ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafBerachos 33
(a) Snakes, unlike scorpions, will not attack unless they are threatened.
Consequently, if one continues Davening, the snake will just leave without
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
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
(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
(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
'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
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'
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.
(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
(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.