Previous daf

1)

(a) The participants are permitted to eat as soon as the Mevarech has started.

(b) The change from 'le'Echol Klum to li'Te'om Klum' is of no significance, other than that a person should always use the same expressions as his Rebbe, and Rav Safra's Rebbe used the Lashon 'li'Te'om'.

(c) If two people are eating together from the same dish, and one of them has to stop eating for some reason or other, then the other one is obligated to stop eating until his friend has finished whatever he has to do. But if there are three people sharing the same dish, then two of them are not obligated to wait for the third one, if, for some reason or other, he has to stop eating.

(d) The person who recites the Berachah has the first right to help himself from the serving dish, though he may, if he wishes, hand over this right, to his Rebbe or to someone who is more prominent than himself.

3)

(a)
1. An 'Amen Chatufah' is an 'Amen', whose Kamatz has been cut short.
2. An 'Amen Ketufah' is one where the Nun is not pronounced.
3. An 'Amen Yesomah' is when someone answers 'Amen' without actually hearing the Berachah, and without knowing which Berachah he is answering to (because he is merely following someone else who answered 'Amen'). It is not however, called an 'Amen Yesomah' if he knows which Berachah he is answering, but could not hear because of the distance, like the men of Alexandria, who were so far away from the Chazan that they could not hear him. They used to watch out for a flag that was waved at the conclusion of each Berachah), and answer 'Amen' whenever it was.

(b) Someone who tends to answer an Amen *Yesomah*, will be punished by his children becoming orphans ('*Yasmu* Banav').
For answering Amen *Chatufah*, his days will be grabbed (*Yischatfu* Yamav) - meaning that he will die prematurely. And for answering Amen *Ketufah*, his days will be cut short (*Yiskatfu* Yamav).

(c) 'Lo Yizrok Berachah mi'Piv' means that one should not throw out the Berachah quickly, to recite it only because he has to (like we learnt above regarding Tefilah 29b).

(d) Someone who takes his time over his Berachos, in order to recite them properly, will live a long time.

(a) A third person who wishes to make up a Mezuman, after the first two have finished eating may do so provided they could still eat a dessert if it were served.

(b) Either the more important of the two who ate should Bensch Mezuman, or the more prominent person who joined them at the end.

(c) The Gemara concludes that the latter opinion is the correct one.

(a) How can the person who ate Demai (which was unfit for him to eat), Bensch Mezuman, asks the Gemara? Why is this not a case of Zimun which came through an Aveirah, and which is called, not a Berachah, but an insult?

(b) The Gemara answers that Demai is indeed considered *fit* for him. Why? Because he could have declared his property Hefker, in which case he would be a poor man, and the Chachamim permitted a poor man to eat Demai.

(c) By Ma'aser Rishon whose Terumah was taken, the Tana means that the Terumas Ma'aser which the Levi is obligated to separate was taken, but not Terumah Gedolah. Why is that?
Because it speaks when the Levi arrived at the stalks, before the owner had made the pile which brought the corn to a Chiyuv Terumah. And we learn from the Pasuk in Bamidbar "va'ha'Reimosem Mimenu Terumas Hashem, Ma'aser Min ha'Ma'aser" - 've'Lo Terumah Gedolah Min ha'Ma'aser'. In other words, the Ma'aser which the Levi obtains before the crops have reached the stage of Chiyuv Terumah, is Patur from Terumah Gedolah.
And it is because of this Chidush that our Mishnah informs us that if someone ate from this Ma'aser, he may Bensch Mezuman, even though Terumah Gedolah has not been separated from it.

(d) "mi'Kol Ma'asroseichem Tarimu" teaches us that one is obligated to separate Terumah Gedolah at all costs - even if the Levi arrived 'at the stalks'.
To reconcile the two Pesukim, we establish the first Pasuk when the Levi came *before* the crops reached the stage of Terumah (when it was still called stalks), as we explained earlier; whereas the second Pasuk speaks when he came for his Ma'aser *after* they were already flattened into a pile (known as 'Miruach'), and therefore Chayav Terumah Gedolah.

6)

(a) When the Mishnah speaks of Ma'aser Sheini and Hekdesh which were not redeemed, it means which were not redeemed properly: i.e. to which one did not add the extra fifth. The Chidush of our Mishnah is that such a redemption is perfectly legal (even though he remains obligated to pay the fifth).

(b) We might have thought that the Shamash, whose job it is to run around serving all the participants, is never called Kavua (fixed) - and a Kevius is a prerequisite for Mezuman. So our Mishnah teaches us that he *is* considered Kavu'a, provided he sits down to eat together with them.

(c) We are speaking, according to Abaye, about a Kuti who is a Chaver (who undertook to eat his Chulin be'Taharah).

(d) According to Rava, the Beraisa which forbids an Am ha'Aretz to Bensch Mezuman, is referring to an Am ha'Aretz as described by the Chachamim of Rebbi Meir - one who does not Ma'aser his fruit properly. Kutim however, do not fall under this category, since they are meticulously careful about any Mitzvah mentioned specifically in the Torah (even more so than other Jews) - and that includes Terumos and Ma'asros.

(a) Acheirim holds that an Am ha'Aretz is one who may well have learnt Chumash and Mishnah, but who did not serve Talmidei-Chachamim (i.e. learn Gemara).

(b) Rav Menashya bar Tachlifa was a Talmid-Chacham who had, in fact, fulfilled all the criteria of a Talmid-Chacham; others say that he would listen to the Divrei Torah of the Talmidei-Chachamim and say them over to others (and this rendered him a Talmid-Chacham). Rami bar Chama however, did not check him out carefully. He therefore took him to be an Am ha'Aretz, and refused him permission to combine for a Mezuman. That is why he died before his time.

(a) Tevel in our Mishnah refers to Tevel mi'de'Rabbanan, such as crops that grew in a plant-pot which had no hole in it; even *that* disqualifies the one who eats it from Bensching Mezuman.

(b) 'Ma'aser Rishon whose Terumah was not taken' speaks when the Levi came to take his Ma'aser before Terumah Gedolah was taken, but after it was made into a pile. He then took Terumas Ma'aser, but not Terumah Gedolah, because he held like Rav Papa (at the foot of Amud Alef), who thought that, even in *that* case, we apply the Pasuk ' "Ma'aser min ha'Ma'aser", but not Terumah Gedolah min ha'Ma'aser'.
Therefore our Mishnah comes to teach us like Abaye answered, as we explained above in 5d (that, in that case, he is Chayav Terumah Gedolah).

(c) When the Tana talks about Ma'aser Sheini and Hekdesh which was not redeemed, he means which were not redeemed *properly* - i.e. the Ma'aser Sheini was redeemed on a plain coin which was not minted, and the Torah writes "ve'Tzarta ha'Kesef be'Yadecha" (Kesef Tzurah - a minted coin and not a plain one).
And the Hekdesh was redeemed with land, and not with movables, as required by the Torah requires, which writes "ve'Nasan ha'Kesef ve'Kam Lo".

(d) This is the one statement in the Mishnah which is not a Chidush at all. It is obvious that a Shamash - or anybody else, for that matter - who ate less than a Kezayis, cannot combine for a Mezuman. The Tana mentions this case only to balance the Reisha, where the Mishnah said that a Shamash who ate a Kezayis *can* combine for a Mezuman.

(e) It is indeed necessary to inform us that a non-Jew cannot Bensch Mezuman, in a case when the non-Jew, in the process of converting, had Bris Milah but did not Tovel. The Chidush is that Milah without Tevilah is futile, and that he is still a full gentile until he has Toveled, as well.

(a) When Rav Asi permitted a baby in his cot to combine for Mezuman, he was referring to a Mezuman of ten, and he holds like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who says that a baby in his cot combines with nine others who have eaten, to make up a Mezuman to say 'Elokeinu'.

(b) When Rebbi Eliezer was short of a Minyan, he set a slave free in order to make up the Minyan. According to Rav Asi, why did he not just include the slave, without setting him free?

(c) In fact, the Gemara answers, Rebbi Eliezer was short of *two* for a Minyan. What he did was to set free one of his slaves, and include the second one without setting him free (like the opinion of Rav Asi).

(d) "le'Olam Bahem Ta'avodu" does not apply in face of a communal Mitzvah, answers the Gemara, such as Davening with a Minyan.

(a) The first ten people to arrive in Shul receive as much reward as all the other congregants, even if they are a hundred.

(b) According to Rav Huna, nine who look like ten may Bensch Mezuman with the Name Elokim.
However, there are two opinions whether they look more like ten people when they are close together or when they are spread out.

(c) And according to Rav Asi, two Talmidei Chachamim who sharpen each other in Halachah combine to make a Mezuman as if they were three.

(d) A 'Katan Porei'ach' is a Katan who has grown two hairs. According to Rebbi Yochanan, he can be included in a Mezuman. (According to Tosfos, d.h. 'Katan', a Katan Porei'ach is a thirteen year old boy who has not yet grown two hairs).

(a) The Gemara concludes that any Katan can combine to make a Mezuman, as long as he knows to whom he is Bensching.

(b) When Raba asked Abaye and Rava to whom one Bensches, they replied 'To Hashem'; and when he asked them further where Hashem is to be found, Rava pointed to the ceiling, Abaye went outside and pointed to the sky (one assumes that they were both very, very young - for Rabba to have been so impressed).
That is when Rabba made his announcement.

(c) 'Butzin Butzin mi'Katfei Yadi'a' means that one can tell the quality of a pumpkin already from when it is very small. Likewise, one can tell the greatness of a man from the time he is very small.