• לסביות חזה ענק

    מביא ביד להזמין זונה

    מביא ביד להזמין זונה

    Troubadour Adam Road is an American born and Israeli raised singer songwriter who is known for being a street musician who plays Spanish guitar and mixes a flamenco vibe with indie, folk, rock and punk music. Music DJ Sports and Games. Art Music Concert Culture. Come dance and rejoice, together. Art Music Concert Visual Arts.

    Nowhere - exhibition opening by Dana Decktor. Playing the best fresh current music from the Arabic world! The contemporary music, culture and Arabic culture are almost completely transparent in our local culture sphere….

    But there is an amazing array of talent and creativity bursting underneath the surface. As always this night will be completely devoted to Arabic music and language. Thick Hookah smoke will fill the air Deep exotic base lines Minaretic adventures. Art Visual Arts Screening. The protagonist of the film is called Fontaine. The second part of the title comes from the Bible John 3: Bresson himself was imprisoned by the Germans as a member of the French Resistance.

    All Options are Possible Dirar Kalash: This possibility will be discussed in the lecture dealing with the third unit of tractate Berakhot. It might, however, be possible to find a slight connection between the supplement in m.

    Despite all the differences between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai, which reflect different halakhic approaches and apparently also different religious-theological outlooks, they do not disagree about the principles of faith upon which the entire system of blessings is based. On the other hand, the system of blessings absolutely rejects anything that even borders on idolatry, and it looks with suspicion upon blessings that are liable to reflect Cuthean beliefs. In my opinion, such an approach is possible, but far from being firmly established, because the connection between Cutheans and idolatry is not clear.

    According to most sources, the Cutheans were never suspected of idol worship, but rather with invalid beliefs within the framework of belief in the One God and His Torah.

    It is not impossible that the redactor of the Mishnah wished to lump together in our chapter those who entertain various different levels of false beliefs, but to the best of my knowledge nowhere else are the Cutheans presented as representatives of false theological beliefs. The matter requires further study.

    A blessing is first recited over the day and then over the wine, for the day causes the wine to come, and the day has already been sanctified, but the wine has still not come. While Bet Hillel say that a blessing is first recited over the wine and then over the day, for the wine causes the sanctity of the day to be sounded. The blessing over the wine is frequent, whereas the blessing over the day is not frequent. And the law is in accordance with Bet Hillel. Is one of these explanations similar to the way we explained the dispute above, in accordance with the approach adopted by Zev Safrai?

    Bet Shammai maintain that a flame is composed of one light, whereas Bet Hillel maintain that it is composed of many lights. Is there a connection between this explanation of the disagreement and that of Safrai? Aryeh Hiyun 19 has recently proposed a way to understand the disagreements about the order of actions:. An examination of the various disagreements dealing with the issue of orders of preference shows that a clear split exists between the two schools: Hiyun learns this principle from, among other things, a disagreement between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai found elsewhere Bereshit Rabbah 1: Acocrding to Hiyun, they all agree that heaven is more important, but the earth is more elementary, for heaven rests on the earth that supports it.

    Which one and how so? Soloveichik, Festival of Freedom, pp. The five mishnayot in our chapter can easily be divided into three sets, according to the following topics:.

    There is also no difficulty understanding the relationship between the three sets. The middle mishnah constitutes the heart of the chapter, for it deals with the act of zimmun itself. In addition, this mishnah serves as sort of an introduction to set III, for it establishes that there are different types of havurot of three, of ten, and according to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, also of , , and 10, , a point that underlies m.

    The different formulas of the zimmun blessing recited by havurot of different sizes give expression to the association that is created when the individuals mentioned in set I eat and recite birkat ha-mazon together, and from this flow the laws of set III, which determine the nature of the connection between the members of each havurah.

    In addition to the issue of the general structure of the chapter, upon which we shall expand upon below, there is a striking difficulty with respect to the order of the laws in our chapter.

    Hanokh Albeck introduction to tractate Berakhot, p. Some commentators, however, learn from the location of this mishnah that the mishnah relates here also?

    Even according to this understanding, however, this ruling at the end of the chapter, dealing with one of the laws of birkat ha-mazon , still veers from the topic of the chapter, which is zimmun , and not birkat ha-mazon. Mention should also be made of another literary connection that joins the end of chapter 7 to the end of chapter 6: The role of the law found at the end of chapter 7 in creating a connection between chapter 7 and chapters 6 and 8 will be dealt with in the future, but it is still difficult to understand how this law fits in to the chapter in which it appears.

    In contrast to many chapters of the Mishnah, which begin in the middle of things, our chapter opens with a clear presentation of the halakhic issue to which it is devoted: Three persons who have eaten together are obligated to invite one another to recite birkat ha-mazon.

    We shall try to explain these two elements. Antiphonal prayer is derived, according to Sifrei Devarim sec.

    The Tannaim Tosefta Sotah 6: These sources imply that the antiphonal style is unique to poetry, and that it can be executed in various ways: Zimmun , so it would seem, corresponds to the first model, as the Rambam writes Hilkhot Berakhot 5: Antiphony is appropriate for poetic prayers, because the dynamics of a leader inviting and the others joining in magnifies and intensifies the feelings and sensations that the poem is supposed to express 6.

    Certain prayers have clear poetic components, and therefore when they are recited in a group framework, Halakhah assigns them an antiphonal framework. The law of zimmun emphasizes the poetic quality of birkat ha-mazon , especially when the mitzvah is performed in the framework of a group of people who have eaten together. This practice is well-documented in non-rabbinic literature 9 and alluded to in several places in talmudic sources as well:.

    Shimon ben Shetah became frightened and fled. Distinguished men from the Persian kingdom came before King Yannai. After sitting down and eating, they said: We remember that a certain old man was once here, who spoke before us words of wisdom… Yerushalmi Berakhot 7: If three have eaten at a table and have spoken there no words of Torah, it is as if they had eaten of sacrifices to dead idols… But if three have eaten at a table and have spoken there words of Torah, it is as if they had eaten at the table of the Omnipresent, blessed be He, to which may be applied: Just as the establishment of a havurah makes it possible for one member of the group to recite a blessing over bread or wine for all of them, so too it obligates that birkat ha-mazon be recited together by way of zimmun.

    The two principles that underlie the law of zimmun are defined and refined in the three parts of the chapter listed above. Set I establishes the conditions for joining a havurah for the purpose of zimmun , conditions that divide into two categories: This point is particularly striking regarding the amount of food that a person must eat in order to join a zimmun — the size of an olive, which is the minimal measure of food in all realms of Halakhah This homily deals with the special relationship between God and His people Israel.

    God favors the people of Israel because they decided on their own to relate to Him in a manner that goes beyond the requirements of the law. There is logic in the halakhic requirement to bless God after eating to satiety, but the Sages of Israel instituted that God should be blessed even after eating only a minimal amount that does not result in satisfaction.

    What is more, even the festive blessing of a collective meal must be recited over a meal comprised of no more than an olive-sized measure of food for each diner. The requirement regarding the number of participants in the meal is also set according to the most minimal standards. From the sources describing the meals eaten in the Hellenistic world and by the Dead Sea sect, we know that these communal meals usually included tens of diners.

    The requirements regarding the nature of the food are also minimal. We know from various sources that a festive meal includes, among other things, meat and wine 13 , appetizers 14 and sweets But the meal that obligates zimmun need not include any special food, and an olive-sized measure of bread suffices to obligate a special form of birkat ha-mazon The only requirement regarding the type of foods over which the zimmun blessing may be recited is that the food must be permitted for eating: And finally, as for the requirements regarding the status of the persons joining for zimmun — not only does the Mishnah not require that they be priests or Torah scholars, but it allows even an attendant to join, provided that he has eaten an olive-sized measure of food, even though he does not recline along with the other diners.

    Even Cutheans qualify for zimmun , apparently because whenever the Cutheans accepted a law, they were even more meticulous about it than full-fledged Jews Berakhot 47b. Like the requirements regarding the food, so too regarding the person, the primary requirement is that he be a member of the community that is bound by the commandments cast upon the people of Israel.

    The reason for this is that they have no part in the commandments that are performed by the public sector The Mishnah does not require any of these in order to obligate the diners to recite birkat ha-mazon in a special and elevated manner that involves zimmun. All that is necessary is a minimal number of people — three — who are members of the mitzvah community and have eaten food that is permitted to be eaten. Set II teaches about the text of the zimmun blessing itself and the changes that are made in it in accordance with the number of people.

    The Mishnah, however, presents a more complicated picture regarding two other matters:. Regarding the first question, the Mishnah cites two views: Rabbi Yose the Galilean argues that the communal blessing of zimmun cannot at all be equated to the communal prayer in synagogue.

    The reason is — so suggest the commentators based on Tosafot, s. Even Rabbi Akiva, who equates zimmun to synagogue prayer, relates solely to one point: But even according to him, there are important differences between zimmun and synagogue prayer. It stands to reason that there is a fundamental difference, both according to Rabbi Akiva and according to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, between congregational prayer in the synagogue and birkat ha-mazon recited after a meal eaten by a havurah.

    But these two points can also be understood in a logical manner. In the same way as in the Temple use was made of the Tetragrammaton Sotah 7: The dynamics of a meal eaten in the framework of a havurah work differently. This may be due to historical circumstances, according to the suggestion of Joseph Heinemann Ha-Tefillah bi-Tekufat ha-Tannaim ve-ha-Amoraim , p.

    While in the synagogue the congregation assembles for the declared purpose of observing matters of sanctity, a havurah gathering for a joint meal assembles for a different purpose, in order to eat together and take part in the social and cultural experience revolving around the meal.

    Blessing God is not the objective of the gathering, but rather a religious-spiritual embellishment that attaches itself to a social event conducted for entirely different purposes. All the differences between the congregation in the synagogue and the havurah at the meal are valid when we are dealing with a havurah of three who have eaten together. According to Rabbi Akiva, the invitation to bless with the name A-do-nai is limited to the synagogue; only there does there exist a direct encounter between the congregation and God.

    At the meal eaten by a havurah of ten or more diners, the birkat ha-mazon of the congregation has sanctity, but there is no encounter. Rabbi Yose the Galilean does not limit the moment of encounter between congregation and the Shekhinah to the synagogue, and according to him, this can also take place at a meal eaten by a havurah. He distinguishes between a synagogue and the meal of a havurah in a different manner: In the synagogue the attitude toward God is fixed and formal — the closeness of a congregation in Israel to God is a fixed and permanent fact.

    As opposed to the atmosphere in the synagogue, which is all sanctity and service of God, the atmosphere of a meal is mundane, and the blessings recited by the group of diners add a dimension of sanctity to it. Some of the differences between the wording of the invitation in the synagogue and the wording of the invitation in the zimmun blessing reflect the difference between one who comes to join together and solidify a congregation that has assembled to recite matters of sanctity and one who approaches a solid group that has already dined together and invites them to recite a blessing over their joint pleasure.

    In addition to these differences, however, there is yet another fundamental difference regarding the nature of the relationship between the havurah and God that finds expression in the zimmun blessing, and regarding this difference Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yose the Galilean disagree. We see then that the obligation is connected to the form of the blessing and not to the havurah in itself.

    The members of the havurah may recite the blessings separately, provided that they maintain the level of zimmun to which each member of the havurah is obligated: Can diners belonging to two different havurot join together to form a larger havurah? Our mishnah, however, establishes that even if two havurot ate in two different places they can join together provided that some of the members of one havurah can see some of the members of the other havurah.

    The principle that it is possible to join together and unite based on sight is found elsewhere in the Mishnah in other halakhic realms: In this mishnah, as in our mishnah, it is not necessary that all the people see each other, that is to say, it is not the people who must be aware of each other, but rather the sets of witnesses and the havurot of people reciting birkat ha-mazon.

    This law serves as the counterpart of the law in m. And finally, in m. There seems to be a connection between this disagreement and the series of disagreements between Rabbi Yehudah and the Sages in the first half of chapter 6. Like the Sages in chapter 6, so too Rabbi Eliezer in our mishnah draws a connection between the obligation to recite a blessing and human use, whereas the Sages of our mishnah adopt a position that is reminiscent of the view of Rabbi Yehudah in chapter 6, which focuses the obligation to recite a blessing on the Divine gift.

    A distinction, however, should be made between the disagreements in chapter 6 and the end of chapter 7. Chapter 6 deals with the question how does the system of birkot ha-nehenim deal with the issue whether or not human use is the decisive factor regarding blessings even when it conflicts with the Divine-objective definition of the food in question: The end of chapter 7 deals with the opposite issue — a foodstuff that is not yet fit for use — and this raises a new aspect of the question: It is not by chance that this question arises specifically with respect to wine, for like bread, it requires a distinct blessing that reflects the intensive human involvement in the preparation of the Divine gift for the special role that it plays in human culture.

    In the case at hand, the wine already passed almost all the production stages: Regarding the material that may be derived from the grapes, everything has already been done, but the wine is not yet fit for use, until it is diluted with water, a step that is usually carried out shortly before it is drunk, and not as part of the production process. Therefore, regarding wine there exists a unique intermediate stage, when the food has been fully processed, but the final stage which readies it for use is still missing.

    Here there arises a disagreement among the Tannaim. According to Rabbi Eliezer, as long as the wine is unfit for use, one must not recite a blessing over it, and therefore, the wine must be diluted before the blessing may be recited.

    According to the Sages, the dilution process can be viewed as part of the act of drinking, and therefore the blessing may be recited prior to the addition of water, or alternatively, from a slightly different angle, a blessing may be recited over the dilution together with the drinking.

    The disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages can be understood as a disagreement regarding the human dimension that the blessing over wine comes to emphasize. We still must explain how this mishnah connects to the issues discussed in chapter 7; we shall return to this question in the concluding section. Set I presents the conditions that an individual must meet in order to join a havurah , and what stands out in this set is the tendency toward leniency.

    In order to be part of a havurah , a person has to eat only a minimal amount of food, and the person himself has only to meet the minimal requirement of being counted among the people of Israel. Set III, which opens with a line that is similar to the opening line of set I, presents the flexibility that is granted to the definition of the havurah , which can split apart or grow in size when some members of the two havurot can see each other , provided that there is no violation of the basic rule that the level of zimmun is not to be lowered.

    It clarifies the meaning and manner of execution of the obligation of zimmun mentioned in set I, and it presents various models of havurot , according to the number of diners, that will set limits on the allowance to split up a havurah in set III.

    The presentation of the various types of zimmun blessing in set II constitutes the heart of the chapter, and here the mishnah teaches about the nature and importance of birkat ha-mazon executed in a havurah. From this follows also the disagreement between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yose the Galilean regarding the level of the encounter with the Shekhina that takes place in the case of a havurah that recites the zimmun blessing with the name of God.

    At the end of the chapter, the redactor of the Mishnah presents his students with a riddle, namely, a law that may perhaps have an indirect connection to birkat ha-mazon — and specifically to the laws of birkat ha-mazon that will be discussed in chapter 8 the kos shel berakhah of birkat ha-mazon — but whose manifest and direct content is connected to the first half of chapter 6: I am not sure that I have a satisfactory answer to this riddle — and the readers are invited to suggest their own solutions to the mystery — but I will present a line of thought that is likely, in my opinion, to help us understand the matter.

    The transition from chapter 6 to chapter 7 is bound up in differences in emphasis that will be discussed in the lecture on the third unit of the tractate chapters , and one of them is connected to a point that is discussed in m. Chapter 6 deals at length with two issues that impact upon the system of birkot ha-nehenin: Chapter 7, in contrast, focuses throughout upon the eating and blessing patterns of a havurah , i.

    The reference to the birkat ha-nehenin recited over wine at the end of the chapter also emphasizes the importance of the human-cultural component in the system of blessings over food, and this on several plains.

    Someone wanting to propose a title for chapter 5 of tractate Berakhot will at first have difficulty identifying a single theme that connects the various mishnayot. The chapter opens with the mental preparation required for prayer m. It is possible, however, to view m. As a follow-up, m.

    According to this approach we can also understand the issue that opens the chapter, namely, the mental preparation required for prayer m.

    This approach to understanding the arrangement of the chapter must be examined in light of a series of linguistic-literary connections that connect the mishnayot of the chapter and divide the chapter into two parts: The first three mishnayot of the chapter m.

    And the last three mishnayot in the chapter m. These linguistic connections create a link between those instances of petitioning and mentioning that disturb the continuity of prayer m. This linguistic analysis supports the argument that the conceptual approach suggested above is what guided the redactor of the chapter: There are, however, additional levels of meaning in our chapter, and in order to understand them, we must turn our attention to a unique phenomenon found in our chapter.

    Our chapter, like many other chapters in the Mishnah, ends with an aggadic passage that tells of the special prayer of Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa. It is rarer to find a chapter of the Mishnah that opens with an aggadic statement, in the manner that our chapter opens with a description of the special preparations that were made by early pietists before praying.

    Our chapter is unique in that it both opens and closes with words of aggadah. Further examination reveals that the aggadic mishna, m.

    The second association, through the word tet-resh-feh , is especially interesting, because the word appears in two different senses in the two mishnayot. In addition to these two striking linguistic associations, there are two surprising linguistic associations that link together m.

    These linguistic associations link m. The extensive web of connections between m. The mishnah, however, is obscure: Why is a mistake made in prayer a bad sign for the person offering that prayer? As for the first question, one might have suggested that a mistake in prayer attests to a loss of concentration, and the lack of concentration in prayer is a bad sign with respect to the results of the prayer.

    This explanation is enticing with respect to m. But it is difficult to assume that such an idea underlies the story about Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa in m. It is difficult, however, to understand that phenomenon: The connection between m.

    Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa is not a prophet 7 , nor does he hear an explicit reaction from God. To what may this be likened? To a person delivering a public lecture or participating in an interview, who despite all the intensive preparation for what he is about to say, begins to stutter.

    While it is true that in m. The relationship between the two halves of m. The requirement in m. So too in m. The intensification of the idea through the story involving Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa finds expression in three points: These two mishnayot, which frame the chapter, conduct a dialogue between themselves. It is plainly evident that the one depends upon the other: The juxtaposition of the prayer of an ordinary individual to the prayer of the early pietists indicates that the two prayers are close in nature.

    Between the two aggadic-pietist mishnayot at the beginning and the end of the chapter, lie the halakhic mishnayot which comprise the main body of the chapter.

    The literary connections between m. According to him, there is sort of a contradiction between these two mishnayot, for had the halakhic author of m. According to Frankel, the role of the aggadah here, as in many places in the Mishnah and the Talmud, is to challenge the halakhah and demonstrate its limitations. Here too the aggadah demands that in addition to practical thinking about the need for precision in prayer, one must contemplate the spiritual depth of faulty articulation of the prayers.

    Whereas the connections between m. Two of the four blessings mentioned in m. This one will live and this one will die. The contents of the prayer in m. The centrality of these motifs in prayer is also reflected in other mishnayot in the chapter. One who does not interrupt his prayer even for a king or a snake m. The disqualified prayer formulas in m. In this way all the mishnayot in the chapter draw a connection between the consciousness of prayer and its words and contents, and between them and two existential needs upon which prayer focuses: These needs find expression in the blessings and additions listed in m.

    And he [who is asked to serve as the replacement] should not [courteously] refuse at such a time. Tuesday, December 2, , marks the third annual GivingTuesday, a day where charities, families, businesses, community centers, and students around the world will come together for one common purpose: Drisha is celebrating GivingTuesday for a whole month, Thanksgiving through Channukah!

    If you would like, email an unselfie to inquiry drisha. What Are We Doing? An invitation to members of the community to learn more about hunger and food insecurity in the United States, to consider our responsibilities toward those in need, and to find out what we can do to help. Some of these programs — such as food stamps now called SNAP — may be familiar to you.

    A Place at the Table This documentary film examines the issue of hunger and food insecurity through the stories of three people: Barbie, a single Philadelphia mother who grew up in poverty and is trying to provide a better life for her two children; Rosie, a Colorado second-grader who often has to depend on friends and neighbors to feed her and has trouble concentrating in school; and Tremonica, a Mississippi second-grader whose asthma and health issues are exacerbated by the largely empty calories her hardworking mother can afford.

    Their stories are interwoven with insights from experts, activists, and concerned citizens. Why Rain Comes from Above: We will study several of these texts as a foundation for the work of learning about hunger and considering how we might respond. Good Food for All: However, with 15 percent of the population food insecure, 47 million people receiving SNAP benefits, and demand at food banks growing steadily, the results are not encouraging.

    Mark Winne will review the history, programs, policies, and assumptions behind the long battle to end hunger, and explore why that war has reached a stalemate. There are many organizations and programs that are paving the way with a new vision for how to end hunger in the United States.

    Lisanne Finston first encountered the growing population of people who were hungry and homeless when she was a college student in the early s living in Washington DC. Through her work there, she turned a local soup kitchen into a culinary center that feeds hundreds of individuals and families with nourishing, locally grown food and provides job training and employment opportunities for people who are food insecure, homeless and unemployed—moving people from the streets to success.

    She is ordained in the United Methodist Church. She now consults for clients in New York and Israel in the areas of marketing, program design and evaluation, grant writing, board and team facilitation, and transition and crisis management. Pam Johnson was a teenage mom with a dangerous addition to crack cocaine and heroin. Pam feels blessed to be able to give back, and she strives always to go the extra mile for others.

    David Silber is Founder and Dean of Drisha. Rabbi Silber received the Covenant Award in The Theory and Practice of Beit Rabban. The Rabbinic Construction of Criminal Law. Steinmetz consults for the Mandel Foundation and works at Gould Farm, a therapeutic community for individuals struggling with mental illness.

    Mark Winne was the Executive Director from of the Hartford Food System, a Connecticut non-profit food organization dedicated to finding solutions to the food insecurity problems of the greater Hartford area. Through his own firm, Mark Winne Associates, Mark speaks, trains, and writes on topics related to community food systems, food policy, and food security. He is the author of two books, Closing the Food Gap: Both books are published by Beacon Press. Drisha Winter Beit Midrash Dirshu: Confronting Challenges with Heart and Mind Tzeniut: Can We Talk About It?

    What Can We Do? Confronting Mental Illness Prayer: Click here for more details. Drisha opens yeshiva in Israel Click here for more details. The Structure of The Chapter The beginning of our chapter bears the following heading: Closer examination, however, reveals deviations from this order: The hand-washing of m. The blessings recited over the wine and over the food in m. The Root of the Disagreement s Many of the disagreements in our chapter are explained in the Tosefta, but we shall not review here all the explanations.

    Following this approach, he explains the following disputes: The talmudic passage with which our chapter closes in the Bavli 53b clearly expresses the connection between the objective of assigning sanctity to a mundane meal and the two main topics of our chapter, blessings and hand-washing: He accomplishes this by way of the following editorial maneuvers: Placing these two mishnayot at the beginning of the two halves of the chapter.

    To each of these mishnayot the redactor appends mishnayot that continue to discuss the pouring of the wine m. The framework of the chapter, which connects the blessing of kiddush to birkat ha-mazon with respect to their relationship to the blessing recited over wine. Study Questions The Tosefta 5: And the law is in accordance with Bet Hillel Is one of these explanations similar to the way we explained the dispute above, in accordance with the approach adopted by Zev Safrai?

    Aryeh Hiyun 19 has recently proposed a way to understand the disagreements about the order of actions: Explain the difference between the second approach and that of Rabbi Soloveitchik. On the face of it, m. We shall discuss the location of this mishnah at the end of this study. The Tosefta at the beginning of the tractate attests that these teachings were arranged in this manner so that that they not be forgotten by the people of Israel.

    מביא ביד להזמין זונה

    מביא ביד להזמין זונה -

    This contrasts with the anthropocentric perspective of Bet Hillel. Additions to the prayer that depend on time:

    Sunday, January 15, Uriel Kramer wrote his music while travelling The Americas, Europe and Asia between and , and started performing in India in early Community Sports and Games.

    Ohad Hadad Hadar Ben-tzur. Troubadour Adam Road is an American born and Israeli raised singer songwriter who is known for being a street musician who plays Spanish guitar and mixes a flamenco vibe with indie, folk, rock and punk music. Music DJ Sports and Games. Art Music Concert Culture. Come dance and rejoice, together. Art Music Concert Visual Arts. Nowhere - exhibition opening by Dana Decktor. Playing the best fresh current music from the Arabic world!

    The contemporary music, culture and Arabic culture are almost completely transparent in our local culture sphere…. But there is an amazing array of talent and creativity bursting underneath the surface. As always this night will be completely devoted to Arabic music and language. Thick Hookah smoke will fill the air Deep exotic base lines Minaretic adventures.

    Art Visual Arts Screening. It was said of Shammai the Elder that all his days he would eat in order to honor Shabbat. If he would find a nice animal he would say: But Hillel the Elder behaved differently, for all his deeds were for the sake of heaven, as it is written: Each day should be for Shabbat.

    But Bet Hillel say: In accordance with this, Safrai explains the dispute in m. Therefore, with respect to the festive Shabbat meal, Bet Hillel emphasize the mitzva to drink wine, and see it and the material meal as the principal mitzvah. Bet Shammai, on the other hand, see the sanctity of the festival and of Shabbat as primary, and the wine and the meal as mere auxiliary tools for the special day.

    Safrai tries to explain most of the disagreements in the chapter with this line of thought. Following this approach, he explains the following disputes:. Bet Hillel, on the other hand, say that a meal should be conducted in its proper manner according to the order of eating.

    Hands should only be washed when we come to that part of the meal that requires hand-washing, that is to say, before breaking the bread. According to Bet Hillel, hand-washing is a mitzvah for the sake of the meal, whereas according to Bet Shammai it stands on its own.

    Were the people to begin to sweep the floor before the hand-washing, they would have to stand up from their reclined position, move the sofas, and interfere with the proper course of the meal.

    According to Bet Shammai, the destruction of food, the expected result of washing hands before removing all the left-over pieces of bread, is sufficient justification for such a disturbance. According to Bet Shammai, the cloth should be placed on the table owing to the concern that the cushion is ritually impure, and by coming into contact with the cushion, the hands of the person who already washed his hands will once again become ritually impure.

    For they maintain that hand-washing was never meant to purify the hands of ritual impurity, but rather to bring a person into the meal in a cleansed and sanctified state. Or perhaps the everyday has no significance, and only the creation of the entire world requires a blessing Bet Shammai. Bet Shammai adopt the theocentric position according to which clear preference is given to heavenly needs over human needs. This contrasts with the anthropocentric perspective of Bet Hillel.

    But whether we fully accept his arguments or agree with them only in part, the line of thought that Safrai proposes opens the door to an understanding of m.

    According to Bet Hillel, the meal opens and closes with a blessing recited over wine, thus emphasizing that wine defines the meal at both ends. The blessings recited over the wine give meaning and sanctity to the mundane pleasure associated with wine drinking, and all the mitzvot connected to the meal draw their sanctity and meaning from this. A blessing is recited over the special pleasure and joy of drinking wine, and an opportunity is thereby created to sanctify Shabbat.

    Bet Shammai, on the other hand, maintain that the wine draws its meaning and sanctity from the blessings that — according to them — frame the meal: These blessings create a framework of a mitzvah meal, a Shabbat meal, and within this framework the wine drinking — accompanied by the appropriate birkat ha-nehenin — receives meaning and sanctity. That is to say, kiddush and birkat ha-mazon sanctify the Shabbat meal, and through them the blessing over the wine and its drinking become sanctified.

    Let us summarize this point in schematic manner: According to Bet Hillel, the wine sanctifies the day of Shabbat and the meals that are eaten in its honor; according to Bet Shammai, Shabbat sanctifies the meal as well as the wine that is drunk at its beginning and end.

    The talmudic passage with which our chapter closes in the Bavli 53b clearly expresses the connection between the objective of assigning sanctity to a mundane meal and the two main topics of our chapter, blessings and hand-washing:.

    The sanctity of the meal is also emphasized in our chapter through other elements of the meal — in addition to the blessings and the hand-washing — that play an important role in it.

    First of all, note should be taken of the centrality of the wine, appearing in the first two mishnayot and in the last mishnah. As opposed to bread, the most important element in chapters that represents eating and satiety, wine represents the meal as a joyous and elevating event.

    The candle and the spices are also food for the soul, and not only for the body. Note should also be taken of the sophistication of the redactor of the Mishnah. Even though only two mishnayot deal with kiddush m. He accomplishes this by way of the following editorial maneuvers:.

    This is not the forum in which to examine how this tendency became established among the eating practices of the second Temple period and became strengthened after the destruction of the Temple. Many of the Greek philosophers of the schools of the Stoa and the Cynics actually reached the conclusion that eating is a disgraceful necessity. Eating gratifies not the humanus but the beast in man… Thus, according to legend, many wise men and philosophers shied away from eating in public; they felt embarrassed to be seen while eating… They felt that only human qualities and human purposive acts should be exhibited to others….

    The first sacrificial act by which food becomes the bread of the Lord is the acknowledgement that God is the Master who feeds the world and to whom we are indebted for His lovingkindness. This idea comes to full expression in both the blessing prior to the meal and particularly in the Grace recited after the meal… Also in the area of ritual… the animal does not discriminate between clean and unclean foods… If man wants to eat differently than the animal and to transpose his food into the bread of God, he must be able to perform the movement of recoil….

    Rabbi Soloveitchik relates here to two of the central issues in our chapter: Soloveitchik, both Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai aspire to redeem and to sanctify the act of eating, but they do so based on different approaches. The placement of m. It deals neither with Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai nor with meal-related matters.

    This possibility will be discussed in the lecture dealing with the third unit of tractate Berakhot. It might, however, be possible to find a slight connection between the supplement in m. Despite all the differences between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai, which reflect different halakhic approaches and apparently also different religious-theological outlooks, they do not disagree about the principles of faith upon which the entire system of blessings is based.

    On the other hand, the system of blessings absolutely rejects anything that even borders on idolatry, and it looks with suspicion upon blessings that are liable to reflect Cuthean beliefs. In my opinion, such an approach is possible, but far from being firmly established, because the connection between Cutheans and idolatry is not clear. According to most sources, the Cutheans were never suspected of idol worship, but rather with invalid beliefs within the framework of belief in the One God and His Torah.

    It is not impossible that the redactor of the Mishnah wished to lump together in our chapter those who entertain various different levels of false beliefs, but to the best of my knowledge nowhere else are the Cutheans presented as representatives of false theological beliefs. The matter requires further study. A blessing is first recited over the day and then over the wine, for the day causes the wine to come, and the day has already been sanctified, but the wine has still not come.

    While Bet Hillel say that a blessing is first recited over the wine and then over the day, for the wine causes the sanctity of the day to be sounded. The blessing over the wine is frequent, whereas the blessing over the day is not frequent. And the law is in accordance with Bet Hillel. Is one of these explanations similar to the way we explained the dispute above, in accordance with the approach adopted by Zev Safrai?

    Bet Shammai maintain that a flame is composed of one light, whereas Bet Hillel maintain that it is composed of many lights. Is there a connection between this explanation of the disagreement and that of Safrai? Aryeh Hiyun 19 has recently proposed a way to understand the disagreements about the order of actions:.

    An examination of the various disagreements dealing with the issue of orders of preference shows that a clear split exists between the two schools: Hiyun learns this principle from, among other things, a disagreement between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai found elsewhere Bereshit Rabbah 1: Acocrding to Hiyun, they all agree that heaven is more important, but the earth is more elementary, for heaven rests on the earth that supports it. Which one and how so? Soloveichik, Festival of Freedom, pp.

    The five mishnayot in our chapter can easily be divided into three sets, according to the following topics:. There is also no difficulty understanding the relationship between the three sets. The middle mishnah constitutes the heart of the chapter, for it deals with the act of zimmun itself.

    In addition, this mishnah serves as sort of an introduction to set III, for it establishes that there are different types of havurot of three, of ten, and according to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, also of , , and 10, , a point that underlies m.

    The different formulas of the zimmun blessing recited by havurot of different sizes give expression to the association that is created when the individuals mentioned in set I eat and recite birkat ha-mazon together, and from this flow the laws of set III, which determine the nature of the connection between the members of each havurah.

    In addition to the issue of the general structure of the chapter, upon which we shall expand upon below, there is a striking difficulty with respect to the order of the laws in our chapter. Hanokh Albeck introduction to tractate Berakhot, p. Some commentators, however, learn from the location of this mishnah that the mishnah relates here also?

    Even according to this understanding, however, this ruling at the end of the chapter, dealing with one of the laws of birkat ha-mazon , still veers from the topic of the chapter, which is zimmun , and not birkat ha-mazon.

    Mention should also be made of another literary connection that joins the end of chapter 7 to the end of chapter 6: The role of the law found at the end of chapter 7 in creating a connection between chapter 7 and chapters 6 and 8 will be dealt with in the future, but it is still difficult to understand how this law fits in to the chapter in which it appears.

    In contrast to many chapters of the Mishnah, which begin in the middle of things, our chapter opens with a clear presentation of the halakhic issue to which it is devoted: Three persons who have eaten together are obligated to invite one another to recite birkat ha-mazon.

    We shall try to explain these two elements. Antiphonal prayer is derived, according to Sifrei Devarim sec. The Tannaim Tosefta Sotah 6: These sources imply that the antiphonal style is unique to poetry, and that it can be executed in various ways: Zimmun , so it would seem, corresponds to the first model, as the Rambam writes Hilkhot Berakhot 5: Antiphony is appropriate for poetic prayers, because the dynamics of a leader inviting and the others joining in magnifies and intensifies the feelings and sensations that the poem is supposed to express 6.

    Certain prayers have clear poetic components, and therefore when they are recited in a group framework, Halakhah assigns them an antiphonal framework. The law of zimmun emphasizes the poetic quality of birkat ha-mazon , especially when the mitzvah is performed in the framework of a group of people who have eaten together.

    This practice is well-documented in non-rabbinic literature 9 and alluded to in several places in talmudic sources as well:. Shimon ben Shetah became frightened and fled. Distinguished men from the Persian kingdom came before King Yannai. After sitting down and eating, they said: We remember that a certain old man was once here, who spoke before us words of wisdom… Yerushalmi Berakhot 7: If three have eaten at a table and have spoken there no words of Torah, it is as if they had eaten of sacrifices to dead idols… But if three have eaten at a table and have spoken there words of Torah, it is as if they had eaten at the table of the Omnipresent, blessed be He, to which may be applied: Just as the establishment of a havurah makes it possible for one member of the group to recite a blessing over bread or wine for all of them, so too it obligates that birkat ha-mazon be recited together by way of zimmun.

    The two principles that underlie the law of zimmun are defined and refined in the three parts of the chapter listed above. Set I establishes the conditions for joining a havurah for the purpose of zimmun , conditions that divide into two categories: This point is particularly striking regarding the amount of food that a person must eat in order to join a zimmun — the size of an olive, which is the minimal measure of food in all realms of Halakhah This homily deals with the special relationship between God and His people Israel.

    God favors the people of Israel because they decided on their own to relate to Him in a manner that goes beyond the requirements of the law.

    There is logic in the halakhic requirement to bless God after eating to satiety, but the Sages of Israel instituted that God should be blessed even after eating only a minimal amount that does not result in satisfaction. What is more, even the festive blessing of a collective meal must be recited over a meal comprised of no more than an olive-sized measure of food for each diner.

    The requirement regarding the number of participants in the meal is also set according to the most minimal standards. From the sources describing the meals eaten in the Hellenistic world and by the Dead Sea sect, we know that these communal meals usually included tens of diners.

    The requirements regarding the nature of the food are also minimal. We know from various sources that a festive meal includes, among other things, meat and wine 13 , appetizers 14 and sweets But the meal that obligates zimmun need not include any special food, and an olive-sized measure of bread suffices to obligate a special form of birkat ha-mazon The only requirement regarding the type of foods over which the zimmun blessing may be recited is that the food must be permitted for eating: And finally, as for the requirements regarding the status of the persons joining for zimmun — not only does the Mishnah not require that they be priests or Torah scholars, but it allows even an attendant to join, provided that he has eaten an olive-sized measure of food, even though he does not recline along with the other diners.

    Even Cutheans qualify for zimmun , apparently because whenever the Cutheans accepted a law, they were even more meticulous about it than full-fledged Jews Berakhot 47b.

    Like the requirements regarding the food, so too regarding the person, the primary requirement is that he be a member of the community that is bound by the commandments cast upon the people of Israel. The reason for this is that they have no part in the commandments that are performed by the public sector The Mishnah does not require any of these in order to obligate the diners to recite birkat ha-mazon in a special and elevated manner that involves zimmun.

    All that is necessary is a minimal number of people — three — who are members of the mitzvah community and have eaten food that is permitted to be eaten. Set II teaches about the text of the zimmun blessing itself and the changes that are made in it in accordance with the number of people.

    The Mishnah, however, presents a more complicated picture regarding two other matters:. Regarding the first question, the Mishnah cites two views: Rabbi Yose the Galilean argues that the communal blessing of zimmun cannot at all be equated to the communal prayer in synagogue. The reason is — so suggest the commentators based on Tosafot, s. Even Rabbi Akiva, who equates zimmun to synagogue prayer, relates solely to one point: But even according to him, there are important differences between zimmun and synagogue prayer.

    It stands to reason that there is a fundamental difference, both according to Rabbi Akiva and according to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, between congregational prayer in the synagogue and birkat ha-mazon recited after a meal eaten by a havurah. But these two points can also be understood in a logical manner. In the same way as in the Temple use was made of the Tetragrammaton Sotah 7: The dynamics of a meal eaten in the framework of a havurah work differently.

    This may be due to historical circumstances, according to the suggestion of Joseph Heinemann Ha-Tefillah bi-Tekufat ha-Tannaim ve-ha-Amoraim , p. While in the synagogue the congregation assembles for the declared purpose of observing matters of sanctity, a havurah gathering for a joint meal assembles for a different purpose, in order to eat together and take part in the social and cultural experience revolving around the meal.

    Blessing God is not the objective of the gathering, but rather a religious-spiritual embellishment that attaches itself to a social event conducted for entirely different purposes. All the differences between the congregation in the synagogue and the havurah at the meal are valid when we are dealing with a havurah of three who have eaten together.

    According to Rabbi Akiva, the invitation to bless with the name A-do-nai is limited to the synagogue; only there does there exist a direct encounter between the congregation and God.

    At the meal eaten by a havurah of ten or more diners, the birkat ha-mazon of the congregation has sanctity, but there is no encounter. Rabbi Yose the Galilean does not limit the moment of encounter between congregation and the Shekhinah to the synagogue, and according to him, this can also take place at a meal eaten by a havurah. He distinguishes between a synagogue and the meal of a havurah in a different manner: In the synagogue the attitude toward God is fixed and formal — the closeness of a congregation in Israel to God is a fixed and permanent fact.

    As opposed to the atmosphere in the synagogue, which is all sanctity and service of God, the atmosphere of a meal is mundane, and the blessings recited by the group of diners add a dimension of sanctity to it. Some of the differences between the wording of the invitation in the synagogue and the wording of the invitation in the zimmun blessing reflect the difference between one who comes to join together and solidify a congregation that has assembled to recite matters of sanctity and one who approaches a solid group that has already dined together and invites them to recite a blessing over their joint pleasure.

    In addition to these differences, however, there is yet another fundamental difference regarding the nature of the relationship between the havurah and God that finds expression in the zimmun blessing, and regarding this difference Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yose the Galilean disagree. We see then that the obligation is connected to the form of the blessing and not to the havurah in itself. The members of the havurah may recite the blessings separately, provided that they maintain the level of zimmun to which each member of the havurah is obligated: Can diners belonging to two different havurot join together to form a larger havurah?

    Our mishnah, however, establishes that even if two havurot ate in two different places they can join together provided that some of the members of one havurah can see some of the members of the other havurah. The principle that it is possible to join together and unite based on sight is found elsewhere in the Mishnah in other halakhic realms: In this mishnah, as in our mishnah, it is not necessary that all the people see each other, that is to say, it is not the people who must be aware of each other, but rather the sets of witnesses and the havurot of people reciting birkat ha-mazon.

    This law serves as the counterpart of the law in m. And finally, in m. There seems to be a connection between this disagreement and the series of disagreements between Rabbi Yehudah and the Sages in the first half of chapter 6.

    Like the Sages in chapter 6, so too Rabbi Eliezer in our mishnah draws a connection between the obligation to recite a blessing and human use, whereas the Sages of our mishnah adopt a position that is reminiscent of the view of Rabbi Yehudah in chapter 6, which focuses the obligation to recite a blessing on the Divine gift. A distinction, however, should be made between the disagreements in chapter 6 and the end of chapter 7.

    Chapter 6 deals with the question how does the system of birkot ha-nehenim deal with the issue whether or not human use is the decisive factor regarding blessings even when it conflicts with the Divine-objective definition of the food in question: The end of chapter 7 deals with the opposite issue — a foodstuff that is not yet fit for use — and this raises a new aspect of the question: It is not by chance that this question arises specifically with respect to wine, for like bread, it requires a distinct blessing that reflects the intensive human involvement in the preparation of the Divine gift for the special role that it plays in human culture.

    In the case at hand, the wine already passed almost all the production stages: Regarding the material that may be derived from the grapes, everything has already been done, but the wine is not yet fit for use, until it is diluted with water, a step that is usually carried out shortly before it is drunk, and not as part of the production process.

    Therefore, regarding wine there exists a unique intermediate stage, when the food has been fully processed, but the final stage which readies it for use is still missing. Here there arises a disagreement among the Tannaim. According to Rabbi Eliezer, as long as the wine is unfit for use, one must not recite a blessing over it, and therefore, the wine must be diluted before the blessing may be recited.

    According to the Sages, the dilution process can be viewed as part of the act of drinking, and therefore the blessing may be recited prior to the addition of water, or alternatively, from a slightly different angle, a blessing may be recited over the dilution together with the drinking.

    The disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages can be understood as a disagreement regarding the human dimension that the blessing over wine comes to emphasize. We still must explain how this mishnah connects to the issues discussed in chapter 7; we shall return to this question in the concluding section.

    Set I presents the conditions that an individual must meet in order to join a havurah , and what stands out in this set is the tendency toward leniency. In order to be part of a havurah , a person has to eat only a minimal amount of food, and the person himself has only to meet the minimal requirement of being counted among the people of Israel. Set III, which opens with a line that is similar to the opening line of set I, presents the flexibility that is granted to the definition of the havurah , which can split apart or grow in size when some members of the two havurot can see each other , provided that there is no violation of the basic rule that the level of zimmun is not to be lowered.

    It clarifies the meaning and manner of execution of the obligation of zimmun mentioned in set I, and it presents various models of havurot , according to the number of diners, that will set limits on the allowance to split up a havurah in set III. The presentation of the various types of zimmun blessing in set II constitutes the heart of the chapter, and here the mishnah teaches about the nature and importance of birkat ha-mazon executed in a havurah. From this follows also the disagreement between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yose the Galilean regarding the level of the encounter with the Shekhina that takes place in the case of a havurah that recites the zimmun blessing with the name of God.

    At the end of the chapter, the redactor of the Mishnah presents his students with a riddle, namely, a law that may perhaps have an indirect connection to birkat ha-mazon — and specifically to the laws of birkat ha-mazon that will be discussed in chapter 8 the kos shel berakhah of birkat ha-mazon — but whose manifest and direct content is connected to the first half of chapter 6: I am not sure that I have a satisfactory answer to this riddle — and the readers are invited to suggest their own solutions to the mystery — but I will present a line of thought that is likely, in my opinion, to help us understand the matter.

    The transition from chapter 6 to chapter 7 is bound up in differences in emphasis that will be discussed in the lecture on the third unit of the tractate chapters , and one of them is connected to a point that is discussed in m. Chapter 6 deals at length with two issues that impact upon the system of birkot ha-nehenin: Chapter 7, in contrast, focuses throughout upon the eating and blessing patterns of a havurah , i.

    The reference to the birkat ha-nehenin recited over wine at the end of the chapter also emphasizes the importance of the human-cultural component in the system of blessings over food, and this on several plains.

    Someone wanting to propose a title for chapter 5 of tractate Berakhot will at first have difficulty identifying a single theme that connects the various mishnayot.

    The chapter opens with the mental preparation required for prayer m. It is possible, however, to view m. As a follow-up, m. According to this approach we can also understand the issue that opens the chapter, namely, the mental preparation required for prayer m.

    This approach to understanding the arrangement of the chapter must be examined in light of a series of linguistic-literary connections that connect the mishnayot of the chapter and divide the chapter into two parts: The first three mishnayot of the chapter m. And the last three mishnayot in the chapter m. These linguistic connections create a link between those instances of petitioning and mentioning that disturb the continuity of prayer m.

    This linguistic analysis supports the argument that the conceptual approach suggested above is what guided the redactor of the chapter: There are, however, additional levels of meaning in our chapter, and in order to understand them, we must turn our attention to a unique phenomenon found in our chapter.

    Our chapter, like many other chapters in the Mishnah, ends with an aggadic passage that tells of the special prayer of Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa. It is rarer to find a chapter of the Mishnah that opens with an aggadic statement, in the manner that our chapter opens with a description of the special preparations that were made by early pietists before praying.

    Our chapter is unique in that it both opens and closes with words of aggadah. Further examination reveals that the aggadic mishna, m. The second association, through the word tet-resh-feh , is especially interesting, because the word appears in two different senses in the two mishnayot.

    In addition to these two striking linguistic associations, there are two surprising linguistic associations that link together m. These linguistic associations link m. The extensive web of connections between m. The mishnah, however, is obscure: Why is a mistake made in prayer a bad sign for the person offering that prayer?

    As for the first question, one might have suggested that a mistake in prayer attests to a loss of concentration, and the lack of concentration in prayer is a bad sign with respect to the results of the prayer. This explanation is enticing with respect to m. But it is difficult to assume that such an idea underlies the story about Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa in m. It is difficult, however, to understand that phenomenon: The connection between m. Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa is not a prophet 7 , nor does he hear an explicit reaction from God.

    To what may this be likened? To a person delivering a public lecture or participating in an interview, who despite all the intensive preparation for what he is about to say, begins to stutter. While it is true that in m. The relationship between the two halves of m. The requirement in m. So too in m. The intensification of the idea through the story involving Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa finds expression in three points: These two mishnayot, which frame the chapter, conduct a dialogue between themselves.

    It is plainly evident that the one depends upon the other: The juxtaposition of the prayer of an ordinary individual to the prayer of the early pietists indicates that the two prayers are close in nature. Between the two aggadic-pietist mishnayot at the beginning and the end of the chapter, lie the halakhic mishnayot which comprise the main body of the chapter.

    The literary connections between m. According to him, there is sort of a contradiction between these two mishnayot, for had the halakhic author of m. According to Frankel, the role of the aggadah here, as in many places in the Mishnah and the Talmud, is to challenge the halakhah and demonstrate its limitations.

    Here too the aggadah demands that in addition to practical thinking about the need for precision in prayer, one must contemplate the spiritual depth of faulty articulation of the prayers.

    Whereas the connections between m. Two of the four blessings mentioned in m. This one will live and this one will die. The contents of the prayer in m. The centrality of these motifs in prayer is also reflected in other mishnayot in the chapter. One who does not interrupt his prayer even for a king or a snake m. The disqualified prayer formulas in m.

    In this way all the mishnayot in the chapter draw a connection between the consciousness of prayer and its words and contents, and between them and two existential needs upon which prayer focuses: These needs find expression in the blessings and additions listed in m. And he [who is asked to serve as the replacement] should not [courteously] refuse at such a time. Tuesday, December 2, , marks the third annual GivingTuesday, a day where charities, families, businesses, community centers, and students around the world will come together for one common purpose: Drisha is celebrating GivingTuesday for a whole month, Thanksgiving through Channukah!

    If you would like, email an unselfie to inquiry drisha. What Are We Doing? An invitation to members of the community to learn more about hunger and food insecurity in the United States, to consider our responsibilities toward those in need, and to find out what we can do to help. Some of these programs — such as food stamps now called SNAP — may be familiar to you. A Place at the Table This documentary film examines the issue of hunger and food insecurity through the stories of three people: Barbie, a single Philadelphia mother who grew up in poverty and is trying to provide a better life for her two children; Rosie, a Colorado second-grader who often has to depend on friends and neighbors to feed her and has trouble concentrating in school; and Tremonica, a Mississippi second-grader whose asthma and health issues are exacerbated by the largely empty calories her hardworking mother can afford.

    Their stories are interwoven with insights from experts, activists, and concerned citizens.

    Is it not logical that he who gives precedence to the wine over the day should also give precedence to the wine over the food, and vice versa? Some propose that the mishnah cites anonymously the positions of two conflicting Tannaim. The contents of the prayer in m. Mishnah 3 One who says [to Hashem]: The dynamics of a meal eaten in the framework of a havurah work differently.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *