If we say that did not rest means that it did not rest from labor, even from labor that is permitted? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that over light that was kindled on Shabbat for a woman giving birth or a dangerously ill person, for whom one is permitted to perform prohibited labor on Shabbat, one may recite a blessing during havdala at the conclusion of Shabbat?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: What is meant by rested? Light that rested from labor of transgression on Shabbat. However, if the light burned for the entire Shabbat or was kindled on Shabbat in a permissible manner, one may recite a blessing over it. That halakha was also taught in a baraita: A lantern that was continuously burning throughout the entire day of Shabbat, one may recite a blessing over it at the conclusion of Shabbat.

The Sages taught in a baraita: A gentile who lit a candle from a candle that was in the possession of a Jew or if a Jew lit a candle from a gentile, one may recite a blessing over it at the conclusion of Shabbat. However, if a gentile lit a candle from a gentile, one may not recite a blessing over it.

The Gemara asks: What is different about a candle that a gentile lit from a gentile, that one may not recite a blessing over it? Because the light did not rest on Shabbat. If so, the light of a Jew who lit a candle from a gentile also did not rest on Shabbat.

And if you say that this prohibited flame has gone and this flame is a new and different one which came into being in the possession of a Jew, as a flame is not a concrete, static object, but rather it constantly recreates itself; however, this halakha that was taught in a Tosefta in tractate Shabbat states: One who carries out a flame from the private to the public domain on Shabbat is liable for carrying out from one domain to another. If the flame is constantly recreating itself, why is he liable? That flame which he lifted from the private domain he did not place in the public domain and that which he placed he did not lift. One is only liable for carrying out on Shabbat if he lifted an object from one domain and placed that same object in another domain. Since one who carries out a flame on Shabbat is considered liable, evidently, despite any change that it may undergo, the flame is essentially considered a single entity.

Rather, actually that prohibited flame is also extant, and when one recites the blessing, he recites the blessing over the permitted addition to that flame. The Gemara asks: If so, even if a gentile lit a candle from a gentile as well, the flame should be considered essentially new; one should be able to recite a blessing over the addition.

The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so. Fundamentally, there is no reason to prohibit doing so. However, the Sages issued a decree because of the first gentile, who did not light the flame from another gentile, and the first pillar of flame that was kindled on Shabbat. Consequently, they prohibited all somewhat similar cases, including when a gentile lights a flame from another gentile.

The Sages taught in a baraita: If one was walking outside the city, saw fire there, and wanted to recite the blessing over it as part of havdala, if the city has a majority of gentiles he may not recite the blessing over the fire, but if the city has a majority of Jews, he may recite the blessing.

The Gemara notes: The matter itself is difficult in this baraita. You said in the baraita that if the town has a majority of gentiles he may not recite the blessing. By inference, if the town population was half gentiles and half Jews, one may recite a blessing. And then you teach that if the town has a majority of Jews, he may recite the blessing. By inference, if the town population was half gentiles and half Jews, one may not recite a blessing. The inferences from two sections of the baraita are contradictory.

The Gemara responds: By right, the baraita should have taught that even if the town population was half gentiles and half Jews, one may recite a blessing, but since in the first clause it taught: The majority of gentiles, in the latter clause it used the same expression and taught: The majority of Jews.

And the Sages taught: One who was walking outside the city at the conclusion of Shabbat and saw a child with a torch in his hand, he must check after his background. If the child is a Jew, he may recite a blessing over this flame, but if the child is a gentile, he may not recite a blessing over it.

The Gemara asks: Why was it taught specifically with regard to a child? Even if he were an adult, one would also need to investigate whether he was a Jew or a gentile in order to determine whether or not he may recite a blessing over the torch.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Here we are dealing with a case where, although it was the conclusion of Shabbat, it was still soon after sunset. Therefore, in the case of an adult, it is self-evident that he is a gentile, as a Jew would not be so quick to take fire in his hand immediately after Shabbat. In the case of a child, however, say that perhaps he is a Jew and it happened that he took the torch.

And the Sages taught: One who was walking outside the city at the conclusion of Shabbat and saw a fire, if the fire is at least as thick as the opening of a furnace, one may recite a blessing over it, as a fire of that kind is kindled for the light it produces as well. And if it is not at least that thick, one may not recite a blessing over it.

It was taught in one baraita: During havdala, one may recite a blessing over the fire of a furnace; and it was taught in another baraita: One may not recite a blessing over the fire of a furnace. There is an apparent contradiction between the baraitot.

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as this baraita which prohibits reciting the blessing is speaking at the beginning when the furnace was just kindled and the fire is designated solely to heat the objects in the furnace; that baraita, which permits reciting the blessing, is speaking at the end, when the fire is no longer needed to heat the objects in the furnace, and its light is used for other purposes.

The Gemara cites a similar contradiction between baraitot: It was taught in one baraita: During havdala, one may recite a blessing over the fire of an oven or a stove; and it was taught in another baraita: One may not recite a blessing over it.

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as a similar distinction between the baraitot may be suggested. This baraita, which prohibits reciting the blessing, is speaking at the beginning, when the oven or stove was just kindled and the fire is designated solely to heat the objects on the stove or in the oven; that baraita, which permits reciting the blessing, is speaking at the end, when the fire is no longer needed to heat the objects on the stove or in the oven and its light is used for other purposes.

The Gemara cites another contradiction: It was taught in one baraita: During havdala, one may recite a blessing over the light of a synagogue or a study hall; and it was taught in another baraita: One may not recite a blessing over it.

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as this baraita, which prohibits reciting the blessing, is speaking in a case where there is an important person in the synagogue and the fire is kindled in his honor and not to provide light; that baraita, which permits reciting the blessing, is speaking in a case where there is no important person present and the fire is kindled to provide light.

And if you wish, say instead that this baraita and that baraita are speaking in a case where there is an important person present in the synagogue, and this is not difficult because the contradiction can be resolved as follows: This baraita, which permits reciting the blessing, is speaking in a case where there is a caretaker in the synagogue who uses the light; that baraita, which prohibits reciting the blessing, is speaking in a case where there is no caretaker and the light is kindled for purposes of honor.

And if you wish, say instead that this baraita and that baraita are both referring to a case where there is a caretaker present in the synagogue, and this is not difficult because the contradiction can be resolved as follows: This baraita, which prohibits reciting the blessing, is speaking in a case where there is moonlight, so the caretaker did not light the fire to provide light as the moonlight is sufficient; that baraita, which permits reciting the blessing, is speaking in a case where there is no moonlight, and the caretaker lights the fire to provide light.

The Sages taught in a baraita: People were seated in the study hall and they brought fire before them at the conclusion of Shabbat. Beit Shammai say: Each and every individual recites a blessing for himself; and Beit Hillel say: One recites a blessing on behalf of everyone and the others answer amen. Beit Hillel’s reasoning is as it is stated: “The splendor of the King is in the multitude of the people” (Proverbs 14:28). When everyone joins together to hear the blessing, the name of God is glorified.

The Gemara asks: Granted, Beit Hillel, they explain their reasoning, but what is the reason for the opinion of Beit Shammai to prohibit reciting the blessing communally? The Gemara answers: They hold that it is prohibited due to the fact that it will lead to suspension of study in the study hall. Waiting for someone to recite the blessing will interrupt Torah study for several minutes.

This concern for disrupting Torah study was also taught in a baraita: The members of the house of Rabban Gamliel would not say good health when someone sneezed in the study hall, due to the fact that it would lead to suspension of study in the study hall.

We learned in the mishna: One may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices designated to honor the dead. The Gemara explains: What is the reason? Because a candle of the dead is kindled for the purpose of honoring the dead, not for light; the spices are to neutralize the bad odor, not for their pleasant fragrance.

And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Any deceased before whom a candle is taken out both by day and by night, it is evident that the candle is for the purpose of honoring the deceased; therefore, one may not recite a blessing over it. And any deceased before whom a candle is taken out only by night, it is evident that the purpose of the candle is for its light alone, and one may recite a blessing over it.

Similarly, Rav Huna said: Over spices used to deodorize the bathroom and fragrant oil intended to remove filth, one may not recite a blessing as they are not used for their pleasant fragrance.

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that any case where it is not used for its pleasant fragrance, one may not recite a blessing over it? The Gemara raises an objection based on the Tosefta: One who enters the store of a perfumer, and smelled a fragrance, even if he sat there throughout the entire day, he only recites a blessing once. However, if one entered and exited, entered and exited, he recites a blessing on each and every occasion. Isn’t it a case here, where the spices are not intended for fragrance, as they are not used to improve the scent in the store, and, nevertheless, one recites a blessing?

The Gemara responds: Yes, in this case the spices are also intended for fragrance; they are used to generate a scent in the store so that people will smell them and come and purchase from him.

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who was walking outside a city and smelled a scent; if the majority of the town’s residents are gentiles he may not recite a blessing over the scent, but if the majority are Jews, he may recite a blessing. Rabbi Yosei says: Even if the majority are Jews, one may not recite a blessing, as the daughters of Israel burn incense to witchcraft and the spices were certainly made for witchcraft, not for their fragrance.

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that they all burn incense to witchcraft? Rather, there is a minority of people who burn incense to witchcraft, and a different minority who burn spices in order to perfume their garments with incense. A majority, therefore, exists that does not use it for fragrance, and in a case where the majority does not use it for fragrance, one does not recite a blessing.

Similarly, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who walks on Shabbat eve in Tiberias or at the conclusion of Shabbat in Tzippori, and smelled the scent of incense may not recite a blessing, as the presumption is that it was intended to perfume garments.

On a related note, the Gemara cites the following: The Sages taught in a baraita: One who was walking in the marketplace of idolators and willingly smelled the incense wafting there, he is a sinner, as he should not have the intention to smell it.