Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Aba describes someone who concludes Birchas ha'Aretz with 'Manchil Aratzos' or that of Boneh Yerushalayim with 'Moshi'a Yisrael' as a boor.

(b) Those who hold that 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv' requires Malchus, hold that it is mi'de'Rabbanan, and therefore not a 'Berachah ha'Semuchah la'Chaverta'. Consequently, it requires Malchus, like every new Berachah. Whereas those who maintain that it does not require Malchus, will hold that it is d'Oraysa, and that is therefore a Berachah ha'Semuchah la'Chaverta', which does not require Malchus.

(a) No! Nobody holds that one *must* end Birchas Boneh Yerushalayim with 'Moshi'a Yisrael', only that one *may*.

(b) A Berachah should not end with two things, because of the principle 'Ein Osin Mitzvos Chavilos Chavilos'.

(c) 'Al ha'Aretz ve'Al ha'Mazon' is equivalent to saying 'for the land which produces fruit, which is *one* thing and not *two*. Similarly, 'Mekadesh Yisrael ve'ha'Zemanim', is equivalent to 'who sanctifies Yisrael, who sanctify Yom-Tov.

(d) 'Mekadesh ha'Shabbos, ve'Yisrael ve'ha'Zemanim' is also only one thing, since (unlike 'Moshi'a Yisrael, u'Boneh Yerushalayim', which is two different things) 'Mekadesh' refers to both Shabbos and Yisrael (who, in turn, sanctify Yom-Tov).

(a) 'Moshi'a Yisrael' is the appropriate ending for 'Racheim Al Amcha Yisrael', and 'Boneh Yerushalayim' for 'Racheim Al Yerushalayim', argues Rav Sheishes, because the ending of the Berachah should conform with the beginning.

(b) Rav Nachman agrees with Rav Sheishes' principle. However, he maintains that 'Boneh Yerushalayim' is an equally appropriate ending for 'Racheim Al Yisrael'. Why is that?

Because the Pasuk in Tehilim says "Boneh Yisrael Hashem, Nidchei Yisrael Yechanes", from which we learn that the building of Yerushalayim is synonymous with the salvation of Yisrael, since the former leads to the latter.

(c) According to Rav, someone who omitted Bris, Torah or Malchus, is nevertheless Yotze, because there is no Bris by women, whereas Torah and Malchus do not apply to slaves either (even though both women and slaves, are also Chayav to Bensch).

(a) Rebbi Yochanan's Chidush is that one mentions 'Malchus' in 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv', not just once, but twice. Why? To make up for the omission of Malchus from the Berachah of 'Boneh Yerushalayim'.

(b) The reason that the omission in Birchas Boneh Yerushalayim needs to be compensated, even though the same omission in Birchas ha'Aretz does not, is because it is not befitting to mention Malchus Beis David (like we do in 'Boneh Yerushalayim'), without mentioning Malchus Shamayim. And that explains why Rebbi Yochanan adds a second Malchus Shamayim in Birchas 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv'.

(a) ... 'Retzei' and had not yet begun 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv', one says 'Baruch ... she'Nasan Shabbasos li'Menuchah le'Amo Yisrael be'Ahavah, le'Os ve'la'B'ris. Baruch ... Mekadesh ha'Shabbos'.

(b) ... 'Ya'aleh ve'Yavo' on Yom-Tov, one adds 'Baruch ... she'Nasan Yamim-Tovim le'Amo Yisrael le'Simchah u'le'Zikaron. Baruch ... Mekadesh Yisrael ve'ha'Zemanim'.

(c) ... 'Ya'aleh ve'Yavo' on Rosh Chodesh, one adds 'Baruch ... she'Nasan Roshei Chodoshim le'Amo Yisrael le'Zikaron'.

(d) Rebbi Zeira was uncertain whether, on Rosh Chodesh, one inserts Simchah (like on Yom-tov), whether one concludes with a Berachah (like on Shabbos and on Yom-Tov), and whether Rav Gidal said it in his own name or (like the previous cases) in the name of his Rebbe (Rav).

6)

(a) Rav Nachman went back to the beginning of Bensching, because he had already begun the Berachah of ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv'.

(b) It is not necessary to go back to the beginning of Bensching on Rosh Chodesh, since one is not obligated to eat, unlike the Amidah, which is obligatory, and for which must consequently, begin again.

(a) We have just quoted Rebbi Meir as saying that one is obligated to return to Yerushalayim etc. for a Kebeitzah of meat of Kodshim, Rebbi Yehudah, for a Kezayis. How come, that in our Mishnah, regarding Mezuman, they switch their opinions: Rebbi Meir requires a Kezayis, and Rebbi Yehudah, a Kebeitzah?

(b) Abaye answers that they are two independent Machlokes: the one in our Mishnah is based on the Pasuk in Devarim "ve'Achalta ve'Sava'ata" etc. Rebbi Meir learns "ve'Achalta" refers to eating (whose Shiur is always a Kezayis), "ve'Sava'ata", to drinking , and then - "u'Veirachta".
Whereas, according to Rebbi Yehudah, "ve'Achalta ve'Sava'ata" means 'Achilah she'Yesh Bah Sevi'ah', and then "u'Veirachta".
In Pesachim, the Machlokes hinges around what we compare the Din of returning of the meat to: according to Rebbi Meir, we compare it to its Tum'ah, which is a Kebeitzah (the Shiur of Tum'as Ochlin); whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah, we compare it to its Isur, and the Shiur Isur of Kodshim which is punishable, is a Kezayis.

(a) When there are three people Bensching, the Mevarech says 'Nevarech she'Achalnu mi'Shelo', when there are four, he says 'Borchu' and when there are ten, 'Nevarech Elokeinu she'Achalnu mi'Shelo'.

(b) Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili's source is the Pasuk in Tehilim "be'Makheilos Borchu Elokim".

(c) According to Rebbi Akiva, the text does not change from after ten. The Mevarech always says 'Nevarech Elokeinu'. His source is a practical one: he draws from 'Borchu', which is said in Shul, whether there are ten or a thousand, with no change of text.

(a) Shmuel comments that, although, according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, one is permitted to say 'Borchu', when there are more than three people, it is better to stick to 'Nevarech'. Why is that?
Because when he says 'Nevarech', the Mevarech includes himself in the group, whereas 'Borchu' precludes him; and it is always better to be part of the community, than to be an individual (as we learn from the Shunamis, who said to Elisha (when he offered to request that Hashem gives her special attention) "Besoch Ami Anochi Yoshaves").

(b) Shmuel explains that the Tana of our Mishnah is not *obligating* the Mevarech to say 'Borchu', but rather *permitting* him to do so.

(c) If Borchu was preferable, then why would it be permitted for six people to divide into two groups of three (thereby depriving them of the possibility of saying 'Borchu')?