Clarification: It is however, possible to reconcile the two Leshonos of Rebbi Yochanan ...

Clarification (cont.): In that, when the host is sitting with them, then he is certainly the one to recite 'ha'Motzi, and the guest, Birchas ha'Mazon.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas when he is not, then it is the most senior participant who recites both 'ha'Motzi and Birchas ha'Mazon.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains - 'till and including 'ha'Zan'. Two however, do not recite 'ha'Zan'.

Refutation #1: But this is not correct, since Birchas ha'Zan is d'Oraysa, so how can a Yachid be exempt from reciting it?

Refutation #2: Furthermore, in matters of Isur we rule like Rav Sheishes, who holds that an individual recites two B'rachos. Whereas everywhere we mention three?

Refuted Answer: And to suggest that Rav Sheishes is only referring to where there is a Mezuman would be a Dochek?

Refutation #3: Moreover, it is a daily occurrence that a Yachid recites three B'rachos?

Refutation #4: And finally, the Beraisa that we cite later in the Perek (on Daf 48:) "u'Verachta" - 'This is Birchas ha'Zimun'; "es Hash-m Elokecha" - 'this is Birchas ha'Zan' poses a Kashya on Rav Sheishes, who says that 'ha'Zan' is synonymous with Birchas ha'Zimun'?

Explanation #2: We therefore need to explain that it refers to what we learned earlier - 'One must stop in face of two' - (on which the Gemara now asks) 'Up to where does he need to wait?' Rav Nachman requires him to wait for the two to reach 'Nevarech', whereas Rav Sheishes says 'until they conclude 'ha'Zan', after which he is allowed to continue eating.

Refuted Reason: Not because Birchas ha'Zan is considered part of Zimun, seeing as a Yachid is definitely Chayav to recite it ...

Reason: But rather because seeing as 'Nevarech' is not a B'rachah, one cannot say it by itself, but recites together with it also Birchas ha'Zan, which is a B'rachah.

Conclusion: It now transpires that we do indeed rule like Rav Sheishes.

Support: And this explanation appears in the Yerushalmi.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'Two for a Yachid and three for Zimun. He is simply following his own explanation (See previous Dibur).

Refutation #1: This is a big Dochek, as Tos explained (there), because how can a Yachid be Patur from Birchas ha'Zan, which is d'Oraysa?

Refutation #2: Furthermore, since it refers to the B'rachah,why does it use the masculine term 'Shenayim' and 'Sheloshah', instead of the feminine 'Shetayim' and 'Shalosh'?

Explanation #2: The correct explanation is therefore that of the Rif, according to whom it refers to people, and this is what it means: 'Birchas Zimun is either with two people or with three ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): There where each person is conversant with only one B'rachah, then the opinion that holds 'two or three' holds 'up to "ha'Zan" (i.e. Birchas ha'Zimun goes up to the end of 'ha'Zan'), and he recites up to the end of 'ha'Zan, which is all part of Zimun.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And 'two or three' means that sometimes Birchas ha'Mazon is concluded by two people (or even one, and it says two because of the Chidush), and sometimes by three - that one says from 'Nevarech till 'ha'Zan', the second 'Nodeh L'cha', and the third 'up to 'Boneh Yerushalayim'.

Explanation #2 (cont.): One cannot however, Bensch in halves - i.e. if one person is only conversant with half a B'rachah.

Explanation #2 (cont.): 'But not with four', because, since 'Nevarech on its own is not considered a B'rachah, one is not permitted to divide 'Nevarech' and 'ha'Zan' into two.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas the one who says 'four', holds 'Up to "Nevarech" ', since 'Nevarech' and 'ha'Zan' are considered two separate B'rachos. Thus Birchas ha'Mazon can be recited by four people - that the first recites 'Nevarech', the second 'ha'Zan', the third 'Nodeh L'cha' and the fourth till 'Boneh Yerushalayim'.

Clarification: Here is the order: The B'rachah of 'Asher Yatzar' is not Semuchah to that of 'Netilas Yadayim', seeing as washing one's hands applies even without 'Asher Yaztar',and there are many occasions where one recites it on its own.

Question: And the reason that 'Elokai, Neshamah ... ' does not begin with 'Baruch' is because it is not Samuch to 'Asher Yatzar' - where for example, one does come from the bathroom, in which case one's hands are clean and the B'rachah of 'Asher Yatzar' is not required.

Answer: We must therefore say that it is because it is merely a B'rachah of thanks it does not begin with a B'rachah, though it does end with 'Baruch', since it is a little lengthy.

Precedent: And the same reason applies to 'Atah Hu ad she'Lo Nivra ha'Olam ... '.

Clarification (cont.): Each of the short B'rachos (i.e. Birchos ha'Shachar) is an independent B'rachah ...

Proof: As we will learn (on Daf 60:) 'When one begins to walk (in the morning), one recites the B'rachah of 'Mnitz'adei Gaver' (and so with all of them).

Clarification (cont.): Moreover, they are short, and resemble the B'rachah over fruit.

Question: But what is 'Y'hi Ratzon' (that follows the B'rachah of 'ha'Ma'avir Sheinah') Samuch too?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that it is an extension of 'ha'Ma'avir Sheinah', in which case one needs to say (not 'Y'hi Ratzon', but) 'vi'Yehi Ratzon'.

Question: The conclusion of each and every B'rachah must resemble its beginning, which is not the case here?

Answer: Indeed it is, inasmuch as, close to the end we say 'and perform with us good acts of kindness', which is similar to the beginning, which states that Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu 'removes sleep from a person's eyes', and invigorates him ...

Support: As the Medrash says, commenting on the Pasuk "Chadashim la'Bekarim ... ", that He returns a complete and rested Neshamah into our bodies as it was previously, even though it became tired out. And this is 'near the end similar to the beginning'.

Clarification (cont.): And 'La'asok be'Divrei Torah' and 'Ha'arev Na' are part of one and the same B'rachah, in which case, one needs to say (not 'Ha'arev Na') but 've'Ha'arev Na'.

Clarification (cont.): 'Yishtabach' is Samuch to 'Baruch she'Amar'.

Halachah: Consequently, one should take care not to speak in between.

Implied Question: Even though there is a large break in the form of 'Pesukei de'Zimrah'.

Answer: Nevertheless, this is not called a Hefsek.

Precedent: And by the same token, the B'rachah of 'Emes ve'Yatziv' after K'ri'as Sh'ma is Samuch to 'Ahavah Rabah', and K'ri'as Sh'ma is not considered a Hefsek.

Question: Why does the B'rachah Achronah of someone who is called up to the Torah need to begin with 'Baruch'? Why is it not Samuch to the B'rachah Rishonah?

Answer: It is because initially it was customary for the first person who was called up to recite the B'rachah Rishonah, and the last person,the B'rachah Achronah (and that is certainly considered a Hefsek).

Conclusion: Consequently, even though they instituted that everyone should recite two B'rachos, on account of people who come to Shul late and people who leave early, the initial custom remains intact.

Question: Why does it begin with 'Baruch', seeing as it is 'Samuch la'Chaverta'?

Answer: Because it was instituted independently, on account of those who were murdered in Beitar (See Maharsha).

Question: Why does it not conclude with 'Baruch'?

Answer: Because it is really a short B'rachah, only (it looks long because) they added three 'Malchiyos', three 'G'mulos' and three 'Hatavos'.

Implied Question: And as for 'Ne'eman Atah' in the Haftarah (why does it not begin with 'Baruch'?) ...

Answer: It really belongs to the previous B'rachah (' ... Tzur Kol ha'Olamim ... ')

Answer (cont.): Because originally, the entire congregation used to rise and say in a loud voice 'Ne'eman Atah ... ', when the baby arrived (?) (See Maharsha).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this pertains to a case where one person interrupted his meal for two (who want to Bensch, and), who has to wait until 'ha'Zan es ha'Kol'.

Explanation #1 (cont.): 'Where does he go back to' - after he finishes eating? The Rabbanan say 'To the place where he stopped (i.e. Birchas ha'Aretz). And that is the Halachah.

Question: How is this possible? Seeing as he ate afterwards, it is obvious that he must go back to Birchas 'ha'Zan', which is d'Oraysa?

Explanation #2: We must therefore explain that it refers to what we learned earlier that the Mevarech says 'Nevarech she'Achalnu mi'Shelo', and that the participants answer 'Baruch she'Achalnu mi'Shelo u'Vetuvo Chayinu' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): 'Where does he go back to' - the Mevarech after the participants have answered 'Baruch she'Achalnu mi'Shelo u'Vetuvo Chayinu'. Rav Z'vid citing Abaye says that 'He goes back to the beginning' (i.e. he says 'Nevarech she'Achalnu mi'Shelo u've'Tuvo Chayinu' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whilst the Rabbanan say 'To the place where he stopped (i.e. he says 'Baruch she'Achalnu mi'Shelo ... '. And that is the Halachah.

Explanation #3: R. Moshe from Aibra however explains that it refers to case where 'Three people ate, and one of them went out into the street, where they call him to stop and Bensch Mezuman together with him.

Explanation #3 (cont.): Earlier, when the Gemara asked 'Up to which point is the Mezuman', it meant up to where the Mezamnin need the one who left to answer Mezuman. And the Gemara replied 'Up to Nevarech', from which point on he is allowed to proceed, since they no longer need him.

Explanation #3 (cont.): Whereas here it asks where the one who left must go back to. 'To the place where he stopped' - Birchas ha'Aretz (See Maharsha); whereas according to the first opinion, it is from 'Nevarech' (i.e. the beginning of Birchas ha'Zan).

Conclusion: According to this explanation, there is no problem with 'ha'Zan', seeing as he did not speak eat (after the Mezuman).

Halachah: The Halachah is like him.

Text: And this is the text of the B'rachah: 'Baruch ... ha'Keil ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv, Keil Emes, Dayan Emes, Shofet be'Tzedek ve'Loke'ach ba'Mishpat ve'Shalit be'Ma'asav' ...

Text: (con.): va'Anachnu Avadav ve'Amo'; u've'Chol Anachnu Chayavin Lehodos Lo u'Levorcho. Goder Peratzos be'Yisrael, Hu Yigdor Pirtzah Zos me'Aleinu u'me'al ha'Aveil she'be'Socheinu le'Chayim u'le'Shalom. Ha'Rachaman Hu Yimloch aleinu Le'olam Va'ed ... '.

Objection: The B'hag maintains that one should not insert the word 'ba'Mishpat' ...

Reason: Based on the Gemara in Bameh Beheimah (Shabbos 55:) 'There is death without sin and suffering without iniquity'.

Refutation: That is not sufficient reason however, to erase it from the text (See Rabeinu Yonah).

Clarification: That is towards his head, as he reclines on the couch leaning towards the left.

Clarification (cont.): Whilst 'Below' refers to the direction of his feet, which is on his right-hand side.

Rav Sheishes' Objection: And Rav Sheishes objects in that, according to this, if the Gadol wants to speak with number two, he will need to sit upright, seeing as the latter is sitting 'above' him.

Support: And in the Beraisa that the Gemara will cite shortly, we have the text 'Gadol Meisav be'Rosh, ha'Sheini le'Matah Heimenu' - which is towards his feet , on his right-hand side.

Conclusion: In this way, he will not have to sit upright when he wants to speak with him.

Question: We learned in Shabbos in Perek Bamah Beheimah (51:) When Levi and Rav Huna bar Chiya (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) were once going on the way and the donkey of Rav Huna preceded that of Levi, Rav Huna tried to distract Levi. So we see that they did give Kavod when travelling?

Answer: It is when they initially set out together that they gave kavod to one another, but not if each one set out independently and they met by chance.