Ner or Besamim First?

Note: Not intended as halacha lemaaseh.

The standard halacha is that during havdalah, we first bless on the besamim and afterwards on the ner. This despite the fact that the Mishna in Berachot 51b lists ner before besamim, both according to Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai. Rather, we rule in accordance with a brayta that has Bet Hillel put the besamim before the ner.

I would like to reexamine that decision.

One major source to that effect is in Berachot 52b, where we have a maaseh rav:

בש"א נר ומזון וכו':
רב הונא בר יהודה איקלע לבי רבא חזייה לרבא דבריך אבשמים ברישא
א"ל מכדי ב"ש וב"ה אמאור לא פליגי דתניא בש"א נר ומזון בשמים והבדלה ובה"א נר ובשמים מזון והבדלה
עני רבא בתריה זו דברי ר"מ אבל ר' יהודה אומר לא נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה על המזון שהוא בתחלה ועל הבדלה שהיא בסוף על מה נחלקו על המאור ועל הבשמים שבש"א על המאור ואח"כ בשמים ובה"א בשמים ואח"כ מאור
וא"ר יוחנן נהגו העם כב"ה אליבא דרבי יהודה

"Bet Shammai say: ner and mazon...":
Rav Huna bar Yehuda visited the house of Rava. He saw Rava bless on the besamim first.
He {Rav Huna bar Yehuda} said to him: Let us see. Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not argue regarding the light, for they learn {in a brayta}: Bet Shammai say: ner and mazon, besamim and havdalah. And Bet Hillel say ner and besamim, mazon and havdalah.
Rava answered after him: These are the words of Rabbi Meir, but Rabbi Yehuda says: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not argue regarding the mazon that it is first and regarding the havdalah that it is last. On what do they argue? On the light and on the besamim. That Bet Shammai say: on the light and afterwards on the besamim. And Bet Hillel say: On the besamim and afterwards on the light.
And Rabbi Yochanan said: The people are accustomed to act like Bet Hillel according to Rabbi Yehuda.

When Rif cites this, instead of having וא"ר יוחנן, he just has א"ר יוחנן. This could make some sort of difference, since with the vav it seems part of Rava's answer, and supports this position in the brayta. But without the vav, it could stand on its own.

This makes a difference because it is unclear that Rabbi Yochanan is actually supporting Rava. This is because in Eretz Yisrael, they had a different version of the brayta according to Rabbi Yehuda, in which the positions of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai are reversed. In Yerushalmi Berachot 60a:

תני אמר ר' יהודא לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על המזון שהוא בתחילה ועל הבדלה שהיא בסוף ועל מה נחלקו על המאור ועל הבשמים שבית שמאי אומרים בשמים ומאור. ובית הלל אומרים מאור ובשמים.

רבי בא ורב יהודא בשם רב הלכה כדברי מי שאומר בשמים ואחר כך מאור

Thus, according to this brayta according to Rabbi Yehuda, Bet Hillel maintains that one should bless on the lamp before blessing on the besamim, and Bet Shammai holds otherwise. Now, Rabbi Yochanan is saying that "The people are accustomed to act like Bet Hillel according to Rabbi Yehuda." But according to which version of Rabbi Yehuda's brayta?

It stands to reason that it is the version of the brayta which is found in the Yerushalmi, for that is the location of Rabbi Yochanan. This is the brayta he is reacting to, and when he says "the people are accustomed," he is talking about the custom of the people in Eretz Yisrael, who he witnessed.

Rif (see Rif in Berachot 38b and 39a, in pages of Rif), in his discussion of the brayta in Yerushalmi, says that for various reasons we do not rely on the Yerushalmi's version. But I would take issue with this for the aforementioned reason -- Rabbi Yochanan is stating the halacha, and the halacha is presumably based on the brayta which was before him.

Now, as we have seen, we have Rav in the Yerushalmi say explicitly, like Rava in Bavli, that the halacha is like the one who says besamim and afterwards maor.

However, should we rule like Rav? We have a general principle of horaah that in case of dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yochanan, we rule like Rabbi Yochanan. Thus, we should rule like him here. Indeed, even Rava does not cite Rav in deciding the halacha here, but rather cites the statement of Rabbi Yochanan.

(It is a curious point that the Bavli bases itself on Rabbi Yochanan, an Amora from Eretz Yisrael, while the Yerushalmi bases itself on Rav Yehuda citing Rav, both Babylonian Amoraim -- though it also has Rabbi Bo -- whether Rabbi Bo is stating this himself or citing Rav is another issue.)

Let us further examine Rav Yehuda amar Rav's statement in Yerushalmi. He says הלכה כדברי מי שאומר בשמים ואחר כך מאור. Why not say that the halacha is like Bet Shammai according to Rabbi Yehuda's brayta, in a statement roughly parallel to that of Rabbi Yochanan? That would be the more usual formulation. Or say that the halacha is besamim and afterwards maor. Instead, הלכה כדברי מי שאומר together with the position gives the impression that it is a dispute as to who says what, and so we identify the person with whom we rule based on the contents of the position.

It could be that Rav is shy in stating that we rule like Bet Shammai. And yet it is also strange -- why in the world do we rule like Bet Shammai here, which we do not do in general. It could also be that Rav was aware of both versions of this brayta. After all, he was an Amora of Bavel who traveled to learn in Eretz Yisrael, and thus would be familiar with both traditions. As a result, he would encounter the aforementioned brayta as cited in Yerushalmi. He would realize that he could not say that the halacha is like Bet Hillel according to Rabbi Yehuda, for that would only work for the brayta in Bavel. And he could not say that the halacha is like Bet Shammai according to Rabbi Yehuda, for besides raising questions, it would only make sense to someone with the brayta in Eretz Yisrael. Yet, he maintains the integrity of the brayta in Bavel, and so wishes to rule like Rabbi Yehuda over Rabbi Meir, and like Bet Hillel over Bet Shammai. Since there is this dispute, he does not wish to be misunderstood by any audience, so he identifies the position rather than the person. Thus, רבי בא ורב יהודא בשם רב הלכה כדברי מי שאומר בשמים ואחר כך מאור.

Indeed, this is our Babylonian brayta. We have it cited as such in the setama digmara, we have it cited as such by Rava, and we find it as such in Tosefta Berachot 5:31:

א"ר יהודה לא נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה על ברהמ"ז שבתחלה ועל הבדלה שבסוף ועל מה נחלקו על המאור ועל הבשמים שב"ש אומרים על המאור ואח"כ [בשמים] ובית הלל אומרים בשמים ואח"כ מאור

However, we still may well be faced with Rava's possible misunderstanding. Rava knew the Babylonian brayta, and knew Rabbi Yochanan's statement. Rabbi Yochanan did not know the Babylonian variant and thus did not take's Rav's precautionary formulation. Therefore, Rava applied Rabbi Yochanan and the brayta and arrived at the order of besamim and then maor.

Now, this is a maaseh rav, an actual incident in which an Amora acted practically, and that should trump all else. And Rava is later than both Rav and Rabbi Yochanan, and his position as batrai should trump whatever they say. However, if we establish that Rava was acting on a misunderstanding, then we should not rely on the maaseh rav.

And don't tell me that Rava can rely on Rav's position, firstly because he did not cite Rav's position but rather that of Rabbi Yochanan, secondly because the Bavli does not cite Rav's position but all we have is Rabbi Yochanan, and finally because in a dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yochanan, we rule like Rabbi Yochanan.

Indeed, Rava's actions seem like a novelty. For Rav Huna bar Yehuda was surprised to see him act in this way, and began to ask from the Mishna. Now, havdalah is performed every single week. Why is he surprised now. It must be that at home, and elsewhere, he was accustomed to see people act like the Mishna, which was to have the maor before the besamim. And this would then establish a popular Babylonian custom in accordance with the popular Eretz-Yisraelite custom, to which Rabbi Yochanan testified when he said nahagu ha`am like Bet Hillel according to Rabbi Yehuda.

By the way, if it indeed is Bet Shammai's position, we should not hold like it. As we say in proximity (beforehand) in Berachot:

Mishna:
BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT [AFTER THE MEAL] THE FLOOR IS SWEPT BEFORE THE WASHING OF THE HANDS,
WHILE BETH HILLEL SAY THAT [THE DINERS] WASH THEIR HANDS AND THEN THE FLOOR IS SWEPT.

Gemara:
What is the reason of Bet Shammai?
Because of pieces {crumbs of bread}.
And Bet Hillel holds: here we are dealing with an attendant who is a scholar, who leaves alone pieces less than an olive's measure, and takes away pieces which have in it an olive's measure.

This supports Rabbi Yochanan, who says that pieces that do not have in them an olive's measure, one is permitted to destroy them by hand.

In what do they argue?

Bet Shammai hold it is permitted to make use of an attendant who is an ignoramus, and Bet Hillel holds it is forbidden to make use of an attendant who is an ignoramus.

Rabbi Yitzchak son of Rabbi Chanina cited Rav Huna: In all chapters the halacha is like Bet Hillel, with the exception of this one, where the halacha is like Bet Shammai.

Regardless of all of the above, perhaps we can ignore both Rabbi Yochanan and Rav and look just to the brayta. If the other position is that of Rabbi Meir, and these braytot are like Rabbi Yehuda, we should rule like Rabbi Yehuda. And within Rabbi Yehuda, in a dispute between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel, we should rule like Bet Hillel.

However, there is a disagreement about the girsa of the brayta, and thus as to the actual respective positions of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai. But, one is a Bavli and one is a Yerushalmi, and we might bring to bear the sources that argue that we rule in favor of Bavli over Yerushalmi. That is usually in terms of Talmud, rather than brayta, and the reasons might not be applicable. For example, saying that the chatimat haBavli was later than Yerushalmi, so the Amoraim of Bavel saw the Yerushalmi and decided against it, may simply not work by parallel Toseftas.

We generally have a Bavli bias, and that may be enough. Add to it that Rava explicitly rules like this. Add that the setama digemara earlier (previous amud) also makes use of our Babylonian Tosefta. And add the weight of centuries upon centuries of Jewish practice, such that we have our own nahagu haAm.

Still, another way of evaluating the merits of the two girsaot of the brayta is to see how is performs in context. And "unfortunately" for us, it turns out that if we take the Yerushalmi's version of the brayta and import it to our local Bavli Berachot, it solves a number of difficulties, which the setama digemara grapples with and resolves in a fairly unsatisfactory way. We now turn to consider our local gemara and its problems, and see how importing this girsa of the brayta will solve the problems more elegantly.


The Mishna states {Berachot 51b}:

ב"ש אומרים נר ומזון בשמים והבדלה וב"ה אומרים נר ובשמים מזון והבדלה

BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT [THE PROPER ORDER IS] LIGHT, GRACE, SPICES, AND HABDALAH,
WHILE BETH HILLEL SAY: LIGHT, SPICES, GRACE, AND HABDALAH

The gemara cites a brayta which explains the respective reasonings of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai of the Mishna:

תנו רבנן דברים שבין ב"ש וב"ה בסעודה ב"ש אומרים מברך על היום ואח"כ מברך על היין שהיום גורם ליין שיבא וכבר קדש היום ועדיין יין לא בא וב"ה אומרים מברך על היין ואח"כ מברך על היום שהיין גורם לקדושה שתאמר דבר אחר ברכת היין תדירה וברכת היום אינה תדירה תדיר ושאינו תדיר תדיר קודם והלכה כדברי ב"ה

Our Rabbis taught: The points of difference between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel in relation to a meal are as follows: Beth Shammai say that the blessing is first said over the [sanctity of] the day and then over the wine, because it is on account of the day that the wine is used, and [moreover] the day has already become holy before the wine has been brought. Beth Hillel say that a blessing is said over the wine first and then over the day, because the wine provides the occasion for saying a benediction. Another explanation is that the blessing over wine is said regularly while the blessing of the day is said only at infrequent intervals, and that which comes regularly always has precedence over that which comes infrequently. The halachah is as laid down by Beth Hillel.

This establishes that Bet Hillel holds that the wine has precedence over the day (because of being more frequent), while Bet Shammai hold that the day has precedence over the wine.

The gemara objects to this, based on a brayta. Berachot 52a:

וסברי בית שמאי דברכת היום עדיפא
והתניא הנכנס לביתו במוצאי שבת מברך על היין ועל המאור ועל הבשמים ואחר כך אומר הבדלה ואם אין לו אלא כוס אחד מניחו לאחר המזון ומשלשלן כולן לאחריו

But do Beth Shammai hold that the blessing over the day is more important, seeing that it has been taught:
'When one goes into his house on the outgoing of Sabbath, he says blessings over wine and light and spices and then he says the habdalah [benediction]. If he has only one cup, he keeps it for after the meal and then says the other blessings in order after it?'

According to this brayta, by saying havdalah last, he is thus putting the day after the wine!
Now, this brayta is anonymous, and might either represent the view of Bet Shammai or of Bet Hillel. Indeed, is it not strange to have an anonymous brayta in accordance with Bet Shammai?

Indeed, the setama digmara raises this objection. It states:

והא ממאי דב"ש היא דלמא ב"ה היא
לא ס"ד דקתני
מאור ואח"כ בשמים ומאן שמעת ליה דאית ליה האי סברא ב"ש דתניא א"ר יהודה לא נחלקו בית שמאי וב"ה על המזון שבתחלה ועל הבדלה שהיא בסוף על מה נחלקו על המאור ועל הבשמים ב"ש אומרים מאור ואחר כך בשמים וב"ה אומרים בשמים ואחר כך מאור

But how do you know that this represents the view of Beth Shammai? Perhaps it represents the view of Beth Hillel? — Do not imagine such a thing. For it mentions first light and then spices; and who is it that we understand to hold this view? Beth Shammai, as it has been taught: R. Judah says: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel concurred in holding that the grace after food comes first and the habdalah [benediction] last. In regard to what did they differ? In regard to the light and the spices, Beth Shammai holding that light should come first and then spices, and Beth Hillel that spices should come first and then light.

Thus, we establish the anonymous brayta as the view of Bet Shammai, according to Rabbi Yehuda.

But, at this very point, we may highlight that this is only if you have the brayta as found in the Babylonian Tosefta, as Rava had. But, if you have the brayta as given over in the Yerushalmi, then the positions of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai are reversed, so first light and then spices is Bet Hillel according to Rabbi Yehuda, and so we cannot establish that Bet Shammai is the Tanna of the anonymous brayta which put wine first and havdalah last. Therefore, the brayta is no proof that Bet Shammai would put wine before havdalah, and thus wine before day. Therefore, we may well say that Bet Shammai in general holds that day in general is preferable to wine, while it is Bet Hillel who say that wine is preferable to day.

I am operating here based on the assumptions the setama digmara is making. There are more general issues about all this which I shall discuss later.

Instead of giving the aforementioned answer, our gemara is trapped into establishing that this anonymous brayta is the opinion of Bet Shammai, and according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Therefore, it objects. We saw later, from a named Amora, Rava, that this is a matter of dispute (as in our Mishna) between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir as to the nature of the dispute between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai. Perhaps we should establish this anonymous brayta according to Bet Hillel, according to Rabbi Meir of the Mishna.

וממאי דבית שמאי היא ואליבא דרבי יהודה דילמא בית הילל היא ואליבא דרבי מאיר
לא ס"ד דקתני הכא במתניתין
בית שמאי אומרים נר ומזון בשמים והבדלה ובית הלל אומרים נר ובשמים מזון והבדלה והתם בברייתא קתני אם אין לו אלא כוס אחד מניחו לאחר המזון ומשלשלן כולן לאחריו
שמע מינה דבית שמאי היא ואליבא דרבי יהודה

And how do you know that this represents the view of Beth Shammai as reported by R. Judah? Perhaps it represents the view of Beth Hillel as reported by R. Meir!
Do not imagine such a thing. For it states here, BETH SHAMMAI SAY, LIGHT, GRACE AND SPICES, AND HABDALAH; WHILE BETH HILLEL SAY LIGHT, SPICES, GRACE, AND HABDALAH, and there in the Baraitha it says, 'If he has only one cup he keeps it for grace and says the others in order after it'. This shows that it represents the view of Beth Shammai as reported by R. Judah.

Thus, in the Mishna, which is Rabbi Meir, we have LIGHT, SPICES, GRACE, AND HABDALAH, while the anonymous brayta maintains the aforementioned order, that is the order in the anonymous brayta but after GRACE, which would then be GRACE, WINE, LIGHT, SPICES, HAVDALAH. This would then have GRACE in the wrong place. Thus, we do not establish the anonymous brayta like our Mishna, which is Rabbi Meir, but rather like Rabbi Yehuda, and it is the opinion of Bet Shammai.

Again, if we follow Yerushalmi, then this anonymous brayta may be that of Bet Hillel according to Rabbi Yehuda, so we have no problem. However, since in our gemara hold that the anonymous brayta is the position of Bet Shammai according to Rabbi Yehuda, we have evidence that Bet Shammai maintains a precedence for wine before havdalah, which has to do with the sanctity of the day.

The gemara gives a harmonization to this difficulty:

In any case there is a difficulty? — Beth Shammai hold that the entrance of a [holy] day is different from its outgoing. At its entrance, the earlier we can make it the better, but at its exit, the longer we can defer it the better, so that it should not seem to be a burden on us.

And this works. But the question, at least as arranged by the setama digmara, is more readily resolved by saying that the girsa of Rabbi Yehuda's brayta is that of the Yerushalmi rather than that of the Bavli.

What in the world is the gemara doing with all this, though? Why bother proving Bet Shammai's opinion in the anonymous brayta, when you have the explicit non-anonymous brayta saying that Rabbi Yehuda held that both Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel hold that wine is first and havdalah is last? Once we discard the Mishna as being that of Rabbi Meir, why not just leap to that clearer brayta?

I would posit that the development of the idea is as follows. The Mishna said earlier that

BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT THE BENEDICTION IS FIRST SAID OVER THE DAY AND THEN OVER THE WINE,
WHILE BETH HILLEL SAY THAT THE BENEDICTION IS FIRST SAID OVER THE WINE AND THEN OVER THE DAY.

This appears to be a general principle of precedence. The brayta in the beginning of the gemara, discussing the reasoning of Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel goes on that portion of the Mishna.

Later in the Mishna, we have

BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT [THE PROPER ORDER IS] LIGHT, GRACE, SPICES, AND HABDALAH,
WHILE BETH HILLEL SAY: LIGHT, SPICES, GRACE, AND HABDALAH.

Since it does mention wine in this list, it is unclear whether they mean wine before the havdalah or wine after the havdalah. After all, the earlier portion of the Mishna was talking about a meal at the entrance of, say, Shabbat, and so when do we sanctify the day. For Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai, the leap is apparent, that we should transfer the blessing on the wine to the appropriate spot. Thus, even though this is Rabbi Meir's account of the respective orders, we would place wine in its appropriate spot before or after havdalah.

That is the simplest implication deduced from the brayta which discusses the why of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai. But then, we can find contradictory evidence in Rabbi Yehuda's brayta accounting the details of the dispute. Why not cite that brayta, rather than the anonymous one, if the aim is to establish Bet Shammai's position? The answer may well be that the setama digmara often takes sources with less evidence and works up to more evidence, and this is just a stylistic thing. But the answer might also be that if we cite Rabbi Yehuda's brayta, this could be dismissed as just Rabbi Yehuda's opinion, while the brayta was going on the Mishna, and thus on Rabbi Meir's opinion. In constrast, a stam, anonymous brayta effectively "rules" that this is the position of Bet Shammai, that we rule like Rabbi Yehuda in his dispute with Rabbi Meir. Once this is the official decided-upon position of Bet Shammai, we would expect the explanatory brayta to go on this, rather than any account of Rabbi Meir. And perhaps we could then even extrapolate the results to the Mishna, within Rabbi Meir's position, though this is not necessary.

I would argue that having this stam brayta does not only state as decided what the position of Bet Shammai is -- that is, that we rule like Rabbi Yehuda over Rabbi Meir. It also takes a position on what the halacha is, since it mentioned neither Bet Shammai or Bet Hillel, but only the position. Thus, we have a stam brayta in according with what we Babylonians call Bet Shammai's position, but what Yerushalmis call Bet Hillel's position. If so, this could be yet another reason Rabbi Yochanan rules like Rabbi Yehuda's Bet Hillel. Indeed, this is perhaps more proof that the brayta should be as it appears in Yerushalmi, for the stam brayta we would expect to be like Bet Hillel.

In summation, we have certain reasons to have the ner first, and certain reasons to have besamim first. Here is a list:

Ner Before Besamim
_________________

1. Within our Mishna, which is Rabbi Meir, both Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel place the ner before besamim.
2. Within our Babylonian brayta of Rabbi Yehuda, it is Bet Shammai's position, so even though we generally rule like Bet Hillel, Bet Shammai has various reasons for the precedence which are not for nothing.
   
3. Within the Yerushalmi's brayta or Rabbi Yehuda, it is Bet Hillel's position, and we should rule like Bet Hillel.
4. Rabbi Yochanan's statement was that we rule like Rabbi Yehuda's Bet Hillel, and Rabbi Yochanan is an Amora from Eretz Yisrael, so it makes sense to say that he was going on the Yerushalmi's brayta. Rav's formulation in the Yerushalmi makes it clear that there was probably this Bavli/Yerushalmi dispute as to the contents of the brayta.
5. The explanatory brayta of Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel's reasons work better with the Yerushalmi's version of the brayta.
   
6. Even though Rav rules that besamim are first, we have a general rule of preferring Rabbi Yochanan to Rav in halachic disputes.
7. Rava's maaseh rav, based on the brayta and Rabbi Yochanan, we can argue was based on an unfortunate misunderstanding.
8. Rav Huna bar Yehuda was surprised by Rava's actions, implying that elsewhere the practice was ner first.
   
9. We have a stam brayta which is within Rabbi Yehuda (who we rule like) which just states that ner comes first, and no conflicting opinion (of Bet Shammai, or Bet Hillel, whoever takes the contrary position). Indeed, this perhaps bolsters the position that the Yerushalmi's account of the brayta is correct.
   

Besamim Rosh :)
________________

1. In our Babylonian brayta in the gemara, which we find in our Tosefta, we have Rabbi Yehuda's version of the dispute, in which Bet Hillel says that we have besamim before ner.
2. Rabbi Yochanan can be understood as going on this Babylonian brayta, and thus we should rule like Bet Hillel within the Babylonian brayta.
3. Indeed, this is how Rava understands Rabbi Yochanan's statement.
4. And this is a maaseh rav -- he acted practically in accordance with this understanding.
5. Indeed, the setama digmara in Bavli agrees, and though we have an anonymous brayta, it states that this is Bet Shammai's position (based on the more explicit Rabbi Yehuda's brayta).
6. Even though the Yerushalmi has a different version of the brayta, it cites Rav that we rule here like what appears to be the position of Bet Shammai, that besamim come first.
7. Don't tell me that Rabbi Yochanan trumps Rav, because I can tell you that Rav and Rabbi Yochanan agree.
8. Thus, the conclusion of both the Bavli and the Yerushalmi is that besamim come before ner.
9. And indeed, that has been the practice for generations.
   

Personally, I think there is quite some merit to the position that ner should come before besamim. Still, we have braytot going both ways even in terms of what Bet Hillel's position is, and we might go to the old standby that therefore however one conducts oneself in terms of these orders of precedence, he has done well.

Not intended as halacha lemaaseh. Still, an interesting investigation, if I may say so myself.