(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Berachos 48



(a) Rebbi Zeira was upset with himself for not asking what the Din will be if as many as four of the participants ate vegetables, because in the case of three, we still have *seven* who ate bread, and seven is a clear-cut majority. It does not necessarily follow that when there are *six* (which is only a narrow majority) who ate bread, that the remaining four will be able to combine to make up a Mezuman of ten.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah does not differentiate between the two above-mentioned kinds of majority. According to him, a majority is a majority. That is why he told Rebbi Zeira that he did well not to ask what the Din would be, if *four* out of the ten ate vegetables.

(a) Yanai Hamelech had a problem with finding a Mezuman, because he had persecuted the Perushim and killed all the Chachamim. Consequently, the people with whom he had contact were all totally ignorant as regards Jewish law.

(b) Queen Shelomis made him swear that, if she would produce someone who was able to Bensch Mezuman, he would not lay a hand on him.

(c) The King swore, and she brought him her own brother, Shimon ben Shetach, who had been in hiding.

(d) Yanai, after placing him between himself and the queen, said to him: 'See how much honor I am giving you!'
To which Shimon ban Shetach replied: 'It is not you who is honoring me, but the Torah, as the Pasuk writes in Mishlei "Salsela u'Seromimcha"'.

(a) Shimon ben Shetach declined to Bensch, simply because they had not given him anything to eat. What was he supposed to say - 'Baruch she'Achal Yanai va'Chaveirav Mishelo'?!

(b) He changed his mind and Bensched for them, after they had given him one cup of wine to drink - because he followed the opinion of Rabban Gamliel (37a), according to whom one is obligated to Bensch after any of the seven kinds.

(c) We do not rule like Rabban Gamliel, but like the Chachamim, who maintain that one only Bensches after a Kezayis of bread.

(a) Someone who has eaten, albeit a Shiur de'Rabbanan, is called 'Chayav le'Vareich', and can therefore be Motzi even someone who has eaten a Shiur d'Oraysa.

(b) The Behag, who clearly disagrees with Rashi's contention, explains that someone who has eaten a Kezayis of bread (and whose Chiyuv to Bensch is only mi'de'Rabbanan), is only able to be Motzi someone who ate a similar Shiur (and whose obligation to Bensch is also de'Rabbanan. But he cannot be Motzi someone who ate a 'Kedei Sevi'ah', whose Chiyuv is therefore d'Oraysa.
Rashi disagrees with that, on the grounds of the unlikelihood that King Yanai and his friends would not have eaten a full meal.

(c) According to Rashi, a child cannot be Motzi a grown-up because he is not even Chayav mi'de'Rabbanan. The Chiyuv Chinuch, he maintains, is a Mitzvah on the father, not on the child. (See Tosfos, d.h. 'Ad', who has a third opinion).

(d) It is the person who is actually Bensching Mezuman who has to have eaten a Kezayis of *bread*. The participants can combine, no matter what they have eaten.




(a) Moshe composed Birchas ha'Zan when the Man began to fall.

(b) Yehoshua composed Birchas ha'Aretz when they entered Eretz Yisrael.

(c) The Berachah of 'Boneh Yerushalayim' was composed by both David and Shlomoh (the bulk of the Berachah by David, the reference to the Beis ha'Mikdash, by Shlomoh.

(d) Birchas ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv was instituted and composed by the Chachamim, when the dead of Beitar were brought to burial.

(a) According to Rebbi Eliezer, one may insert 'Retzei' in Birchas ha'Aretz, in 'Boneh Yerushalayim' or in 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv'.

(b) 'Nechamah' is the equivalent of 'Boneh Yerushalayim'.

(c) According to the Tana Kama, one should insert 'Retzei' in the Berachah of 'Boneh Yerushalayim', but someone who did like Rebbi Eliezer, would also be Yotze. Whereas according to the Chachamim, one would not be Yotze if one inserted 'Retzei' anywhere else.

(a) Rebbi Akiva maintains
1. that Birchas ha'Zimun is derived from "Gadlu la'Hashem Iti", as we learnt above. Consequently, "ve'Achalta ve'Sava'ata u'Veirachta" is not needed for Birchas Zimun, so it combines with "es Hashem Elokecha" to include Birchas ha'Zan".
2. that 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv' is de'Rabbanan.

(b) Rebbi Akiva therefore learns from "Asher Nasan Lach" that the obligation of Birchas ha'Mazon applied only from the time that Hashem gave them the land (from the time that they actually entered it).

(c) Rebbi Nasan learns the obligation to recite a Berachah Rishonah from "Ki Hu Yevarech es ha'Zavach".

(d) "u'Veirach es Lachmecha" - 'Al Tikri' says Rebbi Yitzchak, "u'Vareich", Ela "u'Vareich"'. And when is it called bread? Only *before* it has been eaten!

(a) The women might also have said so much, either because they could not take their eyes off Shaul, who was exceptionally tall and handsome; or because Shmuel's time to lead Yisrael had not yet come to an end, and 'one kingdom cannot encroach on another by even one hairsbreadth'.

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, the word "ha'Tovah" contains two Derashos, from the 'Hey', we learn Birchas Yerushalayim, as we explained earlier, and from "Tovah", Birchas ha'Torah (because of the Pasuk in Mishlei, which writes "Ki Lekach Tov Nasati Lachem").

(a) Bris Milah and Torah must be mentioned in the Berachah of 'Nodeh Lecha'.

(b)&(c) Bris must be mentioned first, because whereas Torah was given with three covenants (at Sinai, in the Ohel Mo'ed and in the plains of Mo'av), Bris Molah was given with thirteen.

(d) We mention Hoda'ah twice in the Berachah of 'Nodeh Lecha', once in the opening words, and then again towards the end, when we say 've'Al ha'Kol Hashem Elokeinu Anachnu *Modim* Lach'.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,