Clarification: Specifically water, from which one only derives direct Hana'ah when one is thirsty, and the benefit of removing a bone that is stuck in one's throat is not considered Hana'ah.

Clarification (cont.): But over other beverages, from which the body always derives direct Hana'ah, one always recites a B'rachah, even if one drinks them in order to remove the bone that is stuck in one's throat.

Explanation #1: According to Rav Amram, it is specifically before drinking that does not require a B'rachah, whereas after drinking, one is Chayav.

Explanation #2: R. Moshe however, disagrees. He maintains that, since does did not have Hana'ah, not even a B'rachah Achronah is required.

Clarification: This mean before eating.

Minhag: And the Gemara concludes 'Go and see what the people do!' - and the people tend recite it after eating (like the Tana Kama, and not before, like Rebbi Tarfon).

Refuted Explanation: We cannot explain that the Tana'im are arguing over the B'rachah Achronah - that according to the Tana Kama, one only recites a B'rachah Rishonah, but not a B'rachah Achronah, whereas Rebbi Tarfon holds that even afterwards one recites 'Borei Nefashos Rabos ... ' ...

Refutation: Because in that case, when the Gemara earlier queries Rav Papa who recited a B'rachah afterwards, why did the Gemara not support him from Rebbi Tarfon, who is a Tana.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi asks that 'Whereas there you said that One is not permitted to divide, here you say that 'One is obligated to Bensch with a Mezuman'?

Question: This does not at first seem to constitute a Kashya.

Proof: So too later (on Daf 50.) the Gemara asks that 'We have already learned before that "One is not permitted to divide" - only because they are Chayav to Bensch Mezuman'?

Answer: Tosfos therefore explains the Yerushalmi's Kashya as follows: 'There you said "Ein Chayavin Lechalek" (which implies that as long as they finish eating together they are not permitted to divide, but that one of them is allowed to to finish his meal before the others and to Bensch on his own). Whereas 'Chayavin Lazamen' implies that they are obligated to Bensch Mezuman together, and that one is not permitted to finish before the other and Bensch?

Answer (cont.): To which Shmuel replies 'One speaks at the beginning and the other, at the end'.

Explanation #1: And the definition of 'the beginning' and 'the end' is a Machlokes Amora'im; One says that 'If they intended to eat together' - this is 'the beginning'; whereas 'the end' is when they have eaten a k'Zayis'.

Explanation #2: Whereas the other explains that 'Where they ate a k'zayis' that is 'the beginning'; whilst the end is 'where they finished eating together.

Halachah: The Rif takes on like the first opinion, which he explains as follows ...

Halachah (cont.): 'Nasnu Da'tam Le'echol' - If they began to eat simultaneously - this is 'the beginning', since then the obligation of Zimun takes effect immediately.

Halachah (cont.): Whereas 'Achlu ke'Zayis' - this is 'the end'. This means that if one of them ate a k'Zayis (before the others), then, they are Chayav to Bensch Mezuman only if they finished eating together, but if they wish to finish on their own and Bensch independently, they may.

Question: The Gemara in Erchin (Daf 4.) says that 'Everybody combines to make up a Zimun, Kohanim, Levi'im and Yisre'eilim.

Question (cont.): The Gemara asks that this is obvious; and it answers 'That the Beraisa is speaking where the Kohen ate T'rumah and the Yisrael, Chulin. So we see that even though the Yisrael is forbidden to eat T'rumah, seeing as the Kohen is able to eat the Chulin of the Yisrael, he can combine with him to make a Mezuman.

Question (cont.): In that case, here too, even though one of the participants ate Tevel, which is forbidden to the others, why can they not Bensch Mezuman together?

Answer: Eating Tevel is not called 'Achilah', seeing as it is not fit even for a Kohen to eat; as opposed to T'rumah, which at least the Kohen is permitted to eat.

Halachah: Even if all three participants ate Tevel, they are not Chayav Mezuman.

Source: As we have learned in Bava Kama (Daf 94.) 'If someone steals a Sa'ah of wheat, which he subsequently grinds, bakes, eats and recites a B'rachah (See Gilyon ha'Shas and Hagahos and Tziyunim), this is not a B'rachah; it is an act that infuriates Hash-m!.

Halachah #1: From here R. Yehudah learns that if three people eat together, and one of them, who is Mudar Hana'ah from the others, eats from his own loaf, he may combine with them for Zimun

Reason: Because even though he is unable to eat with them, they are able to eat with him.

Halachah #2: And the same ruling will apply to someone who is particular not to eat from Pas Nochri (who is eating with two people who are not).

Halachah #3: If however, all three are Mudar Hana'ah from one another, then they do not combine to make up a Mezuman.

Implied Question: Even though they could have their Neder rescinded ...

Answer: Currently, they have not done so.

Question: How can the Gemara bring a proof from Moshe, seeing as the proof ought to have been that in his capacity as the Metargem, he did not raise his voice above that of Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu, who was the Korei ...

Question (cont.): Yet all he does is prove that Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu was the Korei with a loud Voice, and Moshe was Metargem?

Answer: The Rif explains 'be'Kolo shel Moshe' to mean that presumably Moshe 'answered' with all his strength in order that his voice reach all the people. Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu on the other hand, did not need to raise His Voice, since He was only speaking to Moshe.

Answer (cont.): Yet He did raise His Voice, so that the voice of Moshe the Metargem should not be louder than that of Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu, who was the Korei.

Explanation #1: Rashi writes that likewise, regarding 'ha'Motzi and to other B'rachos, one person cannot render Yotzei his friend.

Explanation #1 (cont.): He says it later, on Abaye's statement 'We take on that if two people ate together it is a Mitzvah to separate, and for each one to recite his own B'rachah', where he adds - 'both as regards 'ha'Motzi' and as regards 'Birchas ha'Mazaon'.

Refutation #1: But this is not correct, seeing as we learned above in Perek Keitzad Mevorchin (Daf 39.) in connection with the episode with bar Kapara, where bar Kapara gave permission to one of them to recite the B'rachah (and there were two people there, not three).

Refutation #2: And even if there were three people there, they were only eating fruit.

Proof: And so too, we learn later (on Daf 53.) that over the light, one person recites the B'rachah for everybody.

Explanation #2: Tosfos therefore rules that as far as the B'rachah Rishonah is concerned, even when there are two people, one can be Motzi the other according to all opinions.

Reason #1: And the reason for this is because since they sit down with the intention of eating together, they clearly intend to combine, in which case one can be Motzi the other.

Reason #1 (cont.): Whereas when it comes to the B'rachah at the end of the meal, where their intention is to separate, each one is obligated torecite his own B'rachah.

Reason #2: Others explain that it is because Birchas ha'Motzi is only de'Rabbanan that they can be Motzi each other; unlike Birchas ha'Mazon, where the Chachamim were more strict, since it is d'Oraysa.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains (the Gemara's proof as Why the one person is not permitted to separate from the two, seeing as the two are permitted to make a Mezuman? Let him go, seeing as the Mezuman is not removed (with his departure)?

Question: Perhaps the reason that he is not allowed to separate is so that he should not exempt himself from Zimun, seeing as he is Chayav to Bensch Mezuman, too?

Answer: Rashi's main problem is with the Seifa, which states that 'Four people are not permitted to break up into two groups, even though there are two groups of two ... . And we find this in many places.

Question: Why then, did the Gemara not ask from the Seifa specifically?

Explanation #2: Therefore Rabeinu Yehudah explains that the Gemara asks from the Reisha, and its Kashya is based on the fact that it cannot on account of the individual that he is not permitted to separate, what the Mishnah ought then to have said is 'Ein ha'Yachid Rashai Lechalek' or 'Ein Echad Meihem Rashai Lechalek'.

Conclusion: Whereas 'They are not allowed to divide' implies that if one of them leaves, the Din of Zimun has been removed from all of them.

Explanation #1: Regarding a gathering for Tefilah and regarding anything that requires a Minyan of ten.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Nevertheless, we consider them like three, even if there are only two (women).

Refuted Explanation #1: It could not however, have said that they are like one (man) ...

Reason: Seeing as we learned in the Mishnah that 'They can make their own Mezuman'.

Explanation #2: Rashi explains however, 'like two' - with regard to obligation (i.e. that they are not obligated to Bensch with a Mezuman. But if they so wish, they may). And the same applies to two.

Halachah: From here it seems that women are permitted to Bensch with Zimun for themselves, as indeed the daughters of Rabeinu Avraham, the father-in-law of Rabeinu Yehudah, at the behest of their father.

Minhag: Though this is not the accepted Minhag.

Question: The question is why not, since the Lashon 'Mezamnos' used by the Beraisa implies that they are obligated to Bensch with Zimun (See Maharsha)?

Answer: 'Nashim Mezamnos le'Atzman' means that they may do so if they wish.

Proof #1: And this is implied somewhat in the Seifa of the Beraisa, that the Gemara will cite shortly 'Nashim va'Avadim, Im Ratzu Lezamen, Ein Mezamnin'.

Proof #2: Moreover, the fact that Gemara compares them to two people implies that there is no obligation.

Implied Question: And although the Gemara says at the beginning of Erchin (Daf 3. & :) that 'Everybody is Chayav to Bensch with Mezuman' comes to include women ...

Answer: It refers to doing so voluntarily (despite the expression 'Mechuyavin'), but not that they are actually obligated to do so.

Query: One needs to clarify as to whether women are Yotzei with the Zimun of men, seeing as they do not understand the words?

Resolution: There are some who want to prove that they are, based on what we will learn later 'Sofer Mevarech u'Bur Yotzei', implying that women too, will be Yotzei with our Mezuman.

Refutation: One can refute this proof however, in that a Bur is different, inasmuch as he understands Lashon ha'Kodesh, and therefore understands a litle of what is being said (only he does not know how to Bensch) ...

Refutation (cont.): Whereas women, who do not inderstand Lashon ha'Kodesh at all, may well not be Yotzei.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says in Megilah (Daf 17.) that 'A foreigner who hears the Megilah read in Ashuris, is Yotzei' ...

Answer: Pirsumei Nisa is different, as we say there (on Daf 18.) 'Do we know the meaning of "ha'Achashteranim b'nei ha'Ramachim"?

Refutation of Text: We do not have the text 'I Hachi' ...

Reason: Since at the outset too, the Gemara could have asked from 'Ein Mezamnin' in the Seifa.

Halachah: The B'hag Paskens to say 'Baruch Hu u'Mevorach Sh'mo Tamid Le'olam Va'ed'.

Extension of Halachah: And if there are ten, then one responds with 'Baruch Hu Elokeinu u'Mevorach Sh'mo Tamid Le'olam Va'ed'.

Halachah: Rabeinu Chananel and the B'hag cite some who say that this extends to the conclusion of every set of B'rachos, such as after 'Yishtabach' and the likes.

Refutation: But if you go and see what people do, you will find that they restrict this ruling to 'Boneh Yerushalayim of Birchas ha'Mazon.

Halachah: And this is how the B'hag Paskens.

Halachah (cont.): What's more, in our case, where there are no laborers, even Abaye will concede to Rav Ashi.