Daf 45

1) Three people who ate together must make a Ziman. [Tosfos quotes Yerushalmi: the first opinion there is: if three people decided to eat the meal together, one of them can’t Bentch before his friends (without a Ziman). However, if one ate a Kazayis before his friends started; then one of them can Bentch before his friends. In this case, they’re only obligated in Ziman if they finish eating together. The other opinion held (see R’shas for the accurate text): that even eating a Kazayis is still the beginning, and the end is only after he finished the meal. However, Rif Paskins like our Mishna straight, that they always need to make a Ziman, even if they eat from different loaves. [See Mahrsha]]

2) Someone who answers ’Amein’ can’t lift his voice louder than the one who made the Bracha. Someone who’s saying the Targum of the Torah reading (i.e., Leining), can’t lift his voice to be louder than the Torah reader. However, if the Targum can’t speak as loud as the reader, the reader should bring his voice down to the level of the Targum.

3) If two people ate together; Rav held that they can voluntarily have a Ziman, (although there is no obligation until three people eat together). However, R’ Yochanan holds that they can’t have a Ziman and one person shouldn’t Bentch for the other. [Rashi says: the same applies to making Hamoitzie, that one shouldn’t be Moitzie the other. However, Tosfos brings proofs from many places that one person makes Hamoitzie for a second person (and they don’t need three people before one can be Moitzie others). The reason it’s different than Bentching is: since they’re about to depart by Bentching, then, (without Ziman), you also need to Bentch separately. However, when making Hamoitzie, they’re coming together to eat the meal, so, one can be Moitzie the other. Alternatively, since Bentching is a Torah obligation, we’re stricter to require each one to Bentch by themselves.]

3a) Rav agrees that if they started with three, since they have an obligated Ziman, they need to do the obligated Ziman with three and not a voluntary Ziman with two (if one wants to leave).

4) This is not similar to the Halacha that slaves and women may have voluntary Zimans, (although only free males have an obligation for Ziman), that’s because they have three separate people, but two people, even free males, can’t make a Ziman. [Tosfos says: it seems that women can have a voluntary Ziman among themselves, however, I never saw anyone do this. This, that the Gemara in Erichen explains “everyone is included in Ziman” to mean “even women,” it means to include them that they’re Ziman is voluntary.

Tosfos was in doubt if women can be Yoitza with a man’s Ziman, for perhaps they can’t be Yoitza with his Bentching since they don’t understand Hebrew. Although a Talmid Chachum can be Moitzie an ignoramus that can’t Bentch himself, that’s only that he doesn’t know which words to say, but understands Hebrew. Although we say that someone who doesn’t understand Hebrew may be Yoitza Megila by someone reading it in Hebrew; that may only be a Halacha by Megila since you only need to publicize the miracle (and it might be publicized if he asks someone what he was listening to), like we say there that nobody knows what Achashtranim B’nei Ramachim means, still it publicizes the miracle.]

5) However, women and slaves shouldn’t have a Ziman together since it would lead to a lewd gathering. Also, slaves and children shouldn’t have a Ziman since the slaves are suspected for homosexuality.

6) When you have three people eating together and one left to the market, you can call after him to answer the Ziman. However, this is only when three ate, but when ten ate, you can’t call to the tenth one who left to answer. Even though you may have thought that you could, since nine people sitting together looks more like ten than two people looks like three, still, it’s not proper to mention Hashem’s name in Ziman without ten people sitting there.

7) It’s a Mitzva for two people who ate together to split and Bench separately. However, if one of them is an ignoramus who can’t Bentch himself, the Talmid Chachum may Bentch to be Moitzie him.

8) Three people who ate together, if two are ready to Bentch, the one who’s still eating must stop to answer them. However, two don’t need to stop for one who wants to Bentch unless they want to go beyond the letter of the law.

9) They have an obligation to have Ziman, and one is Moitzie the rest, even if you don’t have one person that’s superior to the rest of them to Bentch for them. However, if they all Bentched themselves, they can’t go back to do the Ziman part, since you can’t make Ziman retroactively.

10) If one person comes along and hears people making a Ziman; if he hears the leader say “Nevareich She’achalnu M’shelo,” he answers “Baruch Hu U’mibarech etc.” [Tosfos quotes Bahag who continues the sentence: “Shemo Tamid L’olam Va’ed."] However, if he only hears the others answers “Baruch Shechalnu M’shelo etc.” he only answers ’Amein.’

11) It’s disgraceful if someone answers Amein after his own Bracha, unless it’s after Bonai Yerushalayim. [Tosfos quotes R’ Chananel and Bahag that it includes other similar Brachos that are at the end of a set, like Yishtabach. However, go out and see that we’re not accustomed to say Amein but after Bonai Yerushalayim.] Abaya said that Amein loud to show that it’s time for the workers to get back to work (since they’re exempt from saying Hatov U’meitiv). However, R’ Ashi whispered it so that people shouldn’t take (that part of) Bentching lightly. [Tosfos says: Bahag Paskins like R’ Ashi. This is especially true nowadays where we don’t have workers who skip Hatov U’meitiv, since even Abaya would agree to say it quietly (if there are no workers).]

Daf 46

12) The host should be the one who breaks bread, since he’ll apportion it with a generous eye. R’ Huna says: the one who broke bread should lead Bentching. R’ Yochanan says that the guest should Bentch so that he can bless the host in Bentching. [Tosfos reconciles their opinions that they don’t argue. R’ Huna refers to a case where the host is not eating with them. Therefore, the greatest among them should break bread and lead Bentching. R’ Yochanan refers to a case where the host eats with them. Therefore, the host breaks bread and a guest Bentches.]

13) R’ Nachman says that Ziman only consists of ’Nevareich.’ R’ Sheishes says that it also includes the Bracha of Hazon. [Rashi explains that you only make the Bracha of Hazon if there is a Ziman. Tosfos asks: how can an individual not say Hazon if it’s from the Torah. Also, it seems that the Halacha is like R’ Sheishes when he argues with R’ Nachman in ceremonial Halacha (i.e., non-monetary), and this would mean that an individual never says Hazon. If so, why do we call Bentching “three Brachos?” It’s not probable to say it’s only called that for when there is a Ziman. Also, we see everyday that even individuals Bentch with saying Hazon.

Rather, Tosfos explains: we refer to a case where one person stopped eating to answer Ziman for two people; when could he go back to eating. R’ Nachman says; he may return to eating after Nevareich. R’ Sheishes holds that Nevareich by itself is not really a Bracha, so you need to also listen to Hazon. However, an individual says Hazon when he Bentches.]

14) [Tosfos concludes: if many people are eating together, and not one of them knows the full Bentching, each one can make one Bracha and you’ll have a complete Bentching through this. However, you can’t split a Bracha in half, that one person should say the first half of the Bracha and another the second half. Therefore, according to R’ Sheishes, you can’t have one person say Nevareich and a second person say Hazon, since, according to him, they’re one Bracha.]

15) [Rashi: when one stops to answer two people], Abaya says that he goes back to the beginning [i.e. when he wants to Bentch he starts from Hazon, although individuals don’t say Hazon, but he was originally part of the Ziman.] The Rabanan say that he starts where he left off [and start from Noda Licha just like all other individuals. However, Tosfos points out that this is Rashi being consistent to his explanation that an individual doesn’t say Hazon. However, he already said that it’s difficult. Rather, we’re referring to the leader of the Ziman, when he said Nevareich, and the others respond Baruch She’achalnu, what does he respond? Abaya says he goes back to the beginning and repeats Nevareich. the Rabanan say that he says from where he left off, i.e., Baruch She’achalnu.

The Ram from Ibra explains: we refer to someone who answered to two and then went to the marketplace. When he comes back, if he didn’t speak in the meantime (Magen Avraham says the text should read that he didn’t continue eating in the meantime, since, B’dieved, speaking wouldn’t be a Hefsik). They argue if he needs to start Bentching over again from Hazon, or was he Yoitza listening to Hazon and he only needs to continue from where he left off, Nodah Licha.]

16) Hatov U’meitiv is not one of the Torah obligated Brachos, but only rabbinic. A proof to that; the workers are allowed to skip it. Another proof: since it starts with a Baruch, and it’s not just a continuation of the original Brachos (because consecutive Brachos don’t need to start with a Baruch). [Tosfos says: the reason that it doesn’t end with a Baruch Atah, although Brachos that length usually does; since it was originally a very short Bracha, but they eventually added on to it.] Also, R’ Akiva’s opinion is not to say it in a mourner’s house, but switch it with the Bracha Dayin Emes. (However, the Rabanan say you combine it in the Bracha and make a “Hatov U’meitiv Dayan Emes.") [Tosfos quotes the Bahag not to say “who kills with judgement” since the Gemara in Shabbos says that there is death sometimes without judgement. However Tosfos concludes that it’s not enough of a reason to erase it.]

17) [Tosfos says; Asher Yatzar is not connected to Netilas Yedayim, since you make Netilas Yedayim even without Asher Yatzar, so Asher Yatzar starts with a Baruch.

 The reason why Elokai Neshama doesn’t start with a Baruch even though it’s not a continuation of earlier Brachos (since you don’t always say it after you leave the bathroom, so it’s not necessarily after Asher Yatzor); that’s because it’s just a praise. The only reason they gave it an ending Baruch is because it’s slightly long.

All the Birchas Hashachar are not considered connected, and, therefore, they all start with Baruch, since they’re composed to be said at different times (i.e, when he walks, he says Mitzadai Gavar, and when he etc.) Alternatively, since they’re all small Brachos, and we don’t say by small Brachos that they have the Halachos of continuous Brachos. Therefore, we must say that Yehi Rotzon etc. is a continuation to Hamavir Sheina, or else Hamavir would be a short Bracha and we can’t say that Yehi Rotzon doesn’t need to start with Baruch since it’s next to it. Although we say the end of a Bracha must fit into the theme of the beginning of the Bracha; since the Bracha ends with Gomel Chasadim, doing kindness, and it’s Hashem’s kindness to return our souls refreshed. Therefore, for the same reason, we must say that V’harev Na is a continuation to the Bracha before (La’asok B’divrei Sorah).

 We must also say that, in the Haftorah, that Neman Atah is really a continuation to the first Bracha. The only reason that the word Neman is written big, not because it’s a start to a new Bracha, but that the congregation would stand up at that point and say these words loud when the child, (who got the Haftorah), came to these words.

Yishtabach doesn’t start with a Baruch since it’s a continuation from Baruch She’amor, and P’sukei D’zimra is not a Hefsik between them. The same for Emes V’yatziv, it is a continuation of the first Birchas Krias Sh’ma, and the P’sukim of Sh’ma is not a Hefsik. Since it’s a continuation, you can’t speak in between.

The reason they enacted a beginning Baruch to the second Bracha of Krias Hatorah even though we said that the P’sukim in between is not a Hefsik; that’s because, originally, they only enacted that the first Olah makes the first Bracha and the last one makes the second Bracha, and that’s definitely a Hefsik. Therefore, even though nowadays they enacted for each Olah to make both Brachos, the original composition of the Bracha remains.]

18) By Mayim Rishonim, the greatest one washes his hand’s first. They bring him his table right away so he shouldn’t need to guard his hands until everyone sits down. By Mayim Achronim, if there are only five people (or less), then the greatest one (who will lead the Bentching) washes first. If he gives permission for someone else to lead, he washes first. The others just wash their hands one after the other, and they don’t honor anyone to wash first. At that time, the leader takes a quick glance over Bentching to get familiarized with it. If there are more than five people, you start with the leastest one and continue until you get to five people left, and then you have the greatest one wash. However, you don’t remove his table before him before he washes so that he doesn’t have to wait around with dirty hands while others are washing.

19) You don’t extend honor to someone on a bridge or on a highway. [Tosfos says: this is only when they happen to meet on the way. However, if they’re traveling together, you need to give honor. That’s why, in Shabbos, Levi was upset that R’ Huna’s donkey proceeded his.]

Daf 47

20) Until the one who breaks bread eats, the others at the meal can’t eat. [Tosfos asks: in Pesachim, when someone made Kiddush Shabbos morning and didn’t know how much to say. He said Hagefen and waited and saw an older man bend down to drink and he figured out it was no more than a Hagafen. How can the old man drink before the one who made the Bracha? Tosfos answers: perhaps we can differentiate between eating and drinking. Alternatively the old man didn’t drink, but was just showing him that it’s the time to drink since you don’t need anything more for Kiddush. The Yerushalmi differentiates that you don’t need to wait if you have your own loaf of bread and cup of wine, but you need to wait if you need to come onto the loaf, or cup, of the one who made the Bracha. Therefore, the one who made Kiddush doesn’t need to pour wine in the other people’s cups unless they’re cups are Pagum (already drunk from, and is not proper to use for a Kos Shel Bracha). The Sar from Kutzi explains our Gemara: it means that you can’t take yourself, but if the one who made the Bracha offers it to you, you may eat before he does.]

21) Two people need to wait for each other by taking from a serving plate, but not by three people, since two don’t need to wait for one.

22) The bread breaker takes first, but if he wants to honor someone else with it, he may. [Tosfos explains: according to the Sar from Kutzi; this refers to the bread. However, all others who hold it’s not an option to allow someone else to eat the bread before the one who made Hamoitzie, explain it regarding taking from the serving plate.]

23) The bread breaker can’t break the bread until the other people answer Amein, since that too is part of the Bracha. R’ Chisda explains it: you only need to wait for most of the people saying Amein, since those who stretch out their Amein are making a mistake. [Tosfos explains: since when you stretch out a word too long, it doesn’t have the form of the words anymore.]

24) You shouldn’t make an Amein Chatufa (i.e., that you say the Aleph with a Chataf and not with a full Kumetz). You also shouldn’t say a “cut off” Amein (that you leave out the last letter, the Nun). Nor an “orphaned Amein” (that you answered Amein without hearing the Bracha). [Rashi says: even though the Gemara in Sukka says that the people in Alexandria, where the Shul was gigantic, answered Amein when they saw a flag waved even though they didn’t hear the Bracha; that’s because they knew which Bracha the Chazon was up to. Our Gemara refers to when he doesn’t know which Bracha he’s saying Amein to.] You shouldn’t throw a Bracha from your mouth [Rashi: say it too fast as if it’s a burden.]

25) If two people finish eating, and a third person comes to eat, as long as if they would bring other foods to the first ones, they would eat it, the third person combines to a Ziman. [Tosfos says that this is the Halacha and he combines until he starts after they said “let us Bentch,” which is a complete giving up of continuing the meal.]

26) The greatest of the group leads the Benching, even if he’s a latecomer to the meal (and wasn’t from the originals) [Tosfos: unless he gives permission to a lesser person to lead the Bentching].

27) If someone ate Damai (produce of an Am Ha’aretz that we suspect that he didn’t separate Maasar) he can combine for a Ziman. Although he ate something that’s prohibited; however, he combines since he has the ability to eat it by making all his property Hefker. After all, then he would be poor and Beis Hillel says that you can feed poor people and troops Damai. [Tosfos explains: either we refer to Jewish troops. Alternatively, we only allow feeding it to non-Jewish troops that the king’s forcing you to feed. Although they don’t need to keep Kosher, but you can’t feed them regular Tevel since you’re paying your obligation with the Kohain’s money (since his Trumah is in the Tevel).]

28) If someone ate Maasar Rishon that was separated before the Trumah Gedola; if he separated it before the produce was made into a pile, he combines to a Ziman, since the Torah doesn’t require him to separate Trumah Gedola anymore. However, if he separates the Maasar after they made a pile out of the grain, he’s obligated to separate Truma Gedola from it, and if he eats it without separating Trumah Gedola, he ate Tevel and cannot combine to a Ziman.

29) If someone ate Maasar Sheini and Hekdesh after you redeemed them for their worth, you combine for a Ziman. Granted you needed to add another fifth, but the lack of that addition doesn’t make the fruit forbidden.

30) Even if the waiter ate a Kazayis of bread, he combines to the Ziman even though he’s not settling down by the table.

31) The Mishna says that you can combine a Kusi to Ziman. Although you can’t combine an Am Ha’aretz to a Ziman, Abaya says: we refer to the uncommon Kusi who’s not an Am Ha’aretz. Rava answers: we must say that our Mishna holds that, to not to combine for a Ziman, he be the type of an Am Ha’aretz of the Chachumim’s opinion, which is someone who doesn’t separate Trumah and Maasar, and the Kusim, despite all their faults, separate Trumah and Maasar.

There is a big dispute among the Tannaim what’s an Am Ha’aretz in this aspect: Acherim say; even if he learns P’sukim and Mishnayos, but he didn’t serve a Chachum (i.e.,what we call Gemara, to learn the logic behind it), he’s an Am Ha’aretz. The Halacha is like Acheirim. [However, Tosfos says that, nowadays, we’re accustomed to combine Am Ha’aratzim to a Ziman like R’ Yossi’s opinion in Chagiga; the reason why we accept testimony from an Am Ha’aretz so not to push them off, and they’ll build their own Bamah (so they can bring their own Korbanos).]

32) However, if someone ate Tevel, you can’t combine him for a Ziman, even if it’s rabbinical Tevel that grew in a non-perforated flowerpot. [Tosfos asks: the Gemara in Eirichin says; Yisraelim can combine to a Kohain who’s eating Trumah, even though they can’t eat that Trumah, since the Kohain can eat what they’re eating. So here too, although those who were eating Kosher food can’t eat with the one eating the prohibition, but he can eat their food, so he should combine. Tosfos answers: here, the reason he doesn’t combine is not because they can’t eat his food, but because he was prohibited to eat the food. Therefore, his Benching is not a blessing to Hashem, but something disgusting.

If one person swore off pleasure from the one he’s eating with, they combine to a Ziman. Although he can’t eat from their food, but they could eat from his food. however, if all three swore off pleasure from the others, they can’t combine to a Ziman, since no one can eat with the others. Although they could eat together if they would go to a Chachum to get their vows annul, still, at the present moment, it wasn’t annulled.]

33) You can’t combine someone who ate Maasar Rishon that was separated after they made the pile of grain and before Trumah Gedolah was taken, since you need to separate Trumah Gedolah from it.

34) You don’t combine someone who ate Maasar Sheini and Hekdesh that wasn’t separated correctly, like if you redeemed Maasar Sheini on unminted coins (and you can only redeem them on minted coins); and you redeemed Hekdesh on land (and you can only redeem them on movable objects).

35) You can’t combine with a non-Jew, even if he’s a Geiros candidate who already had his Mila, but didn’t Toivel yet, since he still has the status of a non-Jew.

36) R’ Yehoshua b. Levi says: even though you can’t combine a minor to a Ziman, but you can combine him for the tenth man.

37) R’ Yochanan says: although you can’t combine a regular minor to a Ziman, but you can combine a “sprouting minor.” We have a Braisa that has an extra line to include this. [Rashi says: he didn’t reach the age of thirteen yet, but he already has pubic hairs. Tosfos disagrees. After all, how can the Gemara say that a Braisa is coming to include a “sprouting minor” if the Braisa already says that we combine someone with two hairs, which is a “sprouting minor” according to his definition. Therefore, we must say that he’s thirteen years old, and he started growing the pubic hairs, but he doesn’t have them grown the length needed yet to be considered an adult, which is the length that you can bend it over.] However, the Halacha is not like this [Tosfos: to be the only variable] but you can combine any [sprouting] minor who knows who he’s Bentching to. [However, you can’t say that the Halacha is that a sprouting minor is not a variable, since it’s not usual that the Gemara should say the Halacha is not like something that we have a proof from a Braisa.]

[R’ Tam explains: this is only to combine to a Ziman of three, but if you’re combining to ten, then we can Paskin like R’ Yehoshua b. Levi to combine any child to ten, even to Daven in a Minyan, and you don’t need him to be with a Chumash to combine. However, the Ri argues and says that the Yerushalmi brings Tannaim who say he doesn’t combine (although R’ Tam would force the explanation of those Tannaim that they only refer to a case of combining to three). Also, R’ Tam, at the end of the day, didn’t rely on his P’sak to combine him.]

38) You can only combine one slave for a Minyan, but not two. If you only have eight regular people and two slaves, you can free one of them to make the Minyan. We don’t consider it a Mitzva that came from a sin, because the Torah requires you “to work them forever,” and not to free them; but we allow it in order to fulfill a Mitzvah for a congregation. [Tosfos says: from here, it seems to disprove the Bahag who says that you need to do the Halachos of mourning on Yom Tov Sheini, since a rabbinical Yom Tov can’t supersede the Torah obligated mourning. However, here we see that the rabbinical Minyan supersedes the Torah obligation not to free your slave. Similarly, sometimes, when a parent of a bride or groom dies right before the wedding, we marry them off, then they have the seven days of Sheva Brachos, and afterwards have seven days of mourning. So the rabbinical Sheva Brachos push off the Torah obligated mourning.

Daf 48

39) If nine people ate bread, and one ate vegetables, you can combine him to a Ziman. [Tosfos says: the same is true if you drink wine, and you can say “that we ate from Him.” After all, drinking is considered a type of eating.] The same is true to combine two vegetable eaters to eight, and three to seven. However, there’s an unresolved inquiry whether you can combine four vegetable eaters to six bread eaters, whether you need a noticeable majority who ate bread, or it’s enough to have any majority. [Ri Paskins like the Yerushalmi that says this is true that one person who ate vegetables combines to two bread eaters to make a three-man Ziman. However, Sar from Kutzi Paskins against that Yerushalmi, since it’s quoted from R’ Shimon b. Gamliel, which implies that the Rabanan disagree and hold he doesn’t combine. Also, in the Bavli, R’ Yochanan says that we can combine the vegetable eater. Yet, he says in the Yerushalmi that you can only combine someone who ate a Kazayis of bread. Hence, we need to reconcile that, in the Bavli, he refers to combining to ten. In the Yerushalmi, he’s referring to combining to three.]

40) If you ate a Kazayis of vegetables, you can’t be Moitzie others in Bentching untill you ate a Kazayis of bread, and not like Shimon b. Shetach who Bentched for Yanai and his cronies when he just drank wine. [Rashi infers from here: if he ate a Kazayis bread, he can even be Moitzie someone who ate until satiation. Although, a minor can’t be Moitzie his father who ate to satiation, that’s because the minor is not even rabbinically obligated, but the father is obligated to train him. However, Tosfos asks: even so, logically, if someone is not obligated from the Torah, how can he be Moitzie people who are Torah obligated? Also, if the child has no rabbinical obligation, if the father only ate a Kazayis, how can the child be Moitzie his father?

You can’t answer like the Bahag that someone who ate a Kazayis can’t be Moitzie someone who ate to satiation. After all, Yanai ate to satiation at his party, and the Gemara would agree that Shimon b. Shetach could be Moitzie him if he ate a Kazayis of bread.

 Rather, Tosfos answers: we only say he can’t be Moitzie if he’s someone who’s not commanded by the Torah in this Mitzvah. However, if he’s commanded by the Torah, just now he doesn’t have an obligation, like if he was already Yoitza, he can still be Moitzie others. As we see, even someone who was already Yoitza hearing Shofar blowing may blow Shofar for others. This is because he’s still considered as obligated in the Mitzva since he’s a cosigner to make sure other people do their obligations. This, which he needs to eat a Kazayis bread to be Moitzie, is not that he needs some personal obligation per se, but he just needs it to be able to say “Baruch She’achalnu Mishelo,” (blessed He who we ate from.).]

41) You need to mention about the day when you Bentch on Shabbos. The Tanna Kama says that you mention it in Bonai Yerushalayim. R’ Eliezer says that you may say it either in Bonai Yerushalayim or Hatov U’meitiv. The Chachumim say that you should L’chatchila mention it in Bonai Yerushalayim, but if you forgot it there and mentioned it in Hatov U’meitiv, you’re Yoitza B’dieved.

42) [Rashi says: when the Gemara says that you start with Nechama, and end with Nechama on Shabbos, not that you can’t start Rachem as usual, but is just saying that you don’t need to mention Shabbos in the beginning or end of the Bracha, but just in the middle. Tosfos says that it’s not like how others explain that you need to say Nechama since it’s only a term for Him to change His mind on it, but not asking for consolation, or Rachem for mercy, since you can’t ask requests on Shabbos. However, Tosfos says: you don’t need to change the text of Rachem on Shabbos, even though it’s asking a request from Hashem, since it’s the standard text of the Bracha. (As the Yerushalmi says: you’re allowed to say all the requests in Bentching for that reason.)]

43) You’re not Yoitza if you don’t say “Eretz Chemda Tova U’richava” in the second Bracha, or if you didn’t say Dovid’s kingdom in Bonai Yerushalayim, or if you didn’t say “Bris and Torah.” [Tosfos qualifies it that you say “Al Brischa Shechasamta Bivsareinu” and “V’al Torascha Shelimaditanu.” However, you don’t say the words “Bris and Torah.”] You need to say Bris before Torah since the Mila was given with thirteen treaties and Torah with only three treaties.

Daf 49

44) There’s an argument whether you need to mention Malchus in Hatov U’Meitiv. The one who says you don’t need to mention it holds that it’s from the Torah, so it’s a continuation from the first Brachos and it doesn’t need Malchos. [Rashi: However, it starts with Baruch since it’s a short Bracha. Tosfos argues: why should it be different than other continuous Brachos that don’t start with Baruch. Rather, Tosfos says, according to this opinion, you don’t start it with Baruch either, but just end it with Baruch like all continuous Brachos.] However, the one who holds you need to mention Malchos holds it’s only rabbinically obligated, and thus its own Bracha.

45) You can’t end a Bracha with two concepts, since it’s like you’re making Mitzvos in bundles. Therefore, you can’t end the third Bracha with “Bonai Yerushalayim U’moshea Yisrael” (build Yerushalyim and save the Jews). However, that’s only if they’re not similar. However, if they’re all sort of similar, you could end with many items. Like we say “Mekadesh Hashabbos Yisrael V’hazmanin,” since they all refer to what Hashem makes holy.

46) R’ Sheishes says: if you start the Bracha with “have mercy on your nation Yisrael,” then you need to end with “Moshiya Yisrael” (you save the Jews). If you start it “Have mercy on your city, Yerushalayim, you need to end “Bonai Yerushalayim.” However, R’ Nachman says: even if you start with “Have mercy on your nation Yisrael,” you end with"Bonai Yerushalayim,” since the Torah says that Yerushalayim won’t be rebuilt until the Jews are saved.

47) R’ Yochanan says that you need to mention Malchus twice in Hatov U’meitiv. R’ Zeira explains: to make up for not saying it in Bonai Yerushalayim. Although it’s a continuous Bracha from the earlier Brachos that doesn’t need its own Malchus, however, since we mention Dovid’s kingdom, it’s not right not to mention Hashem’s kingdom too. [Tosfos explains: but since we don’t make it in that Bracha since it’s a continuous Bracha], we make it up later. R’ Pappa requires three Malchos, two besides the one you say for Hatov Umeitiv itself. One to make up for Birchas Ha’aretz and the other to make up for Baonai Yerushalayim. [Tosfos explains: although they really don’t need a Malchus since they’re continuous Brachos from Hazon, still; since you need to make up one for Bonai Yerushalayim like R’ Zeira said, they also required you to make up for Birchas Ha’aretz too, combined with the fact, it’s not a true continuous Bracha since they weren’t enacted together. As we say that Moshe enacted Hazon. Yehoshua enacted Birchas Ha’aretz, and Bonai Yerushalayim was enacted by Dovid and Shlomo. We just, for the most part, treat it like a continuous Bracha since they later enacted to combine them, and gave them an order.]

48) If you forgot to say Ritzai on Shabbos; you say Baruch Atah etc. Baruch Mekadesh Hashabbos. [Tosfos explains: it needs to start with Baruch and it’s not just a continuous Bracha from the original Brachos of Bentching since it’s not always said with them, but it’s only said every once in a while when you forget Ritzei. The reason why you don’t need to mention Malchus by Shemona Esrei is; we consider it as a continuous Bracha from Birchas Krias Sh’ma. Alternatively, saying Elokai Avraham is just like Malchus, since Avraham made His kingdom known in the world.] They made a similar Bracha if you forget Yaaleh V’yavo on Yom Tov. They also enacted one by Rosh Chodesh, but it’s unresolved whether to say the word ’Simcha’ and whether to end off with a Baruch Atah or not. [Tosfos says: when you forget Shabbos and Yalleh V’yavo, you incorporate all the days you forgot in one Bracha.]

49) However, this is only if he remembers before he starts Hatov U’meitiv. however, if he remembers after that, he needs to return to the beginning of Bentching.

50) You only need to go back for missing mentioning Shabbos and Yom Tov by Bentching, since there is an obligation to Bentch on Shabbos, since you need to eat. [Tosfos asks: the Gemara in Sukka says that you only need to eat bread the first night of Sukkos, implying; but not the rest of Sukkos even if it’s Shabbos and Yom Tov. Tosfos answers: that’s only regarding eating in the Sukka, but you need to eat other times because it’s Shabbos and Yom Tov. Therefore, if it was raining and you ate in your house, you don’t need to eat again in the Sukka when it stops raining.] You also go back for forgetting mentioning Rosh Chodesh in Davening, since you need to Daven that day; but not if you forget it for Bentching, since you don’t need to eat on Rosh Chodesh [Tosfos qualifies: you don’t need to eat bread to cause Bentching, but you can’t fast on it.]

51) [The Ri has a Safeik if you need to go back for forgetting Ritzai in Shaalos Seudos. After all, R’ Tam says that you can be Yoitza it by eating other foods besides bread, like we say by Sukka (according to R’ Eliezer who obligates one to eat fourteen meals on Sukkos, that you can make up one with other food items). However, the Gemara in Kesuvos implies that you need to eat bread, (and, when you leave town and supply your wife with her meals, you need to supply bread for her to eat Shaalos Seudos). Also, logic dictates it needs bread, since we learn it from the three times it says ’day’ by the Mon, it seems that all the meals are the same. However, you definitely don’t need to go back if you forgot it in a fourth meal.]

52) R’ Meir holds that the amount of bread that you need to Bentch on is a Kazayis. R’ Yehuda says it’s a Kabeitza. However, we see that they have the opposite amount regarding carrying out Kodshim from the Mikdash, and it’s within the area of Tzofim [Rashi in Pesachim explains it’s a place. Tosfos asks: if so, it should have said “and the same distance in all directions” to explain where you need to go back if you carried it in a different direction than towards Tzofim. Rather, it’s the distance of seeing the Mikdash], where we require him to bring it back to burn it with the wood of the Mizbeach. R’ Meir holds that you only return if you take out a Kabeitza, and R’ Yehuda says to return for a Kazayis. (So, this seems to contradict what each held to be an important amount.) R’ Yochanan says that we need to switch their opinions to make them fit.

Abaya answers: you don’t need to switch their opinions. Rather, regarding Bentching, they argue how to explain the Pasuk “you eat and you become satiated and you bless.” R’ Meir holds eating, by definition, is a Kazayis; and satiation refers to drinking with it. R’ Yehuda says that you need an eating that brings satiation, which is a Kabeitza. [Tosfos says: they’re only obligated to Bentch with these amounts rabbinically, and the Drasha is only an Asmachta. However, in order to be Torah obligated, you really need to be satiated. After all, if these are not the rabbinical amount, what could be the amount that would only obligate rabbinically?] However, regarding Kodesh, R’ Meir requires him to return for the amount that it can become Tamai, and R’ Yehuda says for the amount that you’re Chayiv for eating it.

[Tosfos Paskins that you Bentch on a Kazayis, since we find that the Gemara always quotes that amount for eating. Ri says that you need to be stringent to make an after-Bracha on a Kazayis of liquid. Although we see the amount to be Chayiv for drinking on Yom Kippur is more, i.e., the size of a cheek’s worth, however, we see the amount for food there is also bigger, i.e., the size of a dry date.]

53) three people who ate together, the leader of the Ziman needs to say Nevareich (let us Bentch), since he needs to include himself because there is no Ziman without him. However if they’re four people, he can say Barichu (you Bentch). However, Shmuel says Nevareich is always better, since you shouldn’t remove himself from the group. [Tosfos explains; i.e., that they’re the same and you can say either word, since Borichu has a better aspect, that it’s a command and not just asking permission.

Tosfos quotes the Yerushalmi: when the Chazon says Borichu in Shul, it’s not a problem of removing himself from the group; since he ends off saying Hamivaruch, the blessed, he’s including himself giving Hashem a blessing.]

Daf 50

54) From someone’s Bentching, you can tell if he’s a Talmid Chachum or not. If he says “with His good,” he’s a Talmid Chachum. If he says “from His good,” he’s not (since he’s lessening His good, that we only have some of His good). If he says “we live,” he’s a Talmid Chachum. if he says “we get life,” he’s not (since it seems like he’s saying that he only gives us enough to live). Also, if he says “bless who we eat from,” which connotes who we always eat from, he’s a Talmid Chachum. However, if he says “on the food that we ate,” he’s not (since it connotes that he’s blessing the host who gave him this meal) [Tosfos adds: after all, if you meant Hashem, why mention this meal since there is so much more to bless Him for]. However, this is only for a Ziman of three, but if there are ten and you mention Hashem’s name, you can say “on the food that we ate,” since you said explicitly that it’s going on Hashem.

55) R’ Yossi Haglili held to lengthen the attributes of Hashem as you have a hundred, a thousand etc. However, R’ Akiva says: just like we don’t differentiate in Shul whether there’s ten or a lot more, and we always say the same Borichu, so too, we always say the same Ziman. [Tosfos says that R’ Yossi Haglili differentiates between them; in Shul, where there are always people coming and going and you never know how many are around at Borichu time, you always say the same thing. However, by Ziman, everyone needs to stay, so you’ll always know the tally.] The Halacha is like R’ Akiva.

56) If you eat with hundreds of people, and your afraid to join the Ziman with everyone else, since you won’t hear the leader, and you don’t want to make a ten man Ziman, since it would be too loud and your host will hear and be insulted that you’re not Bentching with him; you’re allowed to split up into groups of three and have a Ziman.

57) If one of the three Bentched before the Ziman; the two remaining could make a Ziman with him and they’ll be Yoitza Ziman, but he’s not Yoitza since you can’t have Ziman retroactively.

58) The Tanna Kama says the text for Borichu is “Barichu Es Hashem.” R’ Yishmael says to add ’Hamivoruch.’ The custom is like R’ Yishmael.

59) Three people who sit together to eat, even if they didn’t start eating yet, they can’t separate.

60) If three people ate together, even if each one ate from his own bread, they need to have Ziman.

61) Three people who came together from three separate groups that ate together, they now have to have Ziman together (to be Yoitza their original obligation). However, this is only if they didn’t already have Ziman in their original place. [Rashi explains: there were originally four, and he had to leave, but the remaining three had their own Ziman. Tosfos explains: like when he answered to two who were about to Bentch], but if they did, the Ziman obligation flew away.

62) This is compared to a Tamai bed that was split by brothers (splitting their father’s estate), or split by partners, or a robber stole some pieces, it’s no longer Tamai. If the pieces are ever rejoined, then it becomes susceptible to Tumah from now on, but not retroactively, since the original Tumah flew away from it. [Tosfos explains the comparison: even though it could be reattached, which is compared to men who parted, that they may come back and reunite. This is why it didn’t just compare it to a broken vessel.]

[Tosfos asks: in Sukka, the Gemara says that sometimes, parts of a bed is Tamai by itself, since you can use it to make a sort of hammock if you lean it against the wall, and here it seems that parts of beds are never Tamai. Tosfos answers: it’s only Tamai if all the pieces are here and you could put it together, and even a layman can do it. (Although it’s not together now, but it’s Tamai with the combined reason that you can use it as a hammock).]

63) four or five people who ate together can’t separate until there is six, (and each group is left with a Ziman). After that, you can split until there is ten. Once there is ten, you can’t split until there is twenty (and each group can say Ziman with Hashem’s name).

64) Two groups that are eating in one house, if some of one group can see some of the other group, they can combine for a Ziman. However, if they can’t, they don’t combine unless they share a waiter. [Tosfos says: even if they’re in two houses, a common waiter combines them.]

65) On undiluted wine; R’ Eliezer says to make a Ha’eitz and you can use it to wash your hands with until you dilute it (since it wasn’t improved from the grapes until you dilute it). The Rabanan say that you make Hagafen and can’t use it to wash your hands [Tosfos: since it was changed to the better] since it’s now fit for medicinal purposes.

[Rashi explains why R’ Eliezer allows washing hands: since it’s like regular fruit juice that’s fit for Netilas Yadayim. Tosfos says that you need to differentiate this from what’s written in Chulin that you can’t wash with water that changed color (and fruit juice is not the same color as water). However, Tosfos concludes; some say that you only can use water for Netilas Yadayim.]

66) We see that R’ Eliezer who allows washing with fruit juice held that you may use food for your own non-eating use like Shmuel holds that you can use bread for all your uses. [R’ Tam says that we shouldn’t Paskin like Shmuel since the Rabanan argue with R’ Eliezer. However, Tosfos explains: they don’t hold exactly the same. For R’ Eliezer holds it’s allowed even if you ruin it, and Shmuel only holds it’s allowed as long as it doesn’t ruin it. Therefore, the Halacha is like Shmuel, as the Gemara quotes him in Beitza. Also, the Bahag Paskins like Shmuel and like the Rabanan, so it must not be a contradiction.

There are those who eat hot cereal with their bread as a spoon, and eat the bread afterwards since it doesn’t get disgusting. However there are those who held to eat it together at the same time like it says in Mesechta Sofrim. However, that Braisa could be arguing with Shmuel (and is not the Halacha).]

67) The Chachumim agree with R’ Eliezer that you can’t use the wine for a Kos Shel Bracha unless it’s diluted, because it’s a Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar to use diluted wine. [Tosfos says: even though the Gemara says that you need ’Chai’ (undiluted) for Kos Shel Bracha; it means that you need to pour it in the cup undiluted, and dilute it in the cup. Alternatively, you need to take the wine from an undiluted barrel. Or, it’s not coming to define the wine, but to define the cup, that it can’t be broken. As Chazal gives a case; “if you eat one ’live’ ant and nine that are chopped up.” Although the ’live’ ant was actually dead, as the Gemara considers it a Neveila, it was called ’live’ since it was whole.]

68) You can’t throw bread even when it won’t be ruined, but other foods are only prohibited to throw if they’ll get ruined.

69) They would throw parched wheat and nuts before a groom and bride during the summer when it won’t get ruined, but not during the winter, since it will get ruined. However you can’t throw loaves of bread anytime. [Tosfos concludes: therefore, nowadays when they throw wheat before grooms, you should make sure to only throw it in a clean place.]

70) If you forgot and put food in your mouth without a Bracha; if it doesn’t become disgusting if you take it out of your mouth, take it out and make a Bracha, since you should L’chatchila make a Bracha with your full mouth. If it will become disgusting, then you slide it to the side of your mouth and make the Bracha. However, if it’s liquid that you can’t make a Bracha with it in your mouth, and it will become disgusting if you spit it out, you can swallow it first, and then make a Bracha (on the rest).

Daf 51

71) If you finished your meal and, then, remembered that you didn’t make a Bracha; you can’t make another Bracha. This is not like Tevila that you make the Bracha after you Toiveled, that’s because the person wasn’t fit to make a Bracha before the Teveila. [Rashi explains it by a Bal Keri who can’t make Brachos before the Tevila. Tosfos explains: it refers to a Tevila of a Ger, since he can’t make a Bracha when he was a non-Jew. Therefore, once there is one Tevila that you need to make the Bracha afterwards, they were accustomed to make the Bracha after all Tevilos. Similarly, since some people hands are not clean from coming out of the bathroom and can’t make the Bracha of Netilas Yadayim before washing their hands, so we always say the Bracha after we wash.] However, you’re fit to make a Bracha on the food before you eat, so they don’t allow making the Bracha afterwards.

72) Don’t wash Negel Vaasar in the morning from someone who didn’t wash his hands yet, nor should you take your clothing from your attendant, nor should you walk before women when they return from a funeral since the Angel of Death is dancing before them.

73) R’ Avahu, or a Braisa, said that there are ten things to do by a Kos Shel Bracha. R’ Yochanan says: there is only four. [Tosfos says that he doesn’t argue with what we said that there is ten things, but he holds the other ones are only a stringency.] You rinse the cup from the outside and wash the inside. [Ri explains: it’s only if the cup is not clean and there are still crumbs left from the last time you used it. However, if it’s clean, you don’t need to wash it since you only need to use a clean cup.] It needs to be Chai (undiluted) and full. The others are: you need to “crown” the cup (by surrounding it). R’ Yehuda crowned it by surrounding it with students and R’ Yehuda crowned it by surrounding it with little cups. You need to wrap yourself in your Talis, or turban. You receive the cup with two hands, and then place it in your right hand. There’s an unresolved inquiry whether you can use your left hand to help support the cup. [Tosfos qualifies the inquiry: if it was Shabbos Rosh Chodesh Teves, (which is also Chanuka), or by a wedding, when you need to considerably lengthen the Bentching (and it’s hard to hold the cup the whole time without support).] Therefore, we should be stringent. You should lift the cup a Tefach off the ground, you should look at it (so you shouldn’t lose focus on it), and, some say, you should send some of the wine to your wife.

74) You don’t talk by the Kos Shel Bracha. [Rashi explains: so, you shouldn’t lose focus from when you’re given the cup. Tosfos adds that those who listen to Bentching must not speak either since you need them to intend to be Yoitza from the leader, so they’re no better than him. Therefore, all of them shouldn’t be talking during Bentching. Although we say if you hear the nine obligated Shofar blows within nine hours (i.e., an hour between each blow), your Yoitza, and, of course, you must have spoken in between, still L’chatchila you shouldn’t speak in middle of doing a Mitzva. Also, you’re only B’dieved Yoitza if you speak if the leader was quiet then. However, if he was Bentching, then you didn’t hear the words and you’re not even Yoitza B’dieved.]

75) You always need to sit while you Bentch, even if you ate while walking. [Tosfos adds: we’re only careful by Bentching, which is from the Torah, but you don’t need to sit while making other Brachos. We have an Asmachta of ’Savata U’virachta,’ as a contraction of the words “Shev Ais,” sit for a moment while you Bentch.]