Commentary for Berakhot 61:31

HE BOUGHT A CUP OF WHITE GLASS. The Gemara relates that at the wedding of Rav Ashee’s son, Rav Ashee saw that the students were getting a bit too happy. He brought a very expensive cup and broke it in front of them in order to stem the overflow of happiness. From here, it became customary to break a cup at a wedding. This custom remains with us till today

ONE WHO LETS BLOOD FROM A CONSECRATED ANIMAL. And this is difficult, for the Gemara says in the third perek of Avodoh Zoroh (44a) in regard to sacrificial blood offered on the outer altar and sacrificial blood offered on the inner altar, of the sacrifices, that both these of the inner altar and those of the outer altar are sold to gardeners as fertilizer. We see that there is no m’eelah penalty for using their blood and our Gemara says that benefiting from the blood of bloodletting does carry a m’eelah penalty?
And we can answer: that there in Avodoh Zoroh where the Gemara says there is no M’eeloh that is after sprinkling of the blood on the altar, and the owners of the sacrifice have already been absolved.¹It seems from this Tosfos that prior to the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, if one benefits from the blood he is subject to the m’eeloh penalty. This is contradictory to the Gemara in Yomo 59b. See הרועים מלא in the back of the Gemara for further discussion on this matter. Once the absolution has been accomplished there is no m’eeloh. This is not so here. The absolution has not yet been accomplished and blood removed from the animal by bloodletting prior to the sprinkling of the blood is subject to the m’eeloh penalty.

THE SAGES ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR MISHNA. There are three sources on this issue. Our Mishna says that we may only pray when we are in submissive mode. The first Braiso quoted in the Gemara says that we must pray only after discussing an absolute halochoh. The second Braiso quoted in the Gemara says that we may pray only after rejoicing of mitzvoh. When our Gemara says that the Rabanan did as the Mishna rules and Rav Ashee did as the Braiso rules, it indicates that there is a dispute between the Mishna and the first Braiso. The Gemara never mentions that there is any dispute between our Mishna and the second Braiso that says we must be involved with rejoicing of mitzvoh when we are about to pray. And the halochoh is like them, the Rabanan who did as it says in the Mishna, that one must be in a submissive frame of mind when he begins praying.
And therefore we do not pray when in a mood of lightheadedness and laughter, only when in a mood of submissiveness¹This is the frame of mind required by our Mishna. and joy of mitzvoh,²This is the requirement of the second Braiso. מגיד תעלומה says that Tosfos obviously holds that there is no conflict between our Mishna and the second Braiso. for example, when occupied in words of Torah. And therefore it is customary to recite the verses of song (T’hilim 146-150) and ashray (psalms 145) before prayer.³See Shulchon Oruch 93, 1, 2, 3, who quotes the Mishna and both Braisos. It seems that he holds that there is no conflict between them.

RAV ASHI ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BARAITA. Yerushalmee says: one should stand up to pray only from the study of halochoh. This Braiso seems to be the same as the one Rav Ashee follows in our Gemara. R’ Yirmiyoh said, one who is occupied with the needs of the public is equivalent to one who is occupied with the study of Torah.¹See מעדני יום טוב to Rosh simon 2, 200, who offers two explanations of this Yerushalmee. It may mean that one who is occupied with needs of the public is equal to the study of Torah and he may immediately begin to pray, because that is joy of a mitzvoh. A second explanation is that one who is occupied with public works need not pray at all.

AS WE FOUND IN [THE BOOKS OF] THE EARLY PROPHETS, THEY WOULD CONCLUDE THEIR TALKS WITH WORDS OF PRAISE AND CONSOLATION. The Gemara says that the prophets all concluded their books with words of praise and consolation. Upon a closer examination we see that this requires some explaining.
There is a bit of confusion about the various verses quoted in Yerushalmee. We will attempt to straighten them out to the best of our ability. The last chapter in Yirmiyah describes the vents of the destruction of the Temple and concludes with the improvement of prison conditions of King Yehoyochin. That is neither praise or consolation. And Yerushalmee asks: with the exception of Yirmiyoh etc.? Tosfos does not tell us the answer to this question. Yerushalmee says that in the preceding chapter 51, Yirmiyoh concludes with the sentence ככה תשקע בבל predicting the end of Babylonia which is a consolation for us who suffered so much at the hands of the Babylonians. At the end of that verse the posuk writes עד הנה דברי ירמיהו until this point are the words of Yirmiyoh. We see that Yirmiyoh’s prophecy ends in chapter Chapter 52 is merely a continuation of the narrative of the events pertaining to the destruction
Tosfos now quotes another question from Yerushalmee, which also discusses a book by Yirmiyoh, the book of Lamantations. Tosfos does not mention that Yerushalmee also asked about the conclusion of Isaiah. But it is written at the end of Lamentations, Chapter 5, 22, For even if You have utterly rejected us, You have already raged sufficiently against us. Once again Tosfos does not tell us Yerushalmee’s answer. Yerushamee says: the verse השיבנו is in place of כי אם מאוס מאסתנו. Some are of the opinion that this refers to the fact that after the last verse we repeat השיבנו. The פירוש מבעל ספר חרדים says that the last verse is the reason for השיבנו. The Prophet is saying that You have utterly rejected us and we still remain your people and do not stray to strange Gods. For this reason we will merit that You will return us to You. According to this understanding the conclusion of Lamentations is השיבנו, the last verse is only explaining why we can be sure that this will eventually happen.
However, from those verses at the end of the Twelve Prophets¹The last words of the Twelve Prophets are discussing how Hashem will send Elijah the prophet to instruct us on returning to Hashem. The very last words are “lest I come and strike the land with destruction”. These words per se are speaking of destruction but within the context of the verse that Hashem is sending Elijah to instruct us to return to Hashem in order to avoid this destruction, the verse itself is not something bad. Rather, it is consolation in the sense that we will on fact be instructed to return to Hashem and we will merit the ultimate redemption. and Koheles,²The last verse in Koheles reads as follows: For G-d will judge every deed – even everything hidden – whether good or evil. This verse on the surface seems not to be praise of Hashem or consolation for the Jewish people. It is a statement of the human condition. That man will eventually be judged for all his deeds in this world. It is very puzzling that Tosfos says that the conclusion of the Twelve Prophets and Koheles can be interpreted as evil for the idolaters. There seems to be no reference in theses verses to the idolaters at all. In the sefer עשרה מאמרותof the Rama of Pano, a great Kabbalist, he explains how each of these verses can be understood as positive and uplifting and worthy of being used for the conclusion of a sefer. the Yerushalmee does not ask at all, that they seem to be a contradiction to the statement that the prophets concluded their prophecy with words of praise and consolation. Because the Yerushalmee considers those verses as speaking of good, and as words of consolation, and they are not discussing punishment of Yisroel.

AND FIND HIM IN ANOTHER CORNER. The Gemara says that when R’ Akeevo prayed privately, if you left him in one corner of the room at the end of his prayers you found him in the other corner. Why? He bowed and prostrated himself many times during his prayer. Tosfos searches for the Halachic basis for so excessive bowing and prostrating. This is bewildering, for the Gemara says later (34a) that one who comes to bow at the end of each and every b’rochoh as an expression of his piety and submissiveness to Hashem, we teach him that he should not bow, because the Rabanan instituted bowing only at the beginning and end of the first b’rachoh and at the beginning and end of Modim. If so, how did R’ Akeevos bow so excessively. And Horav Yosaif answered that here referring to R’ Akeevo’s bowing we are speaking of the pleas he was saying after the eighteen b’rochos. After one concludes the regular eighteen b’rochos he may plea to Hashem for whatever else he needs and during those pleas he may bow and prostate himself even excessively.
Tosfos is not satisfied with this explanation. And this answer is not clear, for it seems that his that his excessive bowing took place during the eighteen b’rochos. And it appears to R’I that it is certainly forbidden to bow at the end of each b’rochoh, but in the middle of the b’rocho it is permissible to bow. And that is what the Gemara is discussing here in the story about R’ Akeevo. He bowed excessively during the middle section of each and every b’rochoh And when he reached the conclusion of each b’rochoh, he straightened himself for the conclusion of the b’rochoh.
And it is for this reason that it has become the universal custom on Rosh Hashonoh and Yom Kipur that when they pray זכרנו and ובכן תן and ותמלוך, they bow when they reach the verses and at the end of each b’rochoh they straighten themselves for one is not allowed to bow at the conclusion of a b’rochoh, only where the Rabanan instituted that one must bow there. Otherwise it is prohibited.

You might ask for your needs- for example the brachot of אתה חונן until שומע תפילה and afterwards pray the first three brachot that are praise.

See p. 182 n. 2.

M. omits: the Small.

From the punishment meted oat to the wicked after death.

The above passages reflect the condition of mourning in which the Jews considered themselves to be after the overthrow of Temple and State.

Because his mind would not be settled.

Corn must be winnowed before it becomes liable to the tithe. If unwinnowed, cattle may feed on it, but it may not be used for human consumption, without the tithe.

M.: Ze'iri.

Having committed me'ilah (see Lev. v. 15f.) because, being a non-priest, he utilised something that belonged to the Sanctuary.

I.e. only permit one to pray in a serious frame of mind.

I.e. permitted one to pray after discussing a Halakah which has been decided.

So M. correctly. Edd. : grandson of.

M.: Huna.

Lit. "mouth of the river"; a fertile region near Nehardea; Neubauer, pp. 366 f.

Lit. "between the palms" is, says Neubauer, loc. cit., probably the first halting-place in Babylonia proper.

He means to imply that Adam decreed that those palms should grow there.

According to Hyman, iii. p. 903a (see the parallel passage in Sotah 46b), this is the correct reading, not Rab Shimi b. Asbe as in edd.

Possibly the town Agranum, situated on one of the tributaries of the Euphrates; Neubauer, p. 347. Wiesner, p. 71, identifies it with the modern Erzerum.

Perhaps identical with the locality of Koufa in Babylon ; Neubauer, loc. cit. According to Wiesner, loc. cit., it is Mt Capotes near which the Euphrates has its source.

A Babylonian locality in the neighbourhood of the last-mentioned place. There appears to be a lacuna in the text here, relating what happened on that occasion.

See p. 194 n. 4.

By detaining them. They would not resume the Service until the Rabbi had finished his Tefillah, and some of them might want to hurry away to their work.

Singer, p. 42, i.e. between the Ge'ullah and Tefillah. See especially p. 56 n. 7.

Singer, pp. 258 ff., and compare fol. 17a, p. 109.

Singer, p. 49, "Hear our voice."