(a)Rav Huna ate thirteen loaves of bread, after which he did not Bensch. What is the simple explanation of this statement, and why does Rashi reject it?
(b)Rashi therefore opts to learn like the Behag. What is the Behag's explanation?
(c)Rav Yehudah bar Chaviva explained that he recited 'ha'Motzi over Pas ha'Ba'ah be'Kisnin, because of Shmuel, who ruled like Rebbi Muna, who quoted Rebbi Yehudah as saying that that is the correct Berachah to recite. What did Rav Yehudah comment on that?
(d)If, on the other hand, the Halachah is not like Rebbi Muna, then why did Rav Yehudah himself rule like Shmuel, who holds that one may use 'Lachmaniyos' for an Eiruv, and that the appropriate Berachah to recite is therefore 'ha'Motzi'? What are 'Lachmaniyos'?
(a)It appears that Rav Huna, after eating thirteen loaves of bread, was still not satisfied, so he did not Bensch. Rashi however, rejects this explanation, because how can Rav Huna argue with both Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah (who argue about whether one Bensches over a Kezayis or a Kebeitzah, but) who both agree that mi'de'Rabbanan at least, one is obligated to Bensch .
(b)The Behag explains that Rav Huna recited 'Mezonos' before and 'Al ha'Michyah' afterwards, because that is the Berachah that one recites over 'Pas ha'Ba'ah be'Kisnin'. Rav Nachman commented that, since he ate such a large quantity over which people normally fix a meal, that he should have recited 'ha'Motzi' and 'Bensching'.
(c)When Rav Yehudah bar Chaviva explained that he recited 'ha'Motzi over Pas ha'Ba'ah be'Kisnin, because Shmuel ruled like Rebbi Muna, who quoted Rebbi Yehudah as saying that that is the correct Berachah to recite - Rav Yehudah informed him that he had misquoted Shmuel, who had not said 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Muna', but 'Ein Halachah ke'Rebbi Muna.
(d)Lachmaniyos (which according to Rashi, means thin wafer breads, something like our Matzos - see Tosfos DH 'Lachmaniyos'), which are also a kind of 'Pas ha'Ba'ah be'Kisnin', require a 'Motzi', and one can use them for an Eruv Chatzeros (in spite of Rav Yehudah's ruling) - because one tends to fix one's meal on them.
(a)Why did Rav Papa eat (without Bensching and reciting a fresh Berachah), after they had already concluded the meal?
(b)And why did Raba, who was sitting at the Chief Rabbi's table, eat - without Bensching and a fresh Berachah, even after they had removed the table?
(c)'ha'Ra'uy be'Shemen, Shemen Me'akvo'. What does this mean?
(d)Some say that the conclusion of the meal forbids one to continue eating without Bensching and a fresh Berachah; others say it is the removal of the table, and according to others, it is the washing with oil. What is the Halachah?
(a)Rav Papa maintained that it is not finishing the meal which is the criterion for being forbidden to eat before one has Bensched (according to Rashi - according to Tosfos DH 'Rebbi Zeira', it is not necessary to Bensch, but one must recite a fresh Berachah), but rather removing the small table before Bensching, which was customary to place in front of each participant, in those days (See Tosfos DH 'Sileik').
(b)Raba ate even after his table had been removed - because, since he was a guest at the Resh Galusa's table, he relied on whatever they would bring him (i.e. he had not taken his mind off eating, even after the table had been removed).
(c)Some had the Minhag to wash their hands with oil - after the table had been removed - before Bensching. They were still permitted to eat without a fresh Berachah, as long as they had not washed their hands with oil.
(d)The Halachah is that one may continue to eat without a fresh Berachah (and Bensching first - according to Rashi), until one has washed 'Mayim Acharonim' (which should be the last thing to be performed last, as we shall now see).
(a)We have just learnt that 'Teikef li'Netilas Yadayim Berachah'. What are the other two 'Halachic Teikefs'.
(b)Abaye added 'Teikef le'Talmidei-Chachamim Berachah, which he supported with two sources (from Ya'akov and Yosef). What are the two sources?
(a)The other two cases of Teikef are 1. ... 'Teikef li'Semichah Shechitah' (the Shechitah must follow immediately after the Mitzvah of leaning one's hands on the Korban. 2. ... 'Teikef li'Ge'ulah Tefilah'.
(b)When, after working fourteen years for Rachel and Leah, Ya'akov asked Lavan to let him go home , Lavan replied "Nichashti, ve'Yevarcheini Hash-m bi'Gelalecha!" And with regard to Potifera, the Torah testifies "va'Yevarech Hash-m es Beis ha'Mitzri Biglal Yosef". From both of these sources we learn that with a Talmid-Chacham comes Berachah.
(a)What is 'Yayin she'Lifnei ha'Mazon', and what is 'Yayin she'le'Achar ha'Mazon'? Does a Berachah over the former exempt one from reciting a Berachah over the latter?
(b)What is the Parperes that came before the meal, and what is the Parperes that comes after the meal? Does a Berachah over the former exempt one from reciting a Berachah over the latter?
(c)Does a Berachah over the Parperes exempt one from reciting a Berachah over bread, and vice-versa?`
(a)It was customary in those days, to drink a cup of wine (as a sort of an Aperitif) before the meal. They would also serve a cup of wine after the meal (before Birchas ha'Mazon). And we have learnt: 'Beirach Al ha'Yayin she'Lifnei ha'Mazon, Patar es ha'Yayin she'le'Achar ha'Mazon'.
(b)The Parperes that was served before the meal (as a form of hors d'oeuvres), might be birds or fish, was meant to open the taste buds; whereas Parperes after the meal (a kind of desert) took the form of roasted wheat kernels or wafer breads (both would be served together with wine). And we have learned 'Beirach al ha'Parperes she'Lifnei ha'Mazon, Patar es ha'Parperes she'le'Achar ha'Mazon'.
(c)('Beirach) al ha'Pas Patar es ha'Parperes', says the Mishnah, 'al ha'Parperes, Lo Patar es ha'Pas'.
(a)If a number of people sit down to eat, why can one not be Motzi all the other members of the group - like he would do if they were leaning?
(a)In those days, reclining during the meal was indicative of a Kevi'us. Consequently, if a number of people reclined and began eating, it was a sure sign that they were eating together - which would not be the case if they merely sat down to eat.
(a)We learnt in our Mishnah that a Berachah over the wine before the meal covers the wine after the meal. When does this not apply, and why?
(b)When does it apply even when it is not Shabbos or Yom-Tov?
(c)Why did Abaye recite a Berachah on every cup - even on Yom-Tov?
(a)On an ordinary weekday, people do not automatically drink additional cups of wine, like they do on Shabbos and Yom-Tov. Consequently, unless they specifically have in mind to do so, each cup requires a fresh Berachah.
(b)On the other hand, after coming out of the bathhouse or after bloodletting, when one did tend to drink during the meal, a fresh Berachah is not necessary.
(c)Abaye claimed that even on Shabbos and Yom-Tov, he did not intend to drink more than one cup, and that, when he did, it was due to a change of heart, and it therefore required a fresh Berachah.
(a)If the Berachah over wine before the meal covers the wine after the meal, why might a Berachah over the wine during the meal be different?
(b)In fact, the Amora'im argue over this point. What proof does the Gemara attempt to bring from our Mishnah, which says: 'Ba Lahem Yayin be'Soch ha'Mazon, Kol Echad ve'Echad Mevarech le'Atzmo; Achar ha'Mazon, Echad Mevarech le'Kulam'?
(c)Why is it not, in fact, a proof?
(a)It is possible that wine before the meal exempts wine after the meal from a Berachah - because they are both served as drinks; whereas wine that is served during the meal is not served as a drink, but in order to digest the food - Maybe the Berachah there will not cover the wine which comes after the meal as a drink.
(b)The Gemara at first thinks that 'Achar ha'Mazon, Echad Mevarech le'Kulan', is a continuation of the first half of the Beraisa 'Ba Lahen Yayin be'Soch ha'Mazon' - a clear ruling that the Berachah over the wine served during the meal does not cover the wine served at the end of the meal.
(c)The Gemara concludes however, that the Seifa of the Beraisa is not an extension of the Reisha; what it is saying is that if wine was not served during the meal, then one person recites the Berachah over the wine when it is served at the end of the meal.
(a)Our Mishnah writes 'Beirach Al ha'Pas Patar es ha'Parperes; Al ha'Parperes, Lo Patar es ha'Pas'. Beis Shamai Omrim, Af Lo Ma'aseh Kedeirah'. What are the two possible interpretations of Beis Shamai's statement?
(a)The Gemara is uncertain - as to whether Beis Shamai refers to the Reisha of the Mishnah, which says 'Beirach Al ha'Pas, Patar es ha'Parperes' (how much more so, Ma'aseh Kedeirah), on which Beis Shamai comments 'Af Lo Ma'aseh Kedeirah' (and certainly not Parperes); or whether he refers to the Seifa, which says 'Al ha'Parperes, Lo Patar es ha'Pas' (from which we can infer that it does exempt Ma'aseh Kedeirah), on which Beis Shamai comments 'Af Ma'aseh Kedeirah Lo Patar'.
(a)Our Mishnah requires three people to have eaten reclining, before they may Bensch with a Mezuman. The Beraisa obligates a Mezuman even if they only sat. How do we reconcile the two?
(b)At the funeral of Rav, Rav Ada bar Ahavah tore a second Keri'ah for his Rebbe. Why did he do that?
(c)What put his mind at ease?
(a)If the members of the group are reclining, then they automatically combine for Mezuman. If however, they say 'Come, Let's go and eat over there' (i.e. they verbally fix a place to eat), then, even if they only sat down together,(without reclining), it is called a fixture, and they Bensch with a Mezuman.
(b)Rav Ada bar Ahavah tore a second Keri'ah for Rav - because they did not know what to do in the case that we just described, which caused them to feel the loss even more acutely.
(c)It was only when an old man came and pointed out the discrepancy between the Mishnah and the Beraisa, and answered it as above, that Rav Ada bar Ahavah's mind was put at ease.