ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafBerachos 50
(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
(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
(c) Rebbi Yochanan describes someone who omits the word 'mi'She'lo' as a
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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.
(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
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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
Someone who placed food into one's mouth without reciting a Berachah:
(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