we will act stringently and not assist the right hand with the left.

And he lifts it at least one handbreadth from the ground. Rav Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: What is the verse that proves this? “I will lift the cup of salvation and upon the name of the Lord I will call” (Psalms 116:13).

And he fixes his eyes upon the cup; so that his attention will not be distracted from it.

And he sends it as a gift to members of his household; so that his wife will be blessed.

The Gemara relates: Ulla happened to come to the house of Rav Naḥman. He ate bread, recited Grace after Meals, and gave the cup of blessing to Rav Naḥman. Rav Naḥman said to him: Master, please send the cup of blessing to Yalta, my wife. Ulla responded to him: There is no need, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: The fruit of a woman’s body is blessed only from the fruit of a man’s body, as it is stated: “And He will love you, and bless you, and make you numerous, and He will bless the fruit of your body” (Deuteronomy 7:13). The Gemara infers: “He will bless the fruit of her body” was not stated. Rather, “He will bless the fruit of your [masculine singular] body.” For his wife to be blessed with children, it is sufficient to give the cup to Rav Naḥman.

That opinion was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that the fruit of a woman’s body is only blessed from the fruit of a man’s body? As it is stated: And He will bless the fruit of your body; He will bless the fruit of her body was not stated. Rather, He will bless the fruit of your body.

The Gemara relates that meanwhile Yalta heard Ulla’s refusal to send her the cup of blessing. Yalta was the daughter of the Exilarch and was accustomed to being treated with deference, so she arose in a rage, entered the wine-storage, and broke four hundred barrels of wine. Afterward, Rav Naḥman said to Ulla: Let the Master send her another cup. Ulla sent Yalta a different cup with a message saying that all of the wine in this barrel is wine of blessing; although you did not drink from the cup of blessing itself, you may at least drink from the barrel from which the cup of blessing was poured. She sent him a stinging response: From itinerant peddlers, Ulla traveled regularly from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia and back, come meaningless words, and from rags come lice.

Rav Asi said: One may not speak over a cup of blessing from the moment he takes it in his hand until he drinks it. And Rav Asi said: One may not recite a blessing over a cup of punishment. The Gemara clarifies: What is a cup of punishment? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: A second cup. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: One who drinks in pairs should not recite a blessing, because it is stated: “Prepare to meet your God, O Israel” (Amos 4:12). One must be well-prepared in order to stand before his Creator, and this person who drank two cups of wine is not prepared, as drinking an even number of cups of wine is dangerous due to demons.

In concluding the halakhot of blessings, the Gemara cites that Rabbi Abbahu said, and some say it was taught in a baraita: One who eats and walks, recites the blessing of Grace after Meals standing in one place, and one who eats standing, recites the blessing while seated, and one who eats reclining on a divan sits and then recites the blessing. And the halakha is: In all of these cases one sits and then recites the blessing.

May we return unto thee : Three who ate !

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.

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,