(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Berachos 33



(a) Snakes, unlike scorpions, will not attack unless they are threatened. Consequently, if one continues Davening, the snake will just leave without attacking.

(b) As we just wrote, snakes will not attack unless they are threatened. If someone falls into a snake-pit, they will immediately attack him because they feel threatened when he lands on top of them.

(c) Lions are different. They will not even attack when they are startled - unless they are hungry.

(a) Upon seeing a Shor Tam, one may interrupt one's Tefilah at a distance of sixty Amos, but for a Shor Mu'ad, as far as he can see.

(b) It is only from a *black* bull in the month of Nisan (when, following the winter season, it gets excited at seeing the ground full of grass), that one needs to escape from a feeding bull, to climb up to the roof 'and to pull up the ladder after him'.

(c) An Arod is a cross between a turtle and a snake.

(d) Rebbi Chanina ben Dosa placed his heel on the hole of the Arod, which bit him and died. The miracle that occurred was that a fountain opened up under Rebbi Chanina's heel, which resulted in the Arod's death, as is explained by the Behag (quoted in Rashi).

(e) Rebbi Chanina ben Dosa pointed out to the Talmidim in the Beis Hamedrash how it is not the Arod that kills, but sin (the insinuation being that since he was not guilty of any sin, the Arod was unable to cause him harm).

(a) We say 'Mashiv ha'Ru'ach' in Techi'as ha'Meisim, because rain is similar to Techi'as ha'Meisim - inasmuch as it revives life that is ebbing (people and animals who are dying from lack of water, and plants that are wilting).

(b) We ask for rain in Birchas ha'Shanim, because rain is the source of Parnasah (particularly in former times, when farming was the predominant occupation) - Where else should we say it, if not in the Berachah for Parnasah?

(c) And we say Havdalah in the Berachah of Chochmah, because it is synonymous with Chochmah (animals, who are devoid of Chochmah, are unable to distinguish between Kodesh and Chol, etc.
And also because its main purpose is to make a distinction between the outgoing Kadosh and the incoming Chol. Consequently, the right place to insert it is in the opening Berachah of Chol.

(d) The fact that the Berachah of Da'as is the opening Berachah of Chol (i.e. the Berachos which come in the form of prayer), goes to show how important it is.

(a) Both Da'as and Mikdash are placed between two names of Hashem: "Ki Keil Dei'os Hashem" (Shmuel); "(Pa'alta) Hashem, Mikdash Hashem (Konenu Yadecha" - the Shirah)?

(b) Rebbi Elazar therefore says that someone who has Da'as is considered as if the Mikdash would have been built in his days.

(c) It is forbidden to have compassion on someone who has no Da'as, says Rebbi Ami.

(d) Ula explains that "Keil Nekamos Hashem" is revenge with bad connotations (since it refers to Hashem's revenge of the nations of the world, who refused to accept the Torah); whereas Keil Nekamos Hofi'a" is revenge with good connotations (since it refers to the benefits that Yisrael receive from that revenge, due to Hashem making the property belonging to those nations, Hefker (on account of that refusal), and giving it to Yisrael - as the Gemara describes in Bava Kama 38a).

(a) The divergence of opinion was a result of the various changes of format to which the Mitzvah of Havdalah was subjected. When the Anshei Keneses ha'Gedolah first initiated Havdalah, the people were poor and could not afford wine, so they inserted it in Tefilah. Then, when the people became more wealthy, they changed the format of the Mitzvah, to reciting it over a cup of wine, only to revert to the original format when they once again became poor.
They then announced (presumably, at the fourth stage, when they became wealthy once more) that whoever makes Havdalah in Tefilah, must nevertheless recite it again over a cup of wine. By that time, it was no longer clear what the original Takanah of Havdalah was.

(b) We cannot retain the wording of the Beraisa, which reads (with reference to someone who forgot Havdalah in the Amidah, 'Mipnei *she'Yachol* le'Omrah Al ha'Kos', because that will leave us with a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan and on Raba and Rav Yosef, who stated that someone who forgot Havdalah in Tefilah need not repeat it because he is obligated to say it then over a Kos. That is why we change the text to conform with their statement, to read, not *'Mipnei she'Yachol le'Omro* Al ha'Kos', but *'Mipnei she'Omrah* Al ha'Kos'.

(c) Someone who makes Havdalah before he has Davened, is neverhteless obligated to insert Havdalah in the Amidah, because, if someone who has Davened, is nevertheless obligated to repeat Havdalah over a Kos (even though the main Takanah of Havdalah was in the Amidah, and not over a Kos, then how much more so must someone who has already said Havdalah over a Kos repeat it in the Amidah (where it was initially instituted).

(a) Rav Chanina maintains that, since, from the opening words of the Beraisa, it is evident that one is Yotze with Havdalah, how can it go on to say that it is even better to say Havdalah again over a cup of wine. Now surely, that constitutes an unnecessary Berachah- and we have already learnt, that someone who recites an unnecessary Berachah, has transgressed the La'av of 'Lo Sisa'?
Consequently, he changes the text to read 'Im Hivdil be'Zu, *ve'Lo* Hivdil be'Zu, Yanuchu Lo Berachos Al Rosho'.

(b) According to Rava, there is nothing wrong with repeating Havdalah over a cup of wine, even though he has already recited it in Tefilah. Why not? Because we already have a precedent for this by Kidush, where, after saying Kidush in Tefilah (in the form of the Berachah of 'Mekadesh ha'Shabbos'(one repeats it over a cup of wine. So, if one can do it for Kidush, why not for Havdalah?

(c) Someone who, after forgetting Havdalah in the Amidah, then sinns again by eating before Havdalah, must (as a Kenas - a penalty) repeat the Amidah with the insertion of Havdalah, before reciting Havdalah over a cup of wine.




(a) When Yom-Tov falls on Motzei Shabbos, the Berachah of Chonein ha'Da'as (in which Havdalah is normally inserted) is omitted. Nor do we follow the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, who rules that Havdalah should be said as a fourth, independent Berachah, in order not to add to the eighteen Berachos instituted by the Anshei Keneses ha'Gedolah. So the Gemara thought that the Halachah would automatically be like Rebbi Eliezer.

(b) 'Ma'tin ke'Rebbi Eliezer' means that, although we do not publicly announce the Halachah to be like Rebbi Eliezer, nonetheless, if somebody comes to ask what the ruling is, we inform him that it is like Rebbi Eliezer.
'Nir'in ke'Rebbi Eliezer' means that we do not even rule like him privately, but, that, if someone followed the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer of his own accord, he is Yotzei Bedieved.

(c) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba was exceptionally careful to quote his Rebbi accurately. Consequently, if he said 'Nir'in', then that is certainly what he heard from his Rebbi. The others, who were not so accurate when quoting, may have misquoted their Rebbes.

(d) Rachba from Pumbedisa would quote his Rebbe's every nuance (even to the point of saying 'Satav'(meaning a row of benches), rather than the Mishnah's wording of 'Istavah', which means the same thing.
He quoted Rav Yehudah as saying that the Har ha'Bayis contained a number of rows of benches for visitors to sit on (a necessity because it was forbidden to sit in the Azarah.

(e) When Yom-Tov falls on Motzei Shabbos, we say a special Tefilah called 'va'Todi'einu', which is inserted in the middle Yom-Tov Berachah. Rav Yosef learnt this Berachah from Rav and Shmuel.

(a) 'Al Kan Tzipor Yagi'u Rachamecha' infers that Hashem's mercy extends only to birds, but not to animals - creating jealousy among Hashem's creatures.
Alternatively, it suggests that the Mitzvah of 'Shilu'ach ha'Kein' is based on Hashem's mercy. But who said that *that* is the reason?

(b) 'Al Tov Yizacher Shemecha' insinuates that Hashem should be thanked for the good things, but not for the 'bad'. This clashes with the Mishnah in the last Perek, which stipulates that one is obligated to recite a Berachah for the bad, no less than for the good - because everything that Hashem does is ultimately for the good.

(c) Repeating 'Modim' conveys the impression that one is thanking two different Masters (ke'Vayachol).

(d) The above prohibitions apply only during Tefilah.

(a) Raba praised that Chazan only in order to test the young Abaye, to see whether he would protest (as indeed he did).

(b) Rebbi Chanina asked the Chazan (who added to the three praises 'ha'Gadol, ha'Gibor ve'ha'Nora') whether he had finished all the praises of Hashem. If the Anshei Keneses ha'Gedolah (taking their cue from Moshe Rabeinu) had not inserted these three, we would not be permitted to include even them (in Tefilah). Now that they *did* insert them, we are obligated to say them - but not to add to them - even one single expression! since, however much one says, one will always fall short of Hashem's praises. Rebbi Chanina compared someone who does add praises to someone who praises 'the King who owns a million silver vessels', when really, he owns a million golden ones.

(a) Rebbi Chanina learnt from the Pasuk "Mah Hashem Elokecha Sho'el mei'Imach Ki Im le'Yir'ah" that Hashem controls everything except for our Yir'as Shamayim, which He leaves under our control.

(b) "Yir'as Hashem Hi Otzaro" teaches us that our fear of Hashem must be very precious to Hashem, inasmuch as it is the only thing that He stores in His treasury (because, it is said, that is the one thing that Hashem Himself - Kevayachol - does not pessess). So how can Moshe imply that it is so easy to attain?

(c) It was Moshe Rabeinu who was speaking, and in *his* eyes, Yir'as Shamayim is easy to attain. (Presumably, he could not comprehend how anybody could possibly not possess it.)

(d) It is comparable to someone who is asked for the loan of a vessel. If he has it, then even if it is large, he will view it as if it was small (because what is the difference to him?)
But if he does *not* have it, then even a small vessel (easily obtainable) will seem to him like a large one.

(a) Someone who says 'Shema' twice is compared to someone who says 'Modim' twice.

(b) To describe someone who repeats 'Shema' as 'Meguneh', suggests that we do not silence him when he does so. But did we not just compare him to someone who says 'Modim' twice, where our Mishnah taught that we actually silence him?

(c) The repetition of 'Shema' which we are comparing to that of 'Modim' speaks when he repeats the whole Pasuk, because then one is conveying the impression that he is accepting 'Ol Malchus Shamayim' twice (from two different Masters). Whereas the Beraisa speaks when he repeats only the word 'Shema', which is despicable, but no more, since 'Shema' said twice is meaningless. Consequently, it is not necessary to stop him.

12) Abaye said to Rav Papa (who suggested that perhaps he is repeating the word 'Shema', because he did not have Kavanah the first time): 'Is Hashem his contemporary' (that he dares to say 'Shema' without Kavanah)? Someone who does so deserves to be beaten with a blacksmith's hammer until he recites the Shema with Kavanah.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,