Commentary for Berakhot 103:30

R' YEHOSHUA, WHO SAID [THAT] ONE DISREGARDS A HEAVENLY VOICE. It appears that R’ Yehoshua holds, that one may never follow a heavenly voice. And if you ask: if so, that this Braiso follows the opinion of R’ Yehoshua that we do not pay attention to a heavenly voice, there is a contradiction between rulings. For in that story of R’ Yehoshua by the oven of the snake,¹The Gemara in Bovo M’tzee’o refers to the debate about a particular oven as תנור עכנאי the oven of the snake, because they surrounded the oven with many halochos as a snake wraps itself around its victim. we rule like R’ Yehoshua and we do not follow the heavenly voice that said the ruling is in accordance with R’ Eliezer, and we rule that the halochoh is always in accordance with Bais Hilel following that heavenly voice. In one instance we rule like the heavenly voice and in the other we don’t.
Tosfos says that there is a difference in what the heavenly vopice is telling us. And we can answer: that exclusively there by the oven of the snake it was said that we do not pay attention to a heavenly voice because the heavenly voice was ruling against the majority, and the Torah has already taught us that we do rule according to the majority. Since the heavenly voice was inconsistent with the ruling of the Torah we do not follow it. However, Bais Hilel is the majority and the heavenly voice that said to follow them is consistent with the rules of the Torah, so we do follow that heavenly voice.
Since there is an essential difference between the two heavenly voices, why does the Gemara cite R’ Yehoshua’s opinion about the heavenly voice in regard to the oven in our Gemara where the subject is a heavenly voice that is consistent with the ruling of the Torah about following a majority? Even though the Gemara cites R’ Yehoshua here, even though this case is not similar to the case of the oven of the snake because there it was different, and R’ Yehoshua holds that the reason we do not follow the heavenly voice there is because the heavenly voice was against the majority, but he would agree that we follow the heavenly voice here when it concurs with the majority.²In five places elsewhere in Shas, (see M’sores Hashas for all the places in Shas where this issue is discussed) Tosfos says that although R’ Yehoshua was referring to the heavenly voice that defended R’ Eliezer, which was ruling against the majority and he could hold that we follow a heavenly voice that rules in favor of the majority, since R’ Yehoshua uses the expression “it is not in heaven”, it appears that R’ Yehoshua holds that we never follow a heavenly voice. That is why the Gemara consistently presents R’ Yehoshua as the one who holds that we do no follow a heavenly voice at all. One must speculate why Tosfos here seem to choose a different path for the resolution of this problem. Especially since Tosfos does not really seem to answer his original question. Tosfos initially asked why is R’ Yehoshua mentioned in our Gemara, since he conceivably holds that we follow a heavenly voice that is consistent with the majority? Tosfos answers that the Tano of the Braiso maintains a stronger position than R’ Yehoshua in his rejection of heavenly voices. This does not truly answer the question. We should still ask: why is R’ Yehoshua mentioned at all? It is not his position that is being taught in the Braiso. Perhaps Tosfos holds that the Gemara would not present an opinion of a Tano that flatly rejects any heavenly voice at all, unless we are already aware that R’ Yehoshua rejects a heavenly voice when it rules against the majority. Once we are aware that R’ Yehoshua holds that there are at least some heavenly voices that we need not pay heed, we can then take the next step of saying that a Tano holds that we need not pay attention to any heavenly voice. However, this Tano, of the Braiso quoted in our Gemara, is stronger than R’ Yehoshua in his rejection of heavenly voices for he says that we do not pay attention to a heavenly voice even when the majority supports the heavenly voice, because the scholars of Bais Shamai were sharper than Bais Hilel and that may overrule the majority.
And if you ask: why is there a distinction, that for kidush and havdoloh we first recite the b’rochoh on wine and then the kidush or havdoloh, and for birchas hamozon, we do not recite the b’rochoh on wine until after we recite the three b’rochos of birchas hamozon?
And we can answer: that to recite the b’rochoh on the wine before birchas hamozon would present a problem, for how could we do this? Assume we were to rule that one recites the b’rochoh on wine before the birchas hamozon, if so; the birchas hamozon would constitute elimination of intent to drink the wine, since he is in the midst of reciting a b’rochoh that signifies the cessation of a meal. For it is readily understood by other b’rochos, such as kidush and havdoloh, the one reciting the b’rochoh has not withdrawn himself from drinking by reciting the kidush or havdoloh after the b’rochoh on wine, for when reciting kidush he still wants to eat, but he must recite kidush in order to eat. The kidush is therefore not viewed as an interruption between the b’rochoh on wine and the drinking. And when reciting havdoloh he wants to drink but cannot do so until he recites havdoloh, but by birchas hamozon he withdraws himself from drinking because the birchas hamozon is by definition the conclusion of a meal. The reciting of the birchas hamozon between the b’rochoh on wine and the drinking of the wine, is an interruption.

HE LEAVES IT FOR AFTER THE MEAL By saying that we leave the cup of wine, to be used later for reciting the birchas hamozon on the wine, we are in effect saying that you can eat a meal before reciting havdoloh. This seems to cpontradict another Gemara that relates to this issue. Here it appears that one may¹From our Gemara it is evident that one may eat a complete meal before havdoloh. Tosfos uses the word לטעום, which implies a small bite or a snack. The use of this word is because the Gemara in Psochim that discusses the issue uses this word because eon the negative side, it is forbidden even to taste something, not only to eat a meal. eat before havdoloh, because we see that the Braiso says that when one only has one cup of wine, he should eat his meal and use the wine for havdoloh and birchas hamozon. It is evident that one may eat before birchas hamozon.
This is bewildering. We learned that Amaimar בת טוות (P’sochim 107a) this means that he spent the night in hunger because he had no wine upon which to recite havdoloh. It is evident that one may not eat or drink if he did not yet recite havdoloh. And one can answer: that the story of Amaimar is different than the Braiso we are presently learning. For he, Amaimar expected that he would have a cup of wine the next day. Since he expected his situation to change the next day and he would be able to fulfill the mitzvoh of havdoloh on a cup of wine, he was not allowed to eat. Or Amaimar was being stringent upon himself.
And here in our Gemara it, the situation, is different. When one comes home from Shul Saturday night and finds that he only has one cup of wine available and no reasonable expectation that the situation will change by tomorrow since he, the Tano of the Braiso holds that birchas hamozon requires a cup of wine, he must make a decision based on the situation as it is now, since it will most likely not change. Whenever he eats his meal, even if he puts it off for tomorrow, he will not have a cup of wine for the birchas hamozon. He does have wine now that can be used for havdoloh and birchas hamozon, it is therefore better to eat first so that the wine can be used for birchas hamozon and havdoloh and not to first recite havdoloh on the wine and then have no wine for birchas hamozon. And therefore, he leaves it, the wine for birchas hamozon, when he can fulfill both mitzvos over a cup of wine. Whereas in the case of Amaimar there was the expectation that the situation would improve the next day and he would have wine for havdoloh, he needs to wait for the next day and avoid eating before havdoloh. See Rosh.

ONE WHO TASTED [THE CUP OF WINE] DISQUALIFIED IT. One who tastes wine in a cup renders the remainder blemished. To what degree is I blemished is Tosfos discussion. Rashbam explained, that it is only for kidush and havdoloh that it is required that the cup not be blemished, but for drinking, one is required to recite a b’rochoh even though it, the cup is blemished, because it is forbidden to benefit from this world without reciting a b’rochoh.
And as far as kidush and havdoloh as well, we have not said that the cup cannot be blemished, only when there is a possibility of using some other cup. But if it is impossible to find another cup that is not blemished, one recites the b’rochoh of kidush and havdoloh even upon a blemished cup. And he puts some water into the cup, so that it will appear to be unblemished. As it is stated in Yerushalmee: R” Yonoh tasted the cup and he corrected it by adding water or wine and the explanation is that after he drank from it he added a drop of water or wine to correct it and then he would recite havdoloh or kidush upon it.

When it interferes with a discussion of Halakah; see Bab. Mesia' 59 b.

By giving it precedence over the benediction over wine.

I.e. after the meal, over the cup of wine he says Grace, the benediction over the wine, light, spices and Habdalah, the last-named corresponding to "the benediction of the day." Consequently "the benediction of the day" comes last and not first as was stated above.

On the next folio, p. 337, it is stated that according to R. Meir, the point at issue is not the order of light and spices, but the benediction over the food ; consequently the quoted Baraita could be Bet Hillel's teaching.

To connect the Baraita with our Mishnah.

The Mishnah places the benediction over food, according to both Schools, in the middle, whereas the Baraita allows it to come first. We have, therefore, to depend upon the difference of the two Schools in the version of R. Judah, viz. the order of light and spices, according to which the Baraita agrees with Bet Shammai.

According to the Mishnah, Bet Shammai require the benediction over the day before that over the wine ; but according to the Baraita (which it is concluded emanates from Bet Shammai) the benediction over the wine precedes the Habdalah.

The advent is marked by the benediction over the day, therefore it should come first, and it is to that the Mishnah refers.

The conclusion is marked by the Habdalah and should come last. Since the baraita refers to the conclusion of the holy day, it does not conflict with the Mishnah.

The Barita stated : "Should he have only one cup of wine, he leaves it until after the meal and combines all [the benedictions] afterwards," i.e. wine is required for Grace. But according to the Mishnah, if wine is brought to the man after he has eaten, so that he has not yet said a benediction over wine, he does so over this cup, drinks it and then says Grace; therefore wine is not essential for the Grace.

I.e. dips his finger in the wine, which he then puts to his mouth.

According to the Tanna of the Mishnah, i.e. R. Judah, Bet Shammai require wine for Grace ; but R. Hiyya understands them as not requiring it.

Liquid is the conductor of defilement for food ; cf. Lev. xi. 34.

Without the medium of a liquid; so why this fear?

Contracting defilement from something else.

Even if the hands are not moist.

Unless it be unclean in the first degree.