Clarification: This implies that it also refers to Rebbi Yochanan.

Question: But this is not correct, since it is not the way of the Gemara to refute the sayings of the Amora'im together with the Beraisa from which it supported Rebbi Yochanan, without any reason.

Answer: It therefore seems that it refers to 'Katan Pore'ach', i.e. when the Gemara says that 'one can be Mezamen on a Katan Pore'ach' it means that he must know to whom he is making the B'rachah, since both are required.

Clarification: According to what we just explained, we must say that the Gemara cites the episode with Abaye and Rava, not with regard to including them in a Mezuman, but merely to demonstrate a Katan who knows to whom he is making the B'rachah,

Proof #1: Since they were most probably not 'Porchim', because if they were, what would be the Chidush in the fact that they knew to whom they were reciting the B'rachah.

Proof #2: And Rabah too, did what he did to demonstrate that although they were precocious, they were still small, and one could therefore not include them in a Mezuman.

Ruling: Rabeinu Tam says that even though the Halachah is not like all these Sugyos, it is however like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who says that one may make a real Katan 'an attachment' to a Minyan, and here when we require either a Pore'ach or one who knows to whom is he making a B'rachah, that refers to three exclusively.

Ruling (cont.): And 'The Halachah is not like all these Sugyos' does not refer to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

Proof: And one can also infer this from the fact that the Gemara interrupts in the middle with the episode of Rebbi Eliezer and with statement 'le'Olam Yashkim Adam ... ' and the supporting Beraisa (See Maharsha).

Conclusion: It must therefore refer to 'these Sugyos' that follow 'Tanya Kavaseih' of Yashkim ... - 'Nine plus the Aron', 'Shabbos plus two', 'Nine that look like ten' and 'Two Talmidei-Chachamim who sharpen each other ... '.

Implied Question: And Katan Pore'ach even though we learned a Beraisa that includes a Pore'ach ...

Answer: Rav Nachman will establish that where he doesn't know to whom he is making the B'rachah.

Answer (cont.): And this too, is like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said earlier that 'One cannot Bensch Mezuman with a Katan who is still in his cot until he (reaches the stage where he) knows to whom he is reciting the B'rachah.

Answer (cont.): One can however, make him 'an attachment' to a Minyan - with regard to Birchas ha'Mazon and the same applies to Tefilah.

Conclusion (cont.): Since Rav Nachman does not dispute that. And when he requires both Pore'ach and Yode'a, that is specifically for a Mezuman of three, but for an attachment, he concedes to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi that he may be included, and the same applies to Tefilah.

Proof: And one can infer this (comparison) from the fact that the Gemara queries Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who is talking about Birchas ha'Mazon, from the episode with Rebbi Eliezer, which refers to tefilah.

Question: In Bereishis Rabah (Parshas Vayeitzei) the Medrash says with regard to the the ruling of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi 'This means to say that it only pertains to Birchas ha'Mazon, but not to Tefilah'?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that the Halachah is not like that Medrash, since it argues with our Sugya, where Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi clearly refers to Tefilah too, since the Gemara queries him from Rebbi Eliezer, who is referring to Tefilah.

Halachah: There are some who combine a Katan for Mezuman, provided he is holding a Chumash in his hand.

Refutation #1: Rabeinu Tam however says that this is a nonsensical Minhag, because just as the Gemara asks 'Is an Aron ha'Kodesh a man?', so too can we ask 'Is a Chumash a man?'

Refutation #2: Moreover, when the Gemara permits a Katan to combine, it does so even without a Chumash.

Refutation #3: Furthermore, we do not find anywhere that a Chunash helps, other than in the case of arranging a leap-year, when they went up to the attic ... , as we learned in Perek Rebbi Eliezer (88),where it says that 'Three people can declare a leap-year; Rebbi Eliezer says 'ten'; and if the number decreased, they bring a Seifer-Torah and make a circle ... '.

Refutation #3 (cont.): And the Gemara there says nothing about a Katan holding it. Moreover, it specifically mentions there a Seifer-Torah which is written in the form of a scroll, but not a Chumash such as the ones we use.

Yerushalmi: In the Yerushalmi however, Rebbi Yossi states how many a time he ate with his father Rebbi Chalafta and with Rebbi Chanina bar Sarsi his uncle, and they declined to include him in the Mezuman until he had grown two pubic hairs.

Yerushalmi (cont.): This implies that a Katan cannot combine to make up a Mezuman until he has grown two pubic hairs.

Halachah #1: In fact, based on that Yerushalmi, the Ri ruled that one cannot make a Katan an attachment for a Minyan neither as regards Tefilah nor as regards Birchas ha'Mazon.

Halachah #2: The Ri also stated that, when it came to the crunch, Rabeinu Tam himself did not used to make a Katan an attachment for a Minyan.

Conclusion: Consequently, even if he is holding a Chumash in his hand, it will not help, as we explained - because if a Katan by himself will not combine, the fact that he is holding a Chumash will not help either.

Halachah: It seems however, that a Katan Pore'ach, according to Rabeinu Tam, who also understands to whom is making a B'rachah, can combine even to make up three for a Mezuman, like the Beraisa, with which nobody disagrees.

Halachah: And this is the wording of Rabeinu who finally paskens that 'One cannot make a Katan an attachment for ten, neither for Zimun nor for Tefilah, or for three, until he has grown two pubic hairs, like the case of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chalafta in the Yerushalmi.

Explanation: And when the Yerushalmi permits 'making a Katan and a Seifer-Torah an attachment for a Seifer-Torah', says the Ri, it is talking about calling up a Katan to the Seifer-Torah, to make him an attachment to the seven Aliyos.

Explanation (cont.): And only there, as is written in Megilah (23a), that a Katan is counted toward the required seven who are called to the Torah (on Shabbos) as it says 'all are counted towards the count of seven, even a Katan, even a woman'- were it not for the reason the reason of decorum. However, he (a Katan) is not counted toward other matters.

Explanation (cont.): In any event, even if we do find a source for a Katan holding a Chumash combining even for Tefilah, that will pertain specifically to one written on a scroll, but not to our Chumashim.

Observation: According to Rabeinu Tam's explanation, a Chumash in the hand of a Katan will not help at all, but a Katan on his own can be an attachment, though not two ...

Proof: Like we learned in the episode of Rebbi Eliezer.

Conclusion: And he explains that the story in the yerushalmi concerning Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chalafta is speaking specifically about three (but not ten).

Question: How is it speaking? If they were Ketanim Porchim, what is so special about them looking upwards?

Answer: One therefore needs to say that Rabah was not testing them in order to Bensch Mezuman together with them, since they were too small for that, but to test them to gauge their level of intelligence.

Halachah: And this is the Halachah, that someone who ate some vegetables or who drank a cup of wine may combine - even to say 'Baruch Elokeinu she'Achalnu mi'Shelo ', since eating incorporates drinking.

Explanation #1: There are some who want to say that it is speaking specifically with regard to Bensching with a Minyan,but for a Mezuman, they will not combine ...

Source: As we learned earlier (on Daf 45:) where the Gemara was more stringent with regard to combining to make up three than to make up ten.

Explanation #2 (Yerushalmi): A Beraisa cited by the Yerushalmi however, states that 'Two people who ate bread and one, vegetables, may Bensch Mezuman, and this is how the Ri in his Tosfos, Paskens.

Refutation: The Count from Coucy however, maintains that the Halachah is not like the Beraisa cited by that Yerushalmi ...

Proof #1: Firstly, since the Gemara there establishing that Beraisa like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - meaning that the Rabbanan disagree, and hold that they do not combine, and we do not rule like the opinion of an individual.

Proof #2: Secondly, if that was the Halachah, we would be left with a contradiction in two rulings of Rebbi Yochanan, who rules here, that can only be Motzi if one ate a k'Zayis of 'corn', implying that one can combine if one only drank, like the story of Rebbi Shimon ben Shetach; Whereas in the Yerushalmi, he rules that 'One cannot Bensch Mezuman until one eats a k'Zayis' - insinuating even not to combine?

Conclusion: This implies that our Sugya is referring to ten, and the Yerushalmi, to three.

Halachah: And regarding combining to make up ten, even two or three who drank can combine, since eating incorporates drinking ...

Conclusion: And we are only particular to have a majority that is clearly distinguishable (i.e. seven) who actually ate bread.

Clarification: This implies that if somebody who has eaten a k'Zayis of 'corn' can render Yotzei somebody who ate to satisfaction.

Question #1: Someone who eats a K'zayis is only Chayav to Bensch mi'de'Rabbanan; and how can a de'Rabbanan render Yotzei a d'Oraysa?

Question #1 (cont.): Seeing as we say in Perek Mi she'Meiso (Daf 20:) 'May a curse come upon someone whose wife and children Bensch on his behalf!'

Question #1 (cont.): And the Gemara is unable to establish the Heter for a Katan to be Motzi his father ...

Question #1 (cont.): Unless his father ate a k'Zayis, in which case the Katan who has reached the age of Chinuch, and whose Chiyuv is only de'Rabbanan, can be Motzi his father whose Chiyuv is also only de'Rabbanan.

Answer #1: Rashi (therefore) explains that someone who is Chayav mi'de'Rabbanan is considered Chayav ... (cont. on Amud Beis)

Answer #1: Rashi (therefore) explains that someone who is Chayav mi'de'Rabbanan is considered Chayav ...

Answer #1 (cont.): But a Katan who has reached the age of Chinuch is not (even) called Chayav mi'de'Rabbanan, since it is his father who is Chayav to educate him, whereas no obligation is incumbent upon him.

Question #1: But this is very difficult, since, in any event, he (the person is Chayav mi'de'Rabbanan) is not Chayav min ha'Torah, how can he be Motzi those who are?

Question #2: Moreover, it is a Dochek to say that a Katan who has reached the age of Chinuch is not Chayav (even) mi'de'Rabbanan, because if that is so, how can he be Motzi his father?

Answer #2: The B'hag explains that someone who has eaten a k'Zayis cannot be Motzi others who ate to satisfaction, since a Chiyuv de'Rabbanan cannot be Mozti a Chiyuv d'Oraysa.

Answer #2: But where they too, ate only a k'Zayis, he can be Motzi them.

Refutation: This is not correct however, seeing as we rely on the episode with Yanai and his friends, who ate to satisfaction, yet we see that Shimon ben Shetach was Motzi them.

Answer #3: It therefore seems that a Katan is not a bar Chiyuva at all, even if he ate to satisfaction; and that explains why he falls into the category of 'Eino Mechuyav' ...

Answer #3 (cont.): Which is why he cannot be Motzi someone who has eaten a Shi'ur d'Oraysa.

Answer #3 (cont.): Whereas a Gadol who is a bar Chiyuva min ha'Torah in he event that he eats to satisfaction, falls into the category of 'Mechuyav be'Davar', even if he did not eat anything ...

Source: Aswe say in Rosh ha'Shanah (daf 39.) 'Even someone who has already been Yotzei, can be Motzi others regarding all B'rachos 'except for the B'rachah over bread and wine' ...

Reason: Due to the principle 'All of Yisrael are responsible for one another'.

Conclusion: So by Birchas ha'Mazon too, we will say 'Even though one has already been Yotzei, one can still be Motzi' (as we just explained).

Implied Question: And one only needs toeat a k'Zayis of 'corn' ...

Answer: In order to be able to say 'from whom we ate'.

Explanation #1: This does not necessarily mean, Rashi explains, that one must actually begin with Nechamah and conclude with it, but that one does not need to mention Shabbos at the beginnimgof the B'rachah or at the end, only in the middle.

Explanation #1 (cont.): In fact, one begins and ends with the Nechamah of Yerushalayim, just as one does during the week, when one begins with 'Racheim' and ends with 'Bonei Yerushalayim'.

Explanation #2: There are some who begin with 'Nachmeinu' and end with 'Nechamas Tzi'on Irecha u'be'Vinyan Yerushalayim'.

Reason: And they ascribe this to the fact that 'Racheim' is an expression of supplication, and one does not say supplications on Shabbos.

Reason (cont.): Whereas 'Nacheim' is not an expression of supplication, but rather like the Pasuk in Sh'mos (32) "And relent on the evil to Your people".

Refutation: This is not correct however, since both of these are expressions of supplication; and even if they, it doesn't matter ...

Source: As the Yerushalmi says in Shabbos (Perek Eilu Kesharim) 'Does one say "Ro'einu, Zuneinu Farn'seinu" on Shabbos?' Back came the reply 'One is merely reciting the regular text.

Conclusion: It is a nonsensical custom to change from the B'rachah that one recites during the week.

Clarification: It is not necessary to mention B'ris, Torah, Chayim and Mazon (See Mordechai (Si'man 176).

Clarification (cont.): And the Gemara only mentioned them (B'ris and Torah) as a Si'man (but not as the actual wording).