(a)What is the difference between two people who ate together and three people who ate together?

(b)The Mishnah lists various cases of people who seemingly ate ba'Aveirah, and nevertheless combined for a Mezuman. What is the Chidush in all these cases?

(c)How much must one have eaten in order to Bensch Mezuman?


(a)Two people who ate together are not obligated (perhaps not even permitted) to Bensch Mezuman, three are.

(b)The Chidush of all the cases in the Mishnah, where people who seemingly ate ba'Aveirah, may nevertheless combine for, and even Bensch, Mezuman, is - that it is not considered a Berachah ba'Aveirah (which in turn, is referred to as an insult, rather than a Berachah).

(c)According to the Tana Kama, one has to have eaten a Kezayis in order to Bensch Mezuman; according to Rebbi Yehudah, a Kebeitzah.


(a)Rav Asi learns 'Mezuman' from the Pasuk in Tehilim "Gadlu la'Hashem Iti" etc. From which Pasuk in Devarim does Rebbi Avahu learn it?

(b)What else do we learn from "Gadlu la'Hashem Iti" (or perhaps it is from the continuation of the Pasuk "u'Neromemah Shemo Yachdav")?

(c)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Shemos "Moshe Yedaber, ve'ha'Elokim Ya'anenu be'Kol", and how do we learn it from there?

(d)What should the speaker do if he knows that the translator is unable to speak as loudly as he does?


(a)Rebbi Avahu learns Mezuman from the Pasuk "Ki Sheim Hash-m Ekra, Havu Godel l'Elokeinu".

(b)We also learn from "Gadlu la'Hashem Iti" (or from "Yachdav"), that - one should not answer 'Amen' louder than the person reciting the Berachah.

(c)From "Moshe Yedaber, ve'ha'Elokim Ya'anenu be'Kol" we learn that the translator should not raise his voice to speak louder than the reader - from the fact that Hash-m, who was only speaking to Moshe, nevertheless raised His voice, to enable Moshe to raise his voice to its fullest extent, so that the whole of Klal Yisrael should hear him (Tosfos DH 'be'Kolo')

(d)If the speaker knows that the translator will be unable to match his voice - then he should lower his own voice.


(a)Rebbi Yochanan and Rav argue about whether two people who have eaten together are permitted to Bensch Mezuman, or not. How does the one who says that they are, explain our Mishnah, which writes 'Sheloshah she'Achlu ke'Achas, Chayavin le'Zamein', implying that three people Bensch Mezuman, but not two.

(b)The Gemara asks on him from a Beraisa, which writes that three people who ate together are forbidden to separate - but are obligated to Bensch together with a Mezuman. What is the Kashya from there?

(c)How do we answer the Kashya?

(d)And what does he do with the Beraisa, which permits a Shamash to join the two people whom he is serving, even though he has not been invited to do so (something which he is not permitted to do when there are three), only because we take for granted the fact that they are more than pleased to have a Mezuman. But why should they be pleased, if they can Bensch Mezuman anyway?


(a)Our Mishnah obligates three to Bensch Mezuman - and the Machlokes Amora'im concerns a voluntary Mezuman.

(b)If two people are permitted to Bensch Mezuman - then why should three people who ate together not be permitted to Bensch Mezuman, even if one of the group left?

(c)Two people may Bensch voluntarily only when there was no prior obligation. If there was (i.e. if three people ate together) - then they have an obligation to fulfill that obligation.

(d)The two people are only too pleased, if the Shamash joins them to turn a voluntary Mitzvah into an obligatory one - seeing as Chazal have taught us in Bava Kama (38a) 'Gadol Metzuvah ve'Oseh, mi'Mi she'Eino Metzuveh ve'Oseh').



(a)Since a hundred women have no more obligation to Bensch Mezuman than two men, how will the opinion which holds that two men are not permitted to Bensch Mezuman, explain the Beraisa, which writes that a group of women is?

(b)Why are a group comprising women and slaves not permitted to Bensch Mezuman together?

(c)Rav says that if one person out of a group of three left the group, one calls him to participate in the Mezuman - from wherever where he is. This implies that, if he does not answer, the remaining two are not permitted to Bensch Mezuman without him. Does this prove that Rav is the one to say that two people may not Bensch Mezuman, even if they want to?

(d)Rebbi Yochanan says that if two people ate together, one can be Yotze with the Bensching of the other. What does the Gemara prove from here?


(a)The advantage that a hundred women have over two men, is that they have the numbers - they can fulfill the criterion of the Pasuk (where one says to two - "Gadlu la'Hashem Iti", or "Havu Godel l'Elokeinu"), whereas two people cannot.

(b)A group consisting of women and slaves may not Bensch Mezuman together - because of the immoral undertones of such a gathering (and the same applies to slaves and children).

(c)When Rav obligates the third person to participate in the Mezuman, it is because the three ate together, obligating them to Bensch Mezuman together - it does not follow that, if two people ate together, they are forbidden to Bensch a voluntary Mezuman.

(d)Since we already know from a Mishnah in Sucah, that one person is Yotze with another's Berachah (even without answering 'Amen'), because of 'Shomei'a ke'Oneh' - why did Rebbi Yochanan need to inform us that one person is Yotze with the other's Bensching? Unless it is to tell us that he is only Yotze because of 'Shomei'a ke'Oneh', but not because of Mezuman (which is not considered as one person being Motzi another, but two (or three) people sharing the Birchas ha'Mazon.


(a)The Rabbanan who came from Eretz Yisrael taught, that two people who ate together, are permitted to Bensch Mezuman. How does this clash with what we just concluded?

(b)Whom were the Rabbanan from Eretz Yisrael quoting?

(c)We learnt earlier, that if one person leaves a group of three, they call him to answer there where he is. Will this also apply to the tenth person out of a group of ten? If not, why the difference?

(d)Rav Ashi however, does not agree with this. According to him, the reverse is more logical. Why is that?


(a)If the Rabbanan who came from Eretz Yisrael taught that two people are permitted to Bensch Mezuman, they probably heard that from Rebbi Yochanan, who was the Rebbe of Eretz Yisrael - but that clashes with the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan, whom we just quoted as saying that they are not.

(b)In fact, we conclude - the Rabbanan from Eretz Yisrael were quoting, not the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan, but that of Rav, before he left Eretz Yisrael for Bavel.

(c)One person out of a group of ten cannot answer wherever he is. He is obligated to return to the group to answer Mezuman - because it is not respectful for Hash-m's Holy Name, to answer Mezuman in such a casual way.

(d)According to Rav Ashi, if answering from a distance is permitted by a Mezuman of three (where the remaining two do not resemble three), then how much more so by ten (where the remaining nine can pass for ten).


(a)What is the meaning of 'Mitzvah Leichalek', and to what does it refer?

(b)When does it not apply?


(a)'Mitzvah Leichalek' means that - two people who ate together should recite the Berachah (both before and after eating), individually.

(b)It does not apply when one of the two is a Talmid-Chacham and the other, an Am ha'Aretz - in which case, it is better for the former to be Motzi the latter.


(a)When must one stop eating, to answer Mezuman, and when is this not necessary?

(b)Why did Rav Papa and a friend stop eating for Aba Mar, Rav papa's son?


(a)One person is obligated to stop eating, in order to answer the two who now want to Bensch - but two do not need to answer the one.

(b)Rav Papa, who together with someone else, stopped eating for Aba Mar his son, when he wanted to Bensch Mezuman - acted 'Lifnim mi'Shuras ha'Din'.


(a)Why did Yehudah bar Mereimar, Mar bar Rav Ashi and Rav Acha mi'Difti not Bensch Mezuman, although they had eaten together?

(b)What did Mereimar tell them?

(c)Why did they not recite Mezuman there and then?


(a)Yehudah bar Mereimar, Mar bar Rav Ashi and Rav Acha mi'Difta did not Bensch Mezuman, because they thought that Mezuman was instituted only so that the most important person should Bensch for all the other participants. But when they all equal (such as they were) - then what was the point of Bensching Mezuman. In such a case, they thought, one applies the principle 'Mitzvah lei'Chalek'.

(b)However, Mereimar told them that - although they had fulfilled the Mitzvah of Birchas ha'Mazon, they had lost out on the Mitzvah of Mezuman.

(c)It was too late to Bensch Mezuman then - because 'Ein Zimun Lemafrei'a' - the Mitzvah of Mezuman disintegrates once one has Benched without it.


(a)What does someone who did not eat answer, if he hears three people Bensching Mezuman?

(b)Why did Rav Papa say that one answers 'Amen'?


(a)Someone who has not himself eaten, answers - 'Baruch u'Mevorach (Shemo Tamid le'Olam Va'ed').

(b)Rav Papa, who said that one answers 'Amen', speaks - when one heard the participants answering, but not the Mevarech.


(a)One Beraisa praises someone who answers 'Amen' after his own Berachos, another Beraisa writes that this is despicable. How do we reconcile the two Beraisos?

(b)Abaye would say the 'Amen' after 'Bonei ve'Rachamav Yerushalayim' aloud, Rav Ashi would say it quietly. What is each one's reason?


(a)The Beraisa that considers it praiseworthy to answer 'Amen' to all one's Berachos - refers to the Berachah of 'Boneh Yerushalayim' and to the final Berachah of Birchos Keri'as Shema, both in the morning and at night-time, all of which conclude a set of Berachos); whereas the Beraisa which says that it is despicable to do so - refers to other Berachos, which do not.

(b)Abaye would say 'Amen' out loud after 'Boneh Yerushalayim', as a signal for the workers (whom Chazal did not obligate to recite 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv') to go back to work. Rav Ashi, on the other hand, would make a point of saying it quietly, so that people should not come to belittle the Berachah of 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv', thinking that Bensching concludes after 'Boneh (be'Rachamav) Yerushalayim Amen'.