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

úåñôåú ã"ä ñéôà

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

úéîä ãîùåí âæéøä ãìîà àúé ìîéëì ðáìä éù ìé ìäúéø ìàå ãàåúå åàú áðå îñô÷ îä ìé ìàå ãàåúå åàú áðå åîä ìé ìàå ãðáìä

(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?

åìà ãîé ìøéùà ãôèøéðï ìëñåú îñô÷

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?)

ãùá åàì úòùä áòìîà äåà åãìîà àúé ìîéëì

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.

åéù ìåîø ãàé ìàå ãøåá îòùéäí î÷åì÷ìéí ìà äéå ôåèøéí îìëñåú îùåí âæøä ãìîà àúé ìîéëì àìà ùìà ðçîéø ìäèòéï ëñåé àîøé' ãôèåø îùåí ããìîà àúé ìîéëì

(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.

åëéåï ãøåá îòùéäí î÷åì÷ìéï éù ìðå ìäúéø ðîé ìùçåè àçøéäí ãìîà àúé ìîéëì

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

úåñôåú ã"ä îàé èòîà

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

ä÷ùä äø"ø ùîåàì îååøãéï åøáðï îàé èòîééäå àí øåá îòùéäí îúå÷ðéï à"ë éäà îåúø ìàëåì îùçéèúí

(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!

åòåã äùåçè àçøéäí àîàé àéðå ñåôâ àøáòéí

1.

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

åàé ôìâà åôìâà àí ñîåê ôìâà ãî÷åì÷ìéï ìçæ÷ä ãòåîã áçæ÷ú àéñåø åàéúøò ìéä îçöä ãîúå÷ðéí àí ëï éäà îåúø ìùçåè àçøéäí åâí éúçééáå òì ùçéèúï îùåí ðáìä

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!

åé"ì ãîñô÷à ìäå ìøáðï àé øåá îòùéäí î÷åì÷ìéï àé øåá îòùéäí îúå÷ðéï åäùúà ìà îäðéà çæ÷ä îéãé

(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).

åìøáé îàéø ôùéèà ìéä ãøåá îòùéäí î÷åì÷ìéï

1.

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

åàí úàîø åàó òì âá ãøåá îòùéäí î÷åì÷ìéï î"î øáé îàéø ëéåï ãçééù ìîéòåèà àîàé ì÷é îùåí ðáìä åàîàé îåúø ìùçåè àçøéäí

(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!)

åé"ì ãñîåê çæ÷ä ìøåá î÷åì÷ìéï åäåä ìéä îéòåèà ãîúå÷ðéï îéòåèà ãîéòåèà åìîéòåèà ãîéòåèà ìà çééù øáé îàéø

(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

úåñôåú ã"ä øåá

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

ôé' á÷åðèøñ îèôçéí áàùôåú àáì áòéñä åãàé ðâò ùäøé äòéñä áéãå

(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.

åø"ú îôøù ãøåá úéðå÷åú îèôçéí áòéñä ãèéôåç ùééê áàåëìéí åîù÷éï

(b)

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

ëãàîøéðï áò"æ áôø÷ øáé éùîòàì (ãó ñ:) àå ùäéä îèôç ò"ô çáéú

1.

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

åëï àéúà áéøåùìîé áäãéà îôðé ùãøëå ùì úéðå÷åú ìèôç áòéñä

2.

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

àáì úéðå÷ åãàé èîà ãñúí úéðå÷åú åãàé èîàéí

3.

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

ãàîøé' áúåñôúà (ãèäøåú ô"â) ùñúí úéðå÷åú èîàéí îôðé ùðùéí ðãåú îâôôåú åîðù÷åú àåúí

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.

åø"î ãîèäø îùåí ãàéú ìï ìîúìé áàãí èäåø ùáà ìùí åðèì îï äòéñä åðúï ìå ëãé ùìà éèîà äòéñä

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.

åëé äàé âååðà àîø áîñ' èäøåú áô"â (î"æ) ìòéì îäê úéðå÷ ãäëà úéðå÷ ùðîöà áöã áéú ä÷áøåú åùåùðéí áéãå

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.

àò"ô ùàéï äùåùðéí àìà îî÷åí äèåîàä èäåø ùàðé àåîø àãí èäåø ðúï ìå

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.

àò"ô ùñúí úéðå÷ èîà

(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?)

äééðå îîâò ðãä åäúí èäåø îèåîàú îú ÷àîø

(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.

àé ðîé îééøé áúéðå÷ ùäåà èäåø áåãàé ùäðéçúå àîå îìåëìê ëãúðéà (áúåñôúà ùí) úéðå÷ ùäðéçúå àîå åáàä åîöàúå ëîå ùäåà èäåø áã"à ùäðéçúå îìåëìê àáì äðéçúå ð÷é èîà îôðé ùðùéí ðãåú îâôôåú åîðù÷åú àåúå

(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.

åàó òì ôé ùìà ðîöà áö÷ áéãå îèîàéí çëîéí

(f)

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

ãúðéà áúåñôúà (ùí) úéðå÷ ùðîöà òåîã áöã ÷åôä ùì áö÷ àå áöã çáéú ùì îù÷éï øáé îàéø îèäø åçëîéí îèîàéï ùãøê äúéðå÷ ìèôç àîø øáé éåñé àí éëåì ìôùåè éãå åìé÷ç èîà åàí ìàå èäåø

(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.

åìà ð÷è äëà áö÷ áéãå

(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?)

àìà ìøáåúà ãø"î ãàôéìå äëé úåìéï áàãí èäåø

(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

úåñôåú ã"ä ñîåê

(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.)

åáéáîåú áô' áúøà (ãó ÷éè.) îùîò ãäåä ìéä ôìâà åôìâà

(a)

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

åèòí ãñô÷ èåîàä ìèäø åàò"ô ùáèåîàä ðîé àéëà àéñåø àí äéä úøåîä

(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?)

îôøù øáéðå çééí îùåí ãúéðå÷ äåé ãáø ùàéï áå ãòú ìéùàì âîøéðï îñåèä ìèäø àôéìå áøä"é åàò"â ãìéëà çæ÷ä ëâåï äëà ãëé ñîëéðï îéòåèà ìçæ÷ä äåé ôìâà åôìâà

(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.

åà"ú àîàé ÷à"ø éåçðï áôø÷ òùøä éåçñéï (÷ãåùéï ãó ô.) ãìøáðï òùå úéðå÷ ëîå ùéù áå ãòú ìéùàì åäà ìøáðï áìàå äëé àúé ùôéø ãîèîå ãìà çééùé ìîéòåèà åøåáà åçæ÷ä øåáà òãéó

(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!

åé"ì ãøåá úéðå÷åú îèôçéï ìà äåé øåá âîåø åîùåí ãðøàä ëàéìå äåà øåá òùàåäå ëîå ùéù áå ãòú ìéùàì

(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).

åìäëé ÷à"ø éåçðï ãàéï ùåøôéï òìéå úøåîä å÷ãùéí åàé äåé øåá âîåø àîàé àéï ùåøôéï ëîå áäðäå ãôø÷ ëì äéã (ðãä ãó éç.) ãà"ø éåçðï áùìùä ãáøéí äìëå çëîéí àçø äøåá åòùàåí ëåãàé ìùøåó òìéå ëå'

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.

åäúí ðîé ÷àîø àé ìîòåèé äê ãúéðå÷ äà à"ø éåçðï çãà æéîðà ãàéï ùåøôéï òìéå úøåîä å÷ãùéí åäééðå èòîà ãäúí äåé øåá âîåø

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.

åà"ú ìîä ìéä ìîéîø ìø"î ñîåê îéòåèà ìçæ÷ä áìà çæ÷ä ðîé äåà îèäø ãëéåï ãçééù ìîéòåèà àí ëï äåé ñô÷ åéù ìèäø ëéåï ãäåé ãáø ùàéï áå ãòú ìéùàì

(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.

åìéëà ìîéîø àó òì âá ãäåé ñô÷ î"î ìà âîøéðï îñåèä ìèäø àìà áôìâà åôìâà

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?)

ãðäé ãîñåèä ìà ðéìó ðéìó îãøá âéãì ããøéù (ñåèä ãó ëè.) àùø éâò áëì èîà åãàé èîà äà ñô÷ éàëì åîå÷é ìä áàéï áå ãòú ìéùàì

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.

åé"ì ãáìà çæ÷ä ðîé èäåø

(g)

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

åìà ð÷è ñîåê îéòåèà ìçæ÷ä àìà ìåîø ãçæ÷ä ìà äåéà áäãé øåáà ãàé äåéà áäãé øåáà äåé îéòåèà ãîéòåèà

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).

åìîàé ãôøéê ]ãôøéùéú[ ìòéì áô"÷ (ãó éà) ìø"î ãìà çééù ìîéòåèà àìà îãøáðï ìäçîéø àúé ùôéø ãáìà çæ÷ä ìà äåä çééù ìîéòåèà ìèäø àáì òí äçæ÷ä çééù ìîéòåèà îï äúåøä ìëê îèäø

(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)

úåñôåú ã"ä (éàîøå ñô÷ àéñåø ìäúéø)

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

åà"ú áô' àéï îòîéãéï (ò"æ ãó ìã:) àñø ø"î âáéðåú áéú àåðéé÷é åîôøù èòîà áâî' îôðé ùøåá òâìéí ùáàåúä òéø ðùçèéï ìòáåãú ëåëáéí åôøéê îàé àéøéà øåá àôéìå îéòåè ðîé ãäà ø"î çééù ìîéòåèà

(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!

åîàé ÷åùéà àí àéï øåá ðùçèéí à"ë îéòåèà ãðùçèéí îéòåèà ãîéòåèà ãàéëà ìâáéðä çæ÷ú äéúø ãîñééò ìøåá

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!

åîéäå àéëà ìîéôøê îàé àéøéà øåá àôéìå ôìâà åôìâà ðîé

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

úåñôåú ã"ä ìçì÷

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

åàò"â ãáôø÷ àåúå åàú áðå (ìòéì ãó òè.) îñô÷à ìéä ìøáé éäåãä àé çåùùéï ìæøò äàá àå ìà

(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!)

äëà ãàéöèøéê ìçì÷ äééðå îùåí ãùîà àéï çåùùéï

(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

úåñôåú ã"ä àñåø

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

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ åëï øáéðå çððàì àí ìà úáøëå áåøà ôøé äâôï àáì òì éãé áøëú áåøà ôøé äâôï ùøé ìîéùúé ÷åãí áøëú äîæåï

(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.

åäùúà îééúé ùôéø ãëé äéëé ãäá ìï åðáøéê äåé âîø åöøéê ìáøê àí øåöä ìùúåú äëé ðîé ëñåé äåé âîø åöøéê ìáøê òì äùçéèä

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).

åëï áòøáé ôñçéí (ãó ÷â.) îééúé øàéä îäê òåáãà ìîàï ãîáøê àëñà ÷îà åàëñà ãáøëúà

(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).

åëï áôø÷ ëì äáùø (ì÷îï ãó ÷æ:) àîøéðï ãùîù îáøê òì ëì ôøåñä åôøåñä àéï ðøàä ãöøéê ìáøê áëì ôòí áäî"æ àìà áøëú äîåöéà åãàé öøéê ìáøê

(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.

åäà ãàîø ìäå øá ééáà àñåø ìëå ìîéùúé àò"ô ùìà äéä éåãò àí øåöéí ìáøê áåøà ôøé äâôï úçìä

(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?)

îëì î÷åí äéä îåøä ìäí ùìà éèòå åéùúå áìà áøëä

(e)

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

åäà ãàîø áòøáé ôñçéí ãáùìà äðéçå æ÷ï àå çåìä ëùäï éåöàéï èòåðéï áøëä ìîôøò åëùäï çåæøéï èòåðéï áøëä ìëúçìä

(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.)

äúí òöä èåáä ÷î"ì ãùîà éùäå äøáä òã ùéäå øòáéí åùåá ìà éåëìå ìáøê áøëú äîæåï òì àåúä ñòåãä ëãàîø ááøëåú (ãó ðà:)

(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).

åëï îùîò ãìà äåéà àìà òöä èåáä ãàí öøéëéï ìáøê áøëú äîæåï ëùéöàå à"ë ëùéçæøå ôùéèà ãèòåðéï áøëä ìëúçìä

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)!

åà"ú ãàîøéðï áôø÷ ëéöã îáøëéï (ùí ãó îá.) øáä åøáé æéøà àëìå ñìé÷å úëà î÷îééäå àééúå ì÷îééäå ëå' øáä àëì àîø àðà àúëà ãøéù âìåúà ÷à ñîëé åøáé æéøà ìà àëì

(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.

åäùúà àîàé ìà àëì ëéåï ãìà áòé áøëú äîæåï àìà áøëä ùáúçìä

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!

åé"ì ãáàåúå îàëì äéä îòåøá áå ìçí åäéä ÷ùä ìå ìéèåì àú éãéå åìáøê áøëú äîåöéà

(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.

åäà ãúðéà áúåñôúà ãáøëåú (ô"ã) áòì äáéú ùäéä àåëì ÷øàå çáéøå ìãáø òîå àéï öøéê ìáøê ìîôøò äôìéâ öøéê ìáøê ìîôøò åëùäåà çåæø îáøê ìëúçìä

(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).

ìà ìàçø ùäôìéâ ÷àîø ãöøéê ìáøê ìîôøò ëãîùîò ìéùðà àìà äôìéâ äééðå ù÷øàå ìäôìéâ åìéìê òîå øçå÷ åàéðå éåãò îúé éçæåø ìëê öøéê ìáøê ìîôøò ÷åãí ùéöà ùîà éùää òã ùéäà øòá

(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.

åëï îùîò áôø÷ ùìéùé (áéåîà ãó ì.) ãàîø ãéáø òí çáéøå åäôìéâ öøéê ðèéìú éãéí îùîò àáì áäî"æ ìà öøéê àìà ðèéìä åäîåöéà åîééøé ëùéöà ìà éãò ùéôìéâ

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.

åàéï äìëä ëàåúä áøééúà àìà ëøá çñãà ãúðéà ëååúéä áòøáé ôñçéí (ãó ÷á.) ãáãáøéí äèòåðéí áøëä ìàçøéäï áî÷åîï àéï öøéê ìáøê àôéìå áøëä ìëúçìä ãì÷áòéä ÷îà äãø

(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.

åäê áøééúà àúéà ëøáé éäåãä ãîöøéê ùéðéçå ùí æ÷ï àå çåìä

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