Question: From the case in Pesachim (106.) of 'That old man who bent down and drank', from which we see that one is permitted to drink before the Mevarech?

Answer #1: Perhaps one can draw a distinction between eating (which is forbidden) and drinking (which is permitted).

Answer #2: Alternatively, it may well be that he did not actually drink, but only pretended to in order to demonstrate that the Mevarech did not need to recite more.

Answer #3 (Yerushalmi): The Yerushalmi maintains that if each person is holding his own loaf or his own cup in his hand, then one is permitted to (eat or) drink even before the Mevarech ...

Answer #3 (Yerushalmi [cont.]: And in that case, the old man was in fact, holding his own cup in his hand.

Yerushalmi: Citing Rav Bun in the name of Rav, the Yerushalmi states 'The participants are not permitted to partake until the Mevarech has done so. R. Yehoshua ben Levi says "One may drink even before the Mevarech".

Yerushalmi (cont.): And the two opinions do not argue; R. Bun in the name of Rav is speaking where they are sharing the same cup, whereas R. Yehoshua ben Levi is speaking where each one is holding his own cup'.

Precedent: And this is what Rabeinu Shimshon did once at a wedding where the Chasan made 'a Motzi', yet R. Shimshon cut the bread that was lying before him first, and ate.

Answer #4: The Count of Coucy used to say however, that provided the Mavarech cuts the bread and gives each person his piece, it is not necessary for them to wait until after he has eaten.

Answer #4 (cont.): And when the Gemara says here 'Ein ha'Mesubin Rasha'in Lit'om ... ', it refers to cutting a piece of the loaf that the Mevarech has already cut; but there is nothing wrong with eating the piece that the Mevarech has distributed.

Support (Sugya later): And this is how we have to explain the Gemara shortly, which says that 'The Mevarech is the first to dip his bread in the condiment; but if he wishes to pass on that Kavod to his Rebbe, he may do so'.

Question: Now why is that, bearing in mind that the participants are not permitted to partake of the bread before the Mevarech?

Refuted Answer: Not can we say that the Gemara is only permitting dipping but that the Mevarech is nevertheless the one to eat first ...

Refutation: Because if it is, what Kavod does his Rebbe derive from that?

Conclusion: But according to the above explanation, the problem is solved.

Alternative Explanation: Others however, explain 'helps himself first' with reference to being the first to help himself to a portion from the central dish.

Halachah: In any event, from here it seems that it is unnecessary to pour from the Kos shel B'rachah into the other cups, there where all the guests have their own cups - provided the cups are not Pagum (are chipped or have been drunk from).

Halachah (cont.): Because if they are, then one should be strict.

Clarification: Because he does not hear the B'rachah from the Mevarech, and merely answers 'Amen' after those who did.

Question: The Gemara in the fifth Perek of Succah (51:) describes how, in the huge community of Alexandria of Egypt, where they were not all able to hear the Chazen, they would wave flags for them to know when the B'rachos terminated, so that they could answer 'Amen'?

Answer: They kept track of which B'rachah the Chazen was holding, only they could not hear him.

Answer (cont.): Whereas here it is speaking where one has no idea as to whereabouts in Davening the Chazan is holding, and by which B'rachah he is holding; and one merely answers after the others without hearing and without knowing ... .

Clarification: Provided one does lengthen it excessively ...

Reason: Since the reading of the word does not retain its true meaning if one does so.

Conclusion: And the Gemara concludes that the Botze'a is not permitted to cut the bread until the majority of the participants have finished saying 'Amen'.

Implication: This seems to be the Halachah, since Rav does not dispute it.

Ruling: However, once they have said 'Come, let us Bensch!', in which case they have taken their minds off eating, the third person will not combine with them.

Qualification: If however, the Gadol authorizes the Katan to Bensch, then he may do so ...

Source: As we learned above (on Daf 43. & 46:),where Rebbi instructed Rav to wash his hands ... and Bensch Mezuman.

Explanation #1: This speaks about Jewish guests, whom one needs to feed, and who has the Din of poor people (who are permitted to eat D'mai).

Clarification: And it pertains exclusively to D'mai, but not to Tevel, which would entail feeding one's guests something for which one is Chayav Misah.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it is speaking about Nochri guests (i.e. troops) ,whom the king has ordered to feed.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Nevertheless, the Din is confined to D'mai, and not Tevel, since that wold entail paying one's debt (to the king) with money that belongs to the Kohen.

Question: Is Rav Huna coming to teach us the reason of Beis Shamai?

Source: As the Gemara asks in a number of places.

Answer: He is coming to teach us that should we find a Tana who says 'Ein Ma'achilin', it is Beis Shamai, and that one should ignore that Mishnah or Beraisa.

Halachah: Nowadays, we are not fussy about this, and we Bensch Mezuman with an Am ha'Aretz ...

Support: As we say in Chagigah (Daf 22.) 'Like whom do we accept testimony from am Am ha'Aretz nowadays? Like whom? Like Rebbi Yossi, in order that people should not go and build a Bamah for themselves.

Question: This poses a Kashya on the B'hag, who rules that if someone's relative dies on the last day of Yom-Tov, the Dinim of mourning apply, since the last day of Yom-Tov, which is only de'Rabbanan, cannot override Aveilus which is d'Oraysa (as the Pasuk says in Amos "ve'Acharisah ke'Yom Mar").

Question (cont.): Since in our Sugya we see that Tefilah de'Rabbanan does override the Pasuk "Le'olam bahem Ta'avodu"?

Proof: And this is also implied in Kesuvos (4.) where the Gemara says that 'A Chasan first celebrates the seven days of Sheva B'rachos and then observes the seven days of Aveilus.

Conclusion: And if the seven days of Sheva B'rachos cancel Aveilus d'Oraysa,how much more so the second day of Yom-Tov?

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that two pubic hairs have grown before the Katan attained the age of thirteen.

Refutation: This is not correct however, because if so, why does the Gemara say shortly 'To include a Katan Pore'ach', when the Beraisa specifically inserts a case where he did?

Explanation #2: Therefore Rabeinu Chananel defines Katan Pore'ach as one is under thirteen and who has grown two hairs which it is not certain that when bent, the end will touch the root (which is the Shi'ur of a pubic hair).

Explanation #2 (cont.): Indeed, the Gemara calls it 'Pore'ach' because hairs have grown and sprouted on him, but have not yet reached the full Shi'ur.

Explaining the Gemara: And this is what the Gemara means: 'First you said "Heivi", which implies that two hairs grew and then you said "Ein Medakd'kin be'Katan", implying even if they did not?

Explaining the Gemara (cont.): It must therefore come "to include a Katan Pore'ach" '.

Explaining the Gemara (cont.): And the Seifa comes to explain the Reisha, that when it says 'Heivi Sh'tei Se'aros' it means Porchos, which are not real Se'aros, and as it explains, it is talking about a boy who has entered his thirteenth year.

Question: But did we not learn earlier that even a baby who isstill in his cot is included to make up the required number?

Answer #1: Either that is speaking about making up a Minyan, whereas here we are speaking about making up a Mezuman ...

Answer #2: Or the two Gemaros disagree.