַּת הַיַּיִן תְּדִירָה, וּבִרְכַּת הַיּוֹם אֵינָהּ תְּדִירָה. תָּדִיר וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר — תָּדִיר קוֹדֵם. וַהֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. מַאי ״דָּבָר אַחֵר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא הָתָם תַּרְתֵּי וְהָכָא חֲדָא, הָכָא נָמֵי תַּרְתֵּי נִינְהוּ: בִּרְכַּת הַיַּיִן תְּדִירָה וּבִרְכַּת הַיּוֹם אֵינָהּ תְּדִירָה, תָּדִיר וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר — תָּדִיר קוֹדֵם. וַהֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. פְּשִׁיטָא, דְּהָא נָפְקָא בַּת קוֹל? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קוֹדֶם בַּת קוֹל. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא לְאַחַר בַּת קוֹל,
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a Tosefta: These are the matters of dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to the halakhot of a meal: Beit Shammai say: When one recites kiddush over wine, one recites a blessing over the sanctification of the day and recites a blessing over the wine thereafter as the day causes the wine to come before the meal. And Beit Shammai offer an additional reason: The day has already been sanctified and the wine has not yet come. Since Shabbat was sanctified first, it should likewise be mentioned first. And Beit Hillel say: One recites a blessing over the wine and recites a blessing over the day thereafter, because the wine causes the sanctification to be recited. Were there no wine, kiddush would not be recited. Alternatively, Beit Hillel say: The blessing over wine is recited frequently, and the blessing over the day is not recited frequently, and there is a general principle: When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice clash, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice. The Tosefta concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel. The Gemara asks: What is alternatively? Why did Beit Hillel cite an additional reason? The Gemara responds: And if you say that there Beit Shammai cite two reasons, and here Beit Hillel offer only one, therefore Beit Hillel said they are two reasons here as well: The blessing over wine is recited frequently and the blessing over the day is not recited frequently. When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice clash, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice. It was taught in the Tosefta: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious, as a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed that the halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Why did the Tosefta tell us here that the halakha is in accordance with their opinion? The Gemara offers two answers: If you wish, say that this Tosefta was taught before the Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed that general principle. And if you wish, say instead, that this Tosefta was indeed taught after the Divine Voice emerged,
וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין בְּבַת קוֹל. וְסָבְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי דְּבִרְכַּת הַיּוֹם עֲדִיפָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: הַנִּכְנָס לְבֵיתוֹ בְּמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת, מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיַּיִן וְעַל הַמָּאוֹר וְעַל הַבְּשָׂמִים, וְאַחַר כָּךְ אוֹמֵר הַבְדָּלָה. וְאִם אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא כּוֹס אֶחָד, מַנִּיחוֹ לְאַחַר הַמָּזוֹן וּמְשַׁלְשְׁלָן כּוּלָּן לְאַחֲרָיו. וְהָא, מִמַּאי דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי הִיא? דִּלְמָא בֵּית הִלֵּל הִיא?! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּקָתָנֵי מָאוֹר וְאַחַר כָּךְ בְּשָׂמִים, וּמַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאִית לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא — בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, דְּתַנְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל עַל הַמָּזוֹן שֶׁבִּתְחִלָּה וְעַל הַבְדָּלָה שֶׁהִיא בַּסּוֹף, עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ — עַל הַמָּאוֹר וְעַל הַבְּשָׂמִים. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מָאוֹר וְאַחַר כָּךְ בְּשָׂמִים, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: בְּשָׂמִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ מָאוֹר. וּמִמַּאי דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי הִיא וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דִּילְמָא בֵּית הִלֵּל הִיא וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר?! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּקָתָנֵי הָכָא בְּמַתְנִיתִין, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נֵר וּמָזוֹן בְּשָׂמִים וְהַבְדָּלָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: נֵר וּבְשָׂמִים מָזוֹן וְהַבְדָּלָה, וְהָתָם בְּבָרַיְיתָא קָתָנֵי אִם אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא כּוֹס אֶחָד, מַנִּיחוֹ לְאַחַר הַמָּזוֹן, וּמְשַׁלְשְׁלָן כּוּלָּן לְאַחֲרָיו. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי הִיא וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
and this Tosefta is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said, with regard to the Divine Voice that emerged and proclaimed that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the case of the oven of akhnai (Bava Metzia 59b), that one disregards a Heavenly Voice. Just as he disregarded the Divine Voice in his dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, so too, one disregards the Divine Voice that proclaimed that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. As to the substance of these statements, the Gemara asks: Do Beit Shammai hold that the blessing over the day takes precedence? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who enters his house at the conclusion of Shabbat recites a blessing over the wine, then over the candle, then over the spices, and recites havdala thereafter? And if he has only one cup of wine, he leaves it for after the last Shabbat meal and arranges all of the blessings: Grace after Meals, the blessings of havdala and the blessing over wine together thereafter. Evidently, the blessing over wine precedes the primary havdala blessing. The Gemara asks: And this baraita, from where is it ascertained that it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai’s opinion cannot be challenged with an unattributed baraita. The Gemara responds: It cannot enter your mind that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, as it was taught at the beginning of the baraita: Light and spices thereafter. And who, did you hear, adopts that reasoning? Beit Shammai. As it was taught in a Tosefta that Rabbi Yehuda said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute that Grace after Meals is recited first and that havdala is recited last. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to the blessings recited in the middle of havdala, the blessings over the light and over the spices. Beit Shammai say: Light and spices thereafter; and Beit Hillel say: Spices and light thereafter. Therefore, the baraita, where it is taught that the blessing over the candle precedes the blessing over the spices, must be according to Beit Shammai and it says that wine precedes havdala. The Gemara presents another challenge: And from where do you ascertain that this baraita is the opinion of Beit Shammai in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda? Perhaps it is the opinion of Beit Hillel in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara responds: It cannot enter your mind that this baraita is the opinion of Beit Hillel in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Meir. As it was taught here in the mishna, which like all unattributed mishnayot is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir: Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the candle, then the Grace after Meals blessing, then the blessing over the spices, and finally the blessing of havdala. And Beit Hillel say: The order is candle, spices, Grace after Meals, and havdala. And there, in the baraita, it was taught: And if he has only one cup of wine, he leaves it for after the last Shabbat meal and arranges all of the blessings: Grace after Meals, the blessings of havdala, and the blessing over wine together thereafter. According to the baraita, all of the blessings follow Grace after Meals. Since the baraita and the mishna do not correspond, conclude from here that the baraita is the opinion of Beit Shammai, in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda.