Previous daf

1)

(a) 'u'*ve'Tuvo* Chayinu' is the wording of a Talmid-Chacham, *'u'mi'Tuvo* Chayinu', of a boor, because it suggests that Hashem only gives us a little, just sufficient to live on, when really He gives us much more (as the Berachah of 'Borei Nefashos' specifically states).

(b) From the Pasuk 'u'*mi*'Birchascha Yevorach" we learn, that although Hashem gives us our livelihood with a generous Hand, when we Daven, we should Daven 'like a poor man begging for alms' - and ask only for our bare needs (like Ya'akov Avinu did).

(c) "Harchev Picha ve'Amal'eihu", where Hashem is telling us *to ask for all our needs*, is referring to Torah-learning, to which the principle in the previous question does not apply.

(d) Rebbi describes someone who says 'u've'Tuvo *Chayim' as a boor. Why? Because he is excluding himself from the community (he should have said 'Chayinu').

(e) According to the Neherbelai, the reverse is true: 'Chayim' is better than 'Chayinu', because it includes all the creatures in the world.

(a) 'Nevarech *le'Mi* she'Achalnu mi'Shelo', implies that there are various powers feeding various segments of the community (Chas ve'Shalom), and that we are offering our thanks to the power that feeds *us*.

(b) We can safely say '*le'Mi* she'Asah la'Avoseinu ve'Lanu Kol ha'Nisim ha'Eilu', because nobody can possibly think that anybody else performed those miracles.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan describes someone who omits the word 'mi'She'lo' as a boor.

(d) When there is a Minyan, it does not matter if one omits it, since we anyway mention Hashem's Name, so no-one can accuse the Mevorech of referring to some other god (Chas ve'Shalom).

(a) Rebbi Akiva explains the Pasuk "be'Makheilos Borchu Elokim" ... , to teach us that even the unborn fetuses sang Shirah to Hashem from their mothers' wombs.

(b) Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili learns *that* Derashah from "mi'Mekor (Yisrael)."

(c) Rav Chama looked for a hundred people, in order to be able to say 'Nevarech Hashem Elokeinu'.

But they told him that the Halachah is like Rebbi Akiva, who does not differentiate between ten and a hundred thousand.

(d) The Amora'im used to split up into groups of three, because they knew that when the Chief Rabbi would eventually Bensch, they would not hear him anyway, so, im orser to execute their Chiyuv Mezuman, they Bensched Mezuman in advance.

(e) They did not want to Bensch in groups of ten because they were worried that if they did, the Chief Rabbi might overhear them, and be angry with them.

(a) If one out of a group of three Bensches and leaves the house, then they call him to answer Mezuman from wherever he is.

(b) He cannot be Yotze Mezuman, because he has already Bensched, and Mezuman does not work retroactively.

(c) They were displeased with Rafram bar Papa, for omitting 'ha'Mevorach' from 'Borchu', when he was called up to the Torah.

(d) Rava asked him why he got himself involved in a dispute of Tana'im (he should rather have included the word 'ha'Mevaroch', to satisfy all the opinions); and besides, the universal Minhag was like Rebbi Akiva.

(a) Six people may split up into two groups, and nine, into three.

(b) twenty may split up into two groups, thirty into three and forty into four, etc.

(c) Two groups eating together in one room will not combine if no-one from one of the groups can see anyone from the other group (e.g. if the room is in the shape of the letter 'L'.

(a) The Gemara explains the Chidush of our Mishnah, either ...

1. ... to add that even if the three people have not yet begun to eat, once they have sat down to eat together, they are not permitted to separate -because they have already obligated themselves to combine for a Mezuman.
2. ... that even if the three people who sat down together are eating from separate loaves, they nevertheless combine for Mezuman.
3. ... that if three people come from three groups where they were already obligated to Bensch Mezuman, they must now combine and Bensch Mezuman together.

(b) Rava refers to when *three* people came from three groups, each consisting of three people; which means that the three men left their respective groups without a Mezuman. Subsequently, they were called to answer Mezuman from outside. Since they have already been Yotze Mezuman (although they did not yet Bensch), the Chiyuv Mezuman has disintegrated. Rav Huna (who obligates the three to combine for Mezuman now) is speaking when there were *four* in each group, so that, the three remaining participants Bensched Mezuman without them, and their obligation to Bensch remains intact.

(c) The Mishnah in Keilim writes that if half of a Tamei bedstead is stolen, lost or divided among heirs or partners, it becomes Tahor. If it is later returned and put together again, it becomes Tamei 'from that time onwards' - from that time onwards, the Gemara deduces, but not retroactively. From here we see that once the bed is divided, the Tum'ah departs; similarly, once the three men have combined with their respective groups to make up a Mezuman, their obligation has departed - despite the fact that (like the bedstead) they reassembled into a group of three. They will only become Chayav Mezuman from now on (if they eat together), but not retroactively.

(d) Two groups eating in the same room, but who cannot see each other, will nevertheless combine for Mezuman, if they are both being served by the same Shamash.

7)

(a) According to Rebbi Eliezer, the appropriate Berachah over undiluted wine is 'Shehakol'.

(b) One is also permitted to use such wine to wash one's hands (whereas, once it has been diluted, it is called 'wine', and water (and what is Halachically termed water) exclusively, is eligible to be used for Netilas Yadayim.

(c) All this is due to the fact that Rebbi Eliezer considers undiluted wine to be water.

(d) Shmuel, who permits one to use bread, despite the fact that one is spoiling food, holds like Rebbi Eliezer, who permits one to wash with undiluted wine.

(a) The Rabbanan agree that one may not use undiluted wine for the Kos shel Berachah (for Bensching), because for a Mitzvah, the wine should be of a superior quality.

(b) Undiluted wine *does* have a use: it can be drunk with 'Kureyati' (a drink which is drunk as a cure, to which one would add wine).

(c) It is forbidden to pass a cup of wine over bread, because one might come to spill it.

(d) One may also not throw bread or use it to support a dish.

(a) One may throw hard food in the summer, because it does not get spoilt, whereas bread is forbidden, because it always gets spoilt when thrown on the ground.

(b) No! It is only permitted to draw wine from pipes, because the wine is caught in a cup and drunk, and it is only permitted to throw roasted grains to a place where they do not get spoilt.

(c) The Chidush appears to be that using food for such purposes is not considered an abuse of food.

(a) If it is a liquid, he swallows it; if it is a solid which will *not* be rendered inedible by spitting it out, then he spits it out; and if it *will* be rendered inedible, he moves it to the side of his mouth until after the Berachah.

(b) If it is at all avoidable, one should not have anything in one's mouth when reciting a Berachah, because of the Pasuk in Tehilim "Yimalei Pi Tehilasecha".