1)

(a)According to Rebbi Aba, one is obligated to insert Hoda'ah in Birchas ha'Aretz - twice, once at the beginning and once at the end ...

(b)... and he describes someone who does not say it even once as - despicable.

(c)The Beraisa says that someone who ...

1. ... says 'Manchil Aratzos' in Birchas ha'Aretz and ''Moshi'a es Yisrael in 'Boneh Yerushalayim' is - a Boor (an uncultivated person).

2. ... fails to say 'B'ris' and 'Torah' in Birchas ha'Aretz and 'Malchus Beis David' in 'Boneh Yerushalayim' - is not Yotzei Birchas ha'Mazon.

(d)This supports a ruling of Rebbi Ila'a - who, the name of Rabeinu (presumably with reference to either Rebbi or Rav) - said exactly the same thing.

2)

(a)Aba Yossi ben Dustai and the Rabbanan argue over the text of 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv. One of them says that it requires 'Malchus'. The other one says - that it doesn't.

(b)The basis of their Machlokes is - whether 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv' is d'Oraysa' (in which case it is part of Birchas ha'Aretz [as we learned on the previous Daf], and does not require Malchus since it a B'rachah ha'Semuchah la'Chavertah'), or de'Rabbanan (in which case it is an independent B'rachah, which requires Malchus).

(c)Even if ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv is not Semuchah la'Chavertah, it begins with a B'rachah - because it all one topic, and its beginning and ending are one and the same (See Hagahos ha'Bach).

3)

(a)According to the Tana Kama in a Beraisa, one concludes the third B'rachah of Birchas ha'Mazon with 'Boneh Yerushalayim'. The problem with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who says 'Moshi'a Yisrael' is - why one should not conclude with 'Boneh Yerushalayim' (since that is the basic contents of the B'rachah)?

(b)We answer - that what Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah means is that one is also Yotzei if one recites 'Moshi'a Yisrael' ...

(c)... because building Yerushalayim is synonymous with the salvation of Yisrael.

4)

(a)Rabah bar Rav Huna once ate by the Resh Galusa. When we say that he ...

1. ... 'began (the B'rachah of Boneh Yerushalayim) with one', we mean - that he said either 'al Yisrael Amecha' or 'al Yerushalayim Irecha', but not both.

2. ... 'concluded with two', we mean that he concluded 'Moshi'a es Yisrael u'Boneh Yerushalayim'.

(b)Rav Chisda's objection to Rabah bar Rav Huna 'Gevurta 'le'Mechtam be'Tarti?' ('Is it a big deal to conclude with two things?') was based on a brief statement of Rebbi, who said in a Beraisa - precisely the same thing ('Gevurta 'le'Mechtam be'Tarti?').

(c)It is wrong to do so - due to the principle 'Ein Osin Mitzvos Chavilos Chavilos (Mitzvos don't come in packages!')

5)

(a)When Levi queried Rebbi from the conclusion of the B'rachah ...

1. ... 'al ha'Aretz ve'al ha'Mazon', he replied - 'al ha'Aretz de'Mafka (that produces) Mazon' ...

2. ... 'al ha'Aretz ve'al ha'Peiros' - 'al ha'Aretz de'Mafka de'Mafka Peeiros'.

3. ... 'Mekadesh Yisrael ve'ha'Zemanim' ... 'Mekadesh Yisrael who sanctify the Zemanim'.

4. ... 'Mekadesh Yisrael ve'Roshei Chodashim' - 'Mekadesh Yisrael who sanctify the Roshei Chadashim'.

5. ... 'Mekadesh ha'Shabbos ve'Yisrael ve'ha'Zemanim', he replied - that this is the one exception to the rule.

(b)Rebbi did not give the same answer here as he gave in the previous cases - because it is Hash-m who sanctifies Shabbos and not Yisrael.

(c)Rebbi reconcile this dual B'rachah with his principle by explaining that - in fact, Hash-m sanctifies both Shabbos and Yisrael, who then sanctify the Yamim Tovim.

6)

(a)Rav Sheishes maintains that someone who begins Birchas ha'Aretz with 'Rachem Hash-m ... al Amcha Yisrael' concludes 'Moshi'a Yisrael', and that if he begins 'Rachem al Yerushalayim', he concludes - 'Boneh Yerushalayim'.

(b)Rav Nachman holds - that either way, one concludes 'Boneh Yerushalayim ...

(c)... because the Pasuk says in Tehilim 'Boneh Yerushalayim Hash-m, Nidchei Yisrael Yechanes' (thereby equating the building of Yerushalayim with the salvation of Yisrael).

7)

(a)When Rebbi Zeira asked Rav Chisda to sit and learn together, the latter replied - that he did not even know the basic Dinim of Birchas ha'Mazon, so how could proceed further?

(b)In reply to Rebbi Zeira's query, he described what happened once when he was one honored with the Bensching by the Resh Galusa, when Rav Sheishes reacted to his text of Birchas ha'Mazon - by 'stretching his neck (in anger) like a snake'.

(c)It was his omission of - B'ris, Torah and Malchus, that upset Rav Sheishes.

(d)Rav Chisda excused himself by citing of Rav Chananel Amar Rav, who said that if one omits B'ris, Torah and Malchus - one is nevertheless Yotzei Birchas ha'Mazon.

(e)Rav Zeira's final comment was - 'How could you ignore so many Tana'im and Amora'im and do like Rav?'

8)

(a)When says that 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv' requires 'Malchus', he is coming to teach us the principle - that 'Any B'rachah that does not include 'Malchus' is not considered a B'rachah'.

(b)The problem with this answer is - that Rebbi Yochanan has already taught us this principle.

(c)Rebbi Zeira answers that Rabah bar bar Chanah is coming to add a second Malchus (apart from 'Melech ha'Plam') - when we say 'ha'Keil Avinu Malkeinu'.

(d)The significance of the extra 'Malchus' is - to supplement the missing Malchus in 'Boneh Yerushalayim'.

(e)We query this in that, if so, we ought to add a third 'Malchus' in 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv' - to supplement the missing 'Malchus in Birchas ha'Aretz'.

9)

(a)To counter the previous argument - we ascribe the omission of 'Malchus' from Birchas ha'Aretz and 'Boheh Yerushalayim' to the fact that they are both 'B'rachos ha'Semuchos la'Chavertan'.

(b)And, to justify Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan - by attributing the need to supplement the missing 'Malchus' of 'Boneh Yerushalayim' in 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv' to the fact that we do mention Malchus Beis David in Boneh Yerushalayim (and it would not be correct to omit Malchus Shamayim completely).

(c)Rav Papa deals with the Kashya that 'Malchus' is omitted from Birchas ha'Aretz, too - by adding a seconc (third) 'Malchus' in 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv' ...

(d)... when we say 'Ro'einu Ro'eh Yisrael ha'Melech ha'Tov ... '.

10)

(a)Who was sitting behind, When Rav Gidal once sat in front of Rav Huna and made the following statement - Rav Zeira was sitting behind him.

(b)'Someone who forgot 'Retzei' on Shabbos says 'Baruch ... she'Nasan Shabbasos li'Menuchah le'Amo Yisrael be'Ahavah, le'Os ve'li'B'eris - Baruch Atah Hash-m Mekadesh ha'Shabbos'.

(c)When Rav Zeira asked Rav Gidal who said it, he replied - 'Rav'.

11)

(a)On two other occasions, when Rav Gidal asked Rav Huna the same She'eilah regarding Yom Tov and Rosh Chodesh, he gave the same answer, replacing 'Shabbasos' and 'be'Ahavah' with 'Yamim Tovim' and 'le'Simchah u'le'Zikaron' by the one and with 'Roshei Chodashim' and 'le'Zikaron' by the other. he concluded the B'rachah on Yom Tov 'Mekadesh Yosrael ve'ha'Zemanim'.

(b)In the B'rachah on Rosh Chodesh, Rav Gidal was not sure about ...

1. ... including 'le'Simchah' as Rav Huna did regarding Yom Tov.

2. ... concluding with a B'rachah ('Mekadesh Yisrael ve'Roshei Chodashim').

3. ... whether this was Rav Huna's personal opinion, or whether he had cited his Rebbe.

12)

(a)When Rav Nachman once erred and forgot 'Retzei' on Shabbos, in the presence of Rav Gidal bar Minyumi - he repeated Birchas ha'Mazon from the beginning.

(b)Rav Nachman answered Rav Gidal's query from Rav's previous ruling by citing Rav Shiloh Amar Rav, who ruled - that someone who forgot 'Retzei' on Shabbos must repeat Birchas ha'Mazon.

(c)Rav Nachman reconciled that with Rav Shiloh Amar Rav's ruling - by by citing a ruling of Rav Menashya bar Tachlifa Amar Rav - by confining Rav Shiloh's ruling to where one has not yet begun 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv' and the latter ruling to where one has.

(d)This Din differs from that of the Amidah, where one only needs to start again if one already took the three steps backwards - on that here there is no Din of taking three steps back.

13)

(a)Rav Idi bar Avin Amar Rav Amram Amar Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel rules that someone who forgot 'Ya'aleh va'Yavo' on Rosh Chodesh in Tefilah - must repeat the Amidah, but that, if he forgot it in Bensching - he does not.

(b)When Rav Idi asked Rav Amram for the reason for the difference - he had the same difficulty and that he referred it to Rav Nachman.

(c)Rav Nachman in turn, told them that Shmuel had not explained the reason, and that he figured out by himself - that whereas Tefilah is an obligation, eating a meal on Rosh Chodesh is not.

(d)What prompted Rav Amram to ask him whether, in that case, if the same thing happened on Shabbos or Yom Tov, one ought to be Chayav to repeat Bensching is - the fact that in both cases, there is an obligation to eat a Se'udah (with bread).

(e)Rav Nachman, once again citing Rav Shiloh Amar Rav, replied - that indeed, one is Chayav to repeat Bensching.

14)

(a)We reconcile what we just said in the name of Rav with Rav Huna Amar Rav, who said that someone who forgot 'Retzei' on Shabbos or 'Ya'aleh ve'Yavo' on Yom-Tov says 'Baruch she'Nasan' (as we learned earlier) - by establishing the earlier Din where one did not yet begin 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv', and the later Din to where he did.

15)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that Rebbi Meir requires one to Bensch after a k'Zayis, and Rebbi Yehudah, after a k'Beitzah. We query this from the Mishnah in Pesachim, which discusses someone who leaves Yerushalayim and realizes that he has with him Basar Kodesh. He burns it there where he is - if he has already passed the place called 'Tzofim' (from which one can still see Yerushalayim).

(b)If he has not - then he is obligated to return ...

(c)... and burn it - in front of the Birah (an area on the Har ha'Bayis where Pesulei Kodshim Kalim are burned using wood from the Ma'arachah.

(d)According to Rebbi Meir, he is only obligated to return for a k'Beitzah. Rebbi Yehudah says - for k'Zayis.

(e)This poses a Kashya on our Mishnah - inasmuch as Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah appear to have switched their opinions.

16)

(a)Rav Nachman answers simply - 'Eipuch' (that one needs to switch the opinions in one of the Mishnah).

(b)Abaye answers it without switching the opinions. And he explains the basis of their Machlokes ...

1. ... here (by Bensching) - as the interpretation of the Pasuk in Eikev (that we will quote shortly).

2. ... there (by Kodshim) - as a S'vara (as we shall now see).

(c)Rebbi Meir learns from the word ...

1. ... "ve'Achalta" (in the Pasuk in Eikev ve'Sava'ta u'Verachta ... ") - that in order to Bensch, one needs to eat a k'Zayis.

2. ... "ve'Sava'ta" 0 that one also needs to drink.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah explains "ve'Achalta ve'Sava'ta" - to mean an Achilah that satisfies (i.e. a k'Beitzah).

(e)Regarding Kodshim, Rebbi Meir compares the Shi'ur for which one needs to return to that of Tum'ah (which is a k'Beitzah). Rebbi Yehudah compares it - to the Isur Achilah (which is a k'Zayis).

17)

(a)The Mishnah rules that, by a Mezuman comprising just three people, or ten, a hundred, a thousand or even ten thousand - one recites the relevant text (which we will cite shortly), but by one that comprises three, ten a hundred, a thousand or ten thousand besides the Mevarech - one adds 'Borchu' (instead of 'Nevarech').

(b)One says 'Nevarech (she'Achalnu mi'Shelo)' when there are only three people, and adds 'Elokeinu' when there are ten, when there are ...

1. ... a hundred, one says - 'Nevarech Hash-m Elokeinu' ...

2. ... a thousand - 'Nevarech la'Hashem Elokeinu Elokei Yisrael'.

3. ... ten thousand - 'Nevarech la'Hashem Elokeinu Elokei Yisrael Elokei Tzevakos Yoshev ha'Keruvim'.

(c)This is the opinion of Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, who learns it from the Pasuk in Tehilim "be'Makheilos Borchu Hash-m. Hash-m mi'Mekor Yisrael" - which implies that one blesses Hash-m in accordance with the number of people participating.

18)

(a)According to Rebbi Akiva - once the number of participants reaches ten, it makes no difference as to how many people are participating in Mezuman ...

(b)... and he learns it from Shul, where, irrespective of the number of Mispalelim, the Chazen always says ...

(c)... 'Borchu es Hashem', to which Rebbi Yishmael adds the word - 'ha'Mevorach'.

19)

(a)Shmuel said that - one should not take oneself apart from the community.

(b)We query him however, from our Mishnah, regarding where there are three or ten ... besides the Mevarech - where the latter says 'Borchu' excluding himself) rather than 'Nevarech'.

(c)To which we answer the Mishnah means 'Af Borchu' (that he can say 'Barchu' should he so wish, but that it is preferable to still say 'Nevarech'.