1)

WHEN WE ARE MEZAMEN (Yerushalmi Perek 7 Halachah 1 Daf 50b)

מתני' שלשה שאכלו כאחת חייבין לזמן.

(a)

(Mishnah): If three people ate [bread] together, they must be Mezamen (prepare to say Birkas ha'Mazon together).

אכל דמאי ומעשר ראשון שניטלה תרומתו ומעשר שני והקדש שנפדו

(b)

[The following count towards the three for a Zimun -] one who ate Demai (Peros of an Am ha'Aretz. It is Safek Tevel), Ma'aser Rishon from which Terumah was taken, or Ma'aser Sheni or Hekdesh that was redeemed;

[דף עא עמוד א (עוז והדר)] והשמש שאכל כזית

1.

A waiter who ate a k'Zayis;

והכותי [דף נא עמוד א] מזמנין עליהן

2.

And a Kusi (when Sancheriv exiled the 10 tribes, Kusim (Nochrim) settled there. Lions were eating them. They converted, but they did not observe all of the Mitzvos.) We are Mezamen on [all of these people].

אבל אכל טבל ומעשר ראשון שלא ניטלה תרומתו ומעשר שני והקדש שלא נפדו והשמש שאכל פחות מכזית והנכרי אין מזמנין עליהן:

(c)

One who ate Tevel, Ma'aser Rishon from which Terumah was not taken, or Ma'aser Sheni or Hekdesh that was not redeemed, or a waiter who ate less than a k'Zayis, or a Nochri, we are Mezamen on them.

גמ' הכא איתמר אין רשאין ליחלק. וכה איתמר חייבין לזמן.

(d)

(Gemara) Question: [Mishnah 4 below] says 'they may not separate (and bless individually)' and here it says 'they must be Mezamen'! (Why did the Mishnah need to teach this twice?)

שמואל אמר כאן בתחלה כאן בסוף.

(e)

Answer (Shmuel): One teaches [that they must be Mezamen if they ate together] at the beginning, and one teaches [so if they ate together] at the end.

אי זהו בתחילה ואי זהו בסוף.

(f)

Question: What is considered [eating together] at the beginning, and what is at the end?

תרין אמורין. חד אמר נתנו דעת לאכול זהו בתחילה. אכלו כזית זהו בסוף.

(g)

Answer #1: Two Amora'im [argued about this]. One said that if they decided to eat together, this is at the beginning. If they ate a k'Zayis [together], this is at the end;

וחרנה אמר אכלו כזית זהו בתחילה. [דף עא עמוד ב (עוז והדר)] גמרו אכילתן זהו בסוף

(h)

Answer #2 (the other Amora): If they ate a k'Zayis [together], this is at the beginning. If they finished [together], this is at the end. (We explained this like CHAREDIM, from R. Yonah 37a.)

ר' אבא בשם רב הונא ר' זעירא בשם אבא בר ירמיה ג' חובה שנים רשות.

(i)

(R. Aba citing Rav Huna, and R. Ze'ira citing Aba bar Yirmeyah): If three [ate together], there is an obligation [to be Mezamen]. If two [ate together], it is Reshus (optional).

אמרה רבי זעירא קומי רבי יסא א"ל (אני אין לי) [צ"ל אניו אין לנו - רידב"ז, שדה יהושע] אלא משנה שלשה שאכלו כאחת חייבין לזמן.

(j)

R. Ze'ira said this in front of R. Yosa. [R. Yosa] said, we [in Eretz Yisrael] have only [the simple understanding of our Mishnah. If three [ate together], they are obligated [to be Mezamen! R. SHLOMO SIRILIYO - the Seifa equates a waiter who ate less than a k'Zayis to a Nochri, i.e. two others may not be Mezamen with him].

רבנן דהכא בדעתון ורבנן דהתם בדעתון.

(k)

Rabanan here (in Eretz Yisrael have their understanding, and Rabanan there (in Bavel may rely on) their understanding (our Mishnah teaches that if three fixed to eat together, they must be Mezamen with three. If not, it is Reshus for two to be Mezamen).

שמואל אמר שנים שדנו דיניהן דין אלא שהוא נקרא ב"ד חצוף.

(l)

Shmuel said that if two judged a case, their verdict is binding, but they are called a brazen Beis Din. (SEDEI YEHOSHUA - this is brought merely because Amora'im argue about whether or not two suffice, like they argue about Zimun.)

1.

Note: Most Meforshim explain that one depends on the other. Even though presumably, the number of judges is a Torah law (it is expounded), we find below that we equate Zimun to Torah law (Mei Chatas). However, Shmuel holds that even one judge, his verdict is valid, even though there is no Zimun for one who ate alone! The coming teaching supports this - 'even if two judged, it is invalid.' This implies that Shmuel argues also about one!

רבי יוחנן ור' שמעון בן לקיש תרויהון אמרי אפילו שנים שדנו [דף נא עמוד ב] אין דינן דין.

2.

R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish both said that even if two judged, their verdict is not binding.

רב הונא אמר ג' שאכלו זה בפני עצמו וזה בפני עצמו וזה בפני עצמו ונתערבו מזמנין.

(m)

(Rav Huna): If three ate, each by himself, and they joined, they are Mezamen.

רב חסדא אמר והן שבאו משלש חבורות.

(n)

(Rav Chisda): This is only if they came from three groups [i.e. they already had a Chiyuv to be Mezamen].

על דעתיה דרבי זעירא וחבורתיה והן שאכלו ג' כאחת

(o)

According to R. Zeira and his colleagues, this is if the three ate together.

1.

Note: Most Meforshim say that 'R. Zeira and his colleagues' refers to his teaching above, that it is Reshus for two to be Mezamen; here he mentions three, for then, they are obligated. However, this is difficult. Why is it this opinion attributed to R. Zeira? Also Rav Huna said so, and here we comment on Rav Huna's teaching! Above, we said 'Rabanan there'! Further, perhaps R. Ze'ira accepted R. Yosa's rejection! (R. Ze'ira was initially in Bavel, and ascended to Eretz Yisrael.) Further, it is not clear why this law depends on that one. Perhaps this is why Pnei Moshe explains that R. Ze'ira accepted R. Yosa's rejection; we say that according to him, each group had three who ate together. If so, why did the Gemara not teach the law according to those who say that two is Reshus? If the law is not clear when they came from groups of two, which had Reshus to be Mezamen, the Gemara should have asked this! Further, we should attribute this opinion to R. Yosa, who explicitly said so; it is not clear whether R. Ze'ira accepted his words. I prefer to explain that our Gemara teaches the opinion of R. Ze'ira and his colleagues; it has no connection to his teaching above. Perhaps HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA explains so.

רבי יונה על הדא דרב הונא הטביל ג' איזובות זה בפני עצמו וזה בפני עצמו וזה בפני עצמו ונתערבו מזה בהן

(p)

R. Yonah said, from Rav Huna's teaching, we learn that if one immersed three hyssop branches [in Mei Chatas], each by itself, and they were mixed, he may sprinkle from them.

רב חסדא אמר והן שבאו מג' חבילות.

(q)

(Rav Chisda): This is only if they came from three bundles.

על דעתיה דר' זעירא וחבורתיה והוא שהטביל שלשתן כאחת

(r)

According to R. Zeira and his colleagues, this is only if he immersed the three at once.

אין תימר אין למידין אזוב מברכה

(s)

Suggestion: Perhaps we do not learn hyssop from Brachah!

ואנן חזינן רבנן קיימין בסוכה וילפין מטיט הנרוק.

(t)

Rejection: We see that Rabanan engage in the laws of Sukah, and learn from mud that pours (regarding a Mikveh)!

[דף עב עמוד א (עוז והדר)] כיי דתנינן תמן הרחיק את הסיכוך מן הדפנות שלשה טפחים פסולה

1.

(Mishnah): If one distanced the Sechach from the walls three Tefachim, it is Pasul.

הא פחות מיכן כשירה

2.

Inference: [If one distanced it] less than this, it is Kosher.

מהו לישן תחתיו

3.

Question: May one sleep under [the gap between the wall and the Sechach]?

התיב רבי יצחק בן אלישיב הרי טיט הנרוק משלים במקוה ואין מטבילין בו אף הכא משלים בסוכה ואין ישינין תחתיו.

4.

Answer (R. Yitzchak ben Elyashiv): Mud that pours can complete [the Shi'ur for] a Mikveh, but on immerse in it. Also here, [the gap] completes [the Shi'ur for] a Sukah, but one may not sleep under it.