12th Cycle dedication

CHULIN 86 (21 Elul) - Dedicated by Dr. Alain Bitton of Geneva, Switzerland, l'Iluy Nishmat his grandfather, Harav Chaim ben Esther Bitton, in honor of the day of his Petirah.

1)

TOSFOS DH SEIFA

תוספות ד"ה סיפא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why a decree seemingly takes precedence over a clear prohibition against Oso v'Es Beno.)

תימה דמשום גזירה דלמא אתי למיכל נבלה יש לי להתיר לאו דאותו ואת בנו מספק מה לי לאו דאותו ואת בנו ומה לי לאו דנבלה

(a)

Question: This is difficult. Does it make sense that because of a Gezeirah that a person might possibly eat Neveilah we should permit transgressing the negative prohibition against Oso v'Es Beno? Why should Oso v'Es Beno be any less than the prohibition of Neveilah?

ולא דמי לרישא דפטרינן לכסות מספק

1.

Implied Question: This is unlike the first part of the Mishnah that said one is exempt from covering the blood due to a doubt. (Why are we lenient in that case due to a Gezeirah?)

דשב ואל תעשה בעלמא הוא ודלמא אתי למיכל

2.

Answer: In the first case we are merely not doing a positive commandment (as opposed to actively transgressing a negative prohibition), and it is indeed possible that a person might come to eat from their Shechitah if we say to cover the blood.

ויש לומר דאי לאו דרוב מעשיהם מקולקלים לא היו פוטרים מלכסות משום גזרה דלמא אתי למיכל אלא שלא נחמיר להטעין כסוי אמרי' דפטור משום דדלמא אתי למיכל

(b)

Answer: If it were not that most of their (i.e. Cheiresh, Shoteh, v'Katan) actions (i.e. slaughtering) are invalid, we indeed would not say he is exempt from covering the blood just because of a decree that people might eat from their slaughtering. In order that we should not be stringent and require Kisuy we say that one is exempt because it might lead to people eating from their slaughtering which is probably Neveilah.

וכיון דרוב מעשיהם מקולקלין יש לנו להתיר נמי לשחוט אחריהם דלמא אתי למיכל

1.

Answer (cont.): Being that most of their actions are invalid, we can permit slaughtering (the mother) after them, lest one come to rely on their slaughtering.

2)

TOSFOS DH MAI TAIMA

תוספות ד"ה מאי טעמא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the reasoning of the Rabbanan and Rebbi Meir.)

הקשה הר"ר שמואל מוורדין ורבנן מאי טעמייהו אם רוב מעשיהם מתוקנין א"כ יהא מותר לאכול משחיטתם

(a)

Question: Rebbi Shmuel from Vardin asked, what is the Rabbanan's reasoning? If it is because they hold that most actions (i.e. slaughtering) of a Cheiresh, Shotah, v'Katan are valid, they should also hold that it is permitted to eat from their slaughtering!

ועוד השוחט אחריהם אמאי אינו סופג ארבעים

1.

Question (cont.): Additionally, why wouldn't they hold that someone who slaughters (the mother) after them receives lashes?

ואי פלגא ופלגא אם סמוך פלגא דמקולקלין לחזקה דעומד בחזקת איסור ואיתרע ליה מחצה דמתוקנים אם כן יהא מותר לשחוט אחריהם וגם יתחייבו על שחיטתן משום נבלה

2.

Question (cont.): If they hold that their actions are fifty-fifty, and one would put the half that are invalid together with the fact that the animal has a status of being forbidden until permitted, this should cause the half that are valid to be inferior. Accordingly, it should be permitted to slaughter after they slaughter, and one should be liable if he eats from their slaughtering for transgressing the prohibition against eating Neveilah!

וי"ל דמספקא להו לרבנן אי רוב מעשיהם מקולקלין אי רוב מעשיהם מתוקנין והשתא לא מהניא חזקה מידי

(b)

Answer: The Rabbanan are unsure whether most of their actions are valid or they are invalid. Accordingly, the fact that the animal has a status of being forbidden does not make a difference (it would only make a difference in a case of fifty-fifty, as explained in the question above).

ולרבי מאיר פשיטא ליה דרוב מעשיהם מקולקלין

1.

Answer (cont.): Rebbi Meir clearly holds that most of their actions are invalid.

ואם תאמר ואף על גב דרוב מעשיהם מקולקלין מ"מ רבי מאיר כיון דחייש למיעוטא אמאי לקי משום נבלה ואמאי מותר לשחוט אחריהם

(c)

Question: Even though most of their actions are invalid, being that Rebbi Meir is usually concerned about a small suspicion, why would he say that one receives lashes due to eating from their slaughtering? Why does he permit slaughtering (the mother) after them? (It is possible their slaughtering was valid!)

וי"ל דסמוך חזקה לרוב מקולקלין והוה ליה מיעוטא דמתוקנין מיעוטא דמיעוטא ולמיעוטא דמיעוטא לא חייש רבי מאיר

(d)

Answer: Rebbi Meir holds that one can put the status quo that the animal is forbidden together with the fact that most of their actions are invalid. This means that the animals that are indeed valid are an extremely small minority, and Rebbi Meir does not take extremely small minorities into consideration.

3)

TOSFOS DH ROV

תוספות ד"ה רוב

(SUMMARY: Tosfos argues with Rashi regarding the definition of "Metapchim.")

פי' בקונטרס מטפחים באשפות אבל בעיסה ודאי נגע שהרי העיסה בידו

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that ("Metapchim" means) they touch (i.e. play with) the garbage. However, he certainly touched the dough as he is holding it in his hand.

ור"ת מפרש דרוב תינוקות מטפחים בעיסה דטיפוח שייך באוכלים ומשקין

(b)

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that ("Metapchim" means) they touch dough, as the term "Metapchim" is used regarding food and drink.

כדאמרינן בע"ז בפרק רבי ישמעאל (דף ס:) או שהיה מטפח ע"פ חבית

1.

Proof #1: This is as the Gemara states in Avodah Zarah (60b), "Or he was playing on top of a barrel (of wine)."

וכן איתא בירושלמי בהדיא מפני שדרכו של תינוקות לטפח בעיסה

2.

Proof #2: The Yerushalmi explicitly states that it is normal for children to play with dough.

אבל תינוק ודאי טמא דסתם תינוקות ודאי טמאים

3.

Explanation #2 (cont.): However, a child is certainly considered impure, as children generally are certainly impure.

דאמרי' בתוספתא (דטהרות פ"ג) שסתם תינוקות טמאים מפני שנשים נדות מגפפות ומנשקות אותם

i.

Proof: This is as the Tosefta states (Taharos ch.3) that generally children are considered impure, being that women who are Nidos hug and kiss them.

ור"מ דמטהר משום דאית לן למתלי באדם טהור שבא לשם ונטל מן העיסה ונתן לו כדי שלא יטמא העיסה

4.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Rebbi Meir who says that the dough is pure understands that it is possible that a person who was pure came and took some dough and gave it to the child, in order that the child should (be happy playing with this piece of dough and) not make the entire batch of dough impure.

וכי האי גוונא אמר במס' טהרות בפ"ג (מ"ז) לעיל מהך תינוק דהכא תינוק שנמצא בצד בית הקברות ושושנים בידו

5.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Similarly, the Mishnah in Taharos (3:7) before the Mishnah about the child mentioned in our Gemara discusses a child who was found next to a cemetery holding roses.

אע"פ שאין השושנים אלא ממקום הטומאה טהור שאני אומר אדם טהור נתן לו

6.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Despite the fact that the roses seemingly come from the cemetery, the child is pure. This is because we assume that a pure person gave him the roses.

אע"פ שסתם תינוק טמא

(c)

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that a child is generally impure. (If we just said a child is generally impure, how can the Mishnah in Taharos (3:7) rule he is pure?)

היינו ממגע נדה והתם טהור מטומאת מת קאמר

(d)

Answer #1: We stated he is generally impure because he has been touched by a Nidah. The Mishnah in Taharos (3:7) is discussing whether or not he is considered Tamei Mes.

אי נמי מיירי בתינוק שהוא טהור בודאי שהניחתו אמו מלוכלך כדתניא (בתוספתא שם) תינוק שהניחתו אמו ובאה ומצאתו כמו שהוא טהור בד"א שהניחתו מלוכלך אבל הניחתו נקי טמא מפני שנשים נדות מגפפות ומנשקות אותו

(e)

Answer #2: Alternatively, the case is where the child is clearly pure, as his mother put him down while he was dirty. This is as the Tosefta (ibid.) states that if a mother puts down her child and she finds him as he was, he is pure. This is only if she put him down when he was dirty. If she put him down while he was clean he is impure. This is because women who are Nidos will probably hug and kiss him.

ואף על פי שלא נמצא בצק בידו מטמאים חכמים

(f)

Observation: The Chachamim say the dough is impure even if we do not find dough in his hands.

דתניא בתוספתא (שם) תינוק שנמצא עומד בצד קופה של בצק או בצד חבית של משקין רבי מאיר מטהר וחכמים מטמאין שדרך התינוק לטפח אמר רבי יוסי אם יכול לפשוט ידו וליקח טמא ואם לאו טהור

(g)

Proof: This is as the Tosefta states (ibid.) that if a child was found standing next to a box of dough or next to a barrel of liquids, Rebbi Meir says the food or drink is considered pure while the Chachamim say it is considered impure because it is normal for a child to play with food/drink. Rebbi Yosi says that if the child can reach out his hand and take from the dough/drink, it is impure. Otherwise, it is considered pure.

ולא נקט הכא בצק בידו

(h)

Implied Question: In our Gemara, it said the dough was found to be in his hand. (According to what we have said, why should this make a difference?)

אלא לרבותא דר"מ דאפילו הכי תולין באדם טהור

(i)

Answer: This is to showcase Rebbi Meir's novel position that even though it is found in his hand we assume that it was given to him by a pure person. (The Chachamim would say it is impure even if we did not find any dough in his hand, as stated above.)

86b----------------------------------------86b

4)

TOSFOS DH SEMOCH

תוספות ד"ה סמוך

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Rebbi Meir's ruling is based on the rule that a doubtful impurity regarding "something that has no knowledge to ask" is considered pure.)

וביבמות בפ' בתרא (דף קיט.) משמע דהוה ליה פלגא ופלגא

(a)

Observation: The Gemara in Yevamos (119a) implies that the odds are therefore fifty-fifty.

וטעם דספק טומאה לטהר ואע"פ שבטומאה נמי איכא איסור אם היה תרומה

(b)

Implied Question: There is a reason that a doubtful impurity is pure, even though there will be a prohibition transgressed if this is Terumah. (Why, then, are we lenient?)

מפרש רבינו חיים משום דתינוק הוי דבר שאין בו דעת לישאל גמרינן מסוטה לטהר אפילו ברה"י ואע"ג דליכא חזקה כגון הכא דכי סמכינן מיעוטא לחזקה הוי פלגא ופלגא

(c)

Answer: Rabeinu Chaim explains that a child is considered "something which has no knowledge to ask." We derive from Sotah that a doubt regarding the purity of something in this category is ruled as pure, even if the doubt occurs in the private domain. This is even though there is no (overwhelming) status of being pure, as in our case where we can say that the minority of children that do not take dough are added to the status of the dough being pure, causing it to be considered a fifty-fifty situation.

וא"ת אמאי קא"ר יוחנן בפרק עשרה יוחסין (קדושין דף פ.) דלרבנן עשו תינוק כמו שיש בו דעת לישאל והא לרבנן בלאו הכי אתי שפיר דמטמו דלא חיישי למיעוטא ורובא וחזקה רובא עדיף

(d)

Question: Why did Rebbi Yochanan say in Kidushin (80a) that the Rabbanan considered a child like someone who has the knowledge to ask? In any event the Rabbanan hold that the dough is impure, as they do not consider the minority significant! Accordingly, it is clear that they view this as a case of Rov (children who take the dough) verus Chazakah (status quo of the dough being pure) which is always decided by going after the Rov!

וי"ל דרוב תינוקות מטפחין לא הוי רוב גמור ומשום דנראה כאילו הוא רוב עשאוהו כמו שיש בו דעת לישאל

(e)

Answer: This Rov that most children would play with food is not a real case of Rov. Rather, it seems that this is the Rov. Therefore, they established the child as someone who has the ability to ask (instead of what we would normally presume, that the child is not someone who can ask).

ולהכי קא"ר יוחנן דאין שורפין עליו תרומה וקדשים ואי הוי רוב גמור אמאי אין שורפין כמו בהנהו דפרק כל היד (נדה דף יח.) דא"ר יוחנן בשלשה דברים הלכו חכמים אחר הרוב ועשאום כודאי לשרוף עליו כו'

1.

Proof: This is why Rebbi Yochanan says that we do not burn Terumah or Kodshim in this case (if the child plays with it). If it were a real Rov, why wouldn't we burn it? Rebbi Yochanan says in Nidah (18a) that the Chachamim followed the Rov in three cases in order to rule that is considered a certainty in which case we burn (i.e. Terumah) etc.

והתם נמי קאמר אי למעוטי הך דתינוק הא א"ר יוחנן חדא זימנא דאין שורפין עליו תרומה וקדשים והיינו טעמא דהתם הוי רוב גמור

2.

Proof (cont.): The Gemara there also asks that if this amount stated by Rebbi Yochanan excludes our case regarding the child, didn't Rebbi Yochanan already say that we do not burn Terumah or Kodshim in this case? (Accordingly, he would not say "in three cases" in order to exclude this case, as he already explicitly excluded this case.) The reason we burn Terumah etc. in the three cases stated in Nidah (ibid.) is because the Rov is a real Rov.

וא"ת למה ליה למימר לר"מ סמוך מיעוטא לחזקה בלא חזקה נמי הוא מטהר דכיון דחייש למיעוטא אם כן הוי ספק ויש לטהר כיון דהוי דבר שאין בו דעת לישאל

(f)

Question: Why do we have to say according to Rebbi Meir that we should combine the minority with the status quo? Even without the status quo he should rule that it is pure being that he considers the minority significant, hence establishing a doubtful situation that is regarding something that does not have the knowledge to ask.

וליכא למימר אף על גב דהוי ספק מ"מ לא גמרינן מסוטה לטהר אלא בפלגא ופלגא

1.

Implied Question: One cannot say that even though it is a doubtful situation, we only derive from Sotah that a doubt regarding something that has no knowledge is ruled pure if the doubt is a fifty-fifty situation. (Why not?)

דנהי דמסוטה לא נילף נילף מדרב גידל דדריש (סוטה דף כט.) אשר יגע בכל טמא ודאי טמא הא ספק יאכל ומוקי לה באין בו דעת לישאל

2.

Answer: Even though this might not be derived from Sotah, we should derive it from the teaching of Rav Gidal (Sotah 29a) from the Pasuk, "that he will touch anything that is impure." This teaches that a doubtful impurity can be eaten. Rav Gidal's teaching is established as including a case of something that cannot ask.

וי"ל דבלא חזקה נמי טהור

(g)

Answer #1: Indeed, without the status quo the case should still be ruled as pure.

ולא נקט סמוך מיעוטא לחזקה אלא לומר דחזקה לא הויא בהדי רובא דאי הויא בהדי רובא הוי מיעוטא דמיעוטא

1.

Answer #1 (cont.): The Gemara only states "put the minority together with the status quo" to point out that the status quo is not on the side of the majority. If it was, the minority would be considered an extreme minority (which would mean it is not considered a doubtful situation).

ולמאי דפריך ]דפרישית[ לעיל בפ"ק (דף יא) לר"מ דלא חייש למיעוטא אלא מדרבנן להחמיר אתי שפיר דבלא חזקה לא הוה חייש למיעוטא לטהר אבל עם החזקה חייש למיעוטא מן התורה לכך מטהר

(h)

Answer #2: This makes sense according to what we explained earlier (12a, DH "Pesach") that Rebbi Meir is stringent mid'Rabbanan regarding suspicion of the minority. Accordingly, without the status quo we would not consider the minority significant enough to call this a doubt and rule that it is pure. However, together with the status quo we do suspect the minority even according to Torah law, and therefore say it is pure.

5)

TOSFOS DH (YOMRU SAFEK ISSUR L'HATIR)

תוספות ד"ה (יאמרו ספק איסור להתיר)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos has difficulty understanding a question in Avodah Zarah based on the conclusion of the previous Tosfos.)

וא"ת בפ' אין מעמידין (ע"ז דף לד:) אסר ר"מ גבינות בית אונייקי ומפרש טעמא בגמ' מפני שרוב עגלים שבאותה עיר נשחטין לעבודת כוכבים ופריך מאי איריא רוב אפילו מיעוט נמי דהא ר"מ חייש למיעוטא

(a)

Question: In Avodah Zarah (34b), Rebbi Meir forbade the cheeses of the house of Uniyaki. The Gemara explains that this was because most calves in their city were slaughtered for idolatry. The Gemara asks why it has to be a majority. Rebbi Meir suspects even when there is a minority!

ומאי קושיא אם אין רוב נשחטים א"כ מיעוטא דנשחטים מיעוטא דמיעוטא דאיכא לגבינה חזקת היתר דמסייע לרוב

1.

Question (cont.): Why is this question difficult? If most were not slaughtered for idolatry, the minority that would be slaughtered for idolatry would be an extreme minority! This is because the cheese should be considered as having a status of being permitted, which helps the Rov (most not slaughtered for idolatry) cause the amount slaughtered for idolatry to be insignificant!

ומיהו איכא למיפרך מאי איריא רוב אפילו פלגא ופלגא נמי

2.

Observation: However, it would have been understandable if the Gemara would have asked why Rebbi Meir says "most" when half would have sufficed. (This is because the permitted status of the cheese combining with the half not slaughtered for idolatry would only lessen the half slaughtered for idolatry to the point that it would be considered a minority, not an extreme minority. Being that it is a minority, it would be understandable that Rebbi Meir who suspects minority occurrences would declare them to be forbidden.) (Note: There is much debate whether this Tosfos is attached to the previous Tosfos (Maharshal, Maharam) or not (Maharsha). Additionally, there are different texts of Tosfos' answer (see side of the Gemara, Maharsha, and Maharam).

6)

TOSFOS DH L'CHALEK

תוספות ד"ה לחלק

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rebbi Yehudah requires a Pasuk to teach Kisuy is obligatory for the blood of a bird or an undomesticated animal.)

ואע"ג דבפרק אותו ואת בנו (לעיל דף עט.) מספקא ליה לרבי יהודה אי חוששין לזרע האב או לא

(a)

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that earlier (79a) we were unsure if Rebbi Yehudah held that we suspect that the father's contribution is significant. (Those who hold we suspect etc. (Choshishin l'Zera ha'Av) generally do not require a Pasuk to clearly separate between two topics mentioned in a Pasuk. Being that Rebbi Yehudah's position is unclear on this matter, perhaps he holds we suspect etc. and therefore a Pasuk is not even needed!)

הכא דאיצטריך לחלק היינו משום דשמא אין חוששין

(b)

Answer: When our Gemara says he requires separating, it is according to the possibility that we do not suspect (that the father's contribution is significant).

7)

TOSFOS DH ASSUR

תוספות ד"ה אסור

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that our Gemara means it is forbidden to drink more without first making a Berachah Rishonah.)

פירש בקונטרס וכן רבינו חננאל אם לא תברכו בורא פרי הגפן אבל על ידי ברכת בורא פרי הגפן שרי למישתי קודם ברכת המזון

(a)

Explanation: Rashi and Rabeinu Chananel explain that Rav Yiyaba Saba meant that it is not permitted to drink unless they recite the blessing "Borei Pri ha'Gefen." However, through reciting this blessing they would be allowed to drink before they say Birkas ha'Mazon.

והשתא מייתי שפיר דכי היכי דהב לן ונבריך הוי גמר וצריך לברך אם רוצה לשתות הכי נמי כסוי הוי גמר וצריך לברך על השחיטה

1.

Explanation (cont.): It is now understandable why this is quoted. Just as "allow us and let us bless" is considered finishing the meal and one must recite a new blessing if he wants to drink, so too Kisuy is considered finishing the act of slaughtering, and one must recite a new blessing on slaughtering (if he wants to continue slaughtering after doing Kisuy).

וכן בערבי פסחים (דף קג.) מייתי ראיה מהך עובדא למאן דמברך אכסא קמא ואכסא דברכתא

(b)

Proof #1: Similarly, in Pesachim this incident is quoted as proof to those who require a blessing on the first cup and the cup of Birkas ha'Mazon (by the Pesach Seder).

וכן בפרק כל הבשר (לקמן דף קז:) אמרינן דשמש מברך על כל פרוסה ופרוסה אין נראה דצריך לברך בכל פעם בהמ"ז אלא ברכת המוציא ודאי צריך לברך

(c)

Proof #2: Similarly, in Chulin (107b) we say that a waiter makes a blessing on every slice. It does not seem that this means he must say Birkas ha'Mazon on every slice, but rather that he must say a new blessing of ha'Motzi on every slice.

והא דאמר להו רב ייבא אסור לכו למישתי אע"פ שלא היה יודע אם רוצים לברך בורא פרי הגפן תחלה

(d)

Implied Question: Rav Yiyaba Saba told them that it is forbidden for them to drink (without a new blessing) even though he did not know if they wanted to indeed drink again and recite a new blessing. (Why did he say this?)

מכל מקום היה מורה להם שלא יטעו וישתו בלא ברכה

(e)

Answer: Even so, he instructed them that they should not make a mistake and drink without reciting a blessing.

והא דאמר בערבי פסחים דבשלא הניחו זקן או חולה כשהן יוצאין טעונין ברכה למפרע וכשהן חוזרין טעונין ברכה לכתחלה

(f)

Implied Question: The Gemara in Pesachim (ibid.) says that when people do not leave an old or sick person behind when they go out in the middle of a meal, they need to say Birkas ha'Mazon before they leave. When they come back, they need to recite a new blessing (i.e. ha'Motzi) on their food. (This indicates that once there is an interruption they will also be unable to recite Birkas ha'Mazon, unlike what we have stated above that this is only an issue regarding the first blessing.)

התם עצה טובה קמ"ל דשמא ישהו הרבה עד שיהו רעבים ושוב לא יוכלו לברך ברכת המזון על אותה סעודה כדאמר בברכות (דף נא:)

(g)

Answer: The Gemara there is giving good advice, as perhaps they will end up leaving for a long time until they become hungry again, causing them to be unable to recite Birkas ha'Mazon on that meal as stated in Berachos (51b).

וכן משמע דלא הויא אלא עצה טובה דאם צריכין לברך ברכת המזון כשיצאו א"כ כשיחזרו פשיטא דטעונין ברכה לכתחלה

1.

Proof: The Gemara in Pesachim (ibid.) implies that this is only good advice. If they always have to recite Birkas ha'Mazon before they leave, when they go back it would be obvious that they would have to recite a new blessing (stating this would therefore be redundant)!

וא"ת דאמרינן בפרק כיצד מברכין (שם דף מב.) רבה ורבי זירא אכלו סליקו תכא מקמייהו אייתו לקמייהו כו' רבה אכל אמר אנא אתכא דריש גלותא קא סמכי ורבי זירא לא אכל

(h)

Question: The Gemara in Berachos (42a) states that Rabah and Rebbi Zeira ate, and their plates were taken away from them. More food was then brought before them etc. Rabah ate, explaining that he was depending on the table of the Reish Galusa. Rebbi Zeira did not eat.

והשתא אמאי לא אכל כיון דלא בעי ברכת המזון אלא ברכה שבתחלה

1.

Question (cont.): Based on our explanation above, why didn't Rebbi Zeira eat? He did not need to recite Birkas ha'Mazon in order to do so! He could have merely recited a blessing before eating the food!

וי"ל דבאותו מאכל היה מעורב בו לחם והיה קשה לו ליטול את ידיו ולברך ברכת המוציא

(i)

Answer: The new food that was brought out had bread mixed in it, and it would have been difficult for him to wash his hands again and recite ha'Motzi.

והא דתניא בתוספתא דברכות (פ"ד) בעל הבית שהיה אוכל קראו חבירו לדבר עמו אין צריך לברך למפרע הפליג צריך לברך למפרע וכשהוא חוזר מברך לכתחלה

(j)

Implied Question: The Tosfeta in Berachos (ch. 4) says that if a person was eating and was called by his friend to speak with him, he does not have to recite Birkas ha'Mazon. If he goes out to speak with him for a long time he must first recite Birkas ha'Mazon, and when he comes back he must first recite a blessing (i.e. ha'Motzi before eating more food).

לא לאחר שהפליג קאמר דצריך לברך למפרע כדמשמע לישנא אלא הפליג היינו שקראו להפליג ולילך עמו רחוק ואינו יודע מתי יחזור לכך צריך לברך למפרע קודם שיצא שמא ישהה עד שיהא רעב

(k)

Answer: This does not mean that after he spoke with him for a long time he must recite Birkas ha'Mazon, as implied by the text. Rather, it means that he was called to meet him and take a long walk, causing him to be uncertain regarding when he will return. He must recite Birkas ha'Mazon before he leaves as he might be delayed until he becomes hungry.

וכן משמע בפרק שלישי (ביומא דף ל.) דאמר דיבר עם חבירו והפליג צריך נטילת ידים משמע אבל בהמ"ז לא צריך אלא נטילה והמוציא ומיירי כשיצא לא ידע שיפליג

1.

Proof: This is also implied by the Gemara in Yoma (30a) that says that if a person talked to his friend for a long time, he needs to perform Netilas Yadayim again. This implies that he does not have to recite Birkas ha'Mazon. Rather, he must do Netilas Yadayim and recite ha'Motzi. This is in a case where he did not know that he would be delayed for a long time when he left.

ואין הלכה כאותה ברייתא אלא כרב חסדא דתניא כוותיה בערבי פסחים (דף קב.) דבדברים הטעונים ברכה לאחריהן במקומן אין צריך לברך אפילו ברכה לכתחלה דלקבעיה קמא הדר

(l)

Opinion: The Halachah is unlike this Beraisa (in Yoma ibid.), but rather is like Rav Chisda, as there is a Beraisa in Pesachim (102a) that supports his position. The Beraisa states that regarding foods that require one to say a Berachah Acharonah where he ate them one does not even have to say a Berachah Rishonah when he returns, as he has returned to his permanent spot.

והך ברייתא אתיא כרבי יהודה דמצריך שיניחו שם זקן או חולה

1.

Opinion (cont.): This Beraisa is according to the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah who requires that an old or sick person (they are examples of people that would not leave the area, but anyone would suffice) be left in the area (to keep this as his permanent spot).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF