Clarification: Not Davka 'better', but that they are equal, since the word 'Adif' actually means 'important ...

Precedent: Like we find 'Hekesh Adif' and 'Gezeirah-Shavah Adif', in Perek Eizehu Mekoman (Daf 48.), where it means that the Hekesh is Chashuv and that it cannot be negated on account of the Gezeirah-Shavah.

Clarification (cont.): Here too, it means that 'Nevarech' is just as Chashuv as 'Borchu', in which case one should not preclude oneself from the community.

Conclusion: Rashi erases the word 'Adif', but, as we explained, this is not necessary.

Reason: Since it conveys the impression that one is blessing the Balabos who is feeding him.

Reason (cont.): This is because, if he is blessing Hash-m, then why does he mention specifically food, seeing as there are many other things for which to bless Hash-m.

Halachah #1: This is how Rabeinu Chananel rules.

Halachah #2: Consequently, whether there are ten, a hundred or even ten thousand one says 'Nevarech Elokeinu al ha'Mazon she'Achalnu'.

Halachah #2 (cont.): But when there are only three, one does not mention 'al ha'Mazon', as we explained earlier.

Halachah #2 (cont.): And even when there are ten, one need not mention it if one does not want to.

Halachah #3: And one says 'u've'Tuvo Chayinu' (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Clarification: Even though they do share the same loaf of bread, inasmuch as each participant is eating from his own loaf, 'they are not permitted to separate'.

Explanation: This means that even though one would have thought that since they are eating separate loaves, this is not considered a combination, and the Chiyuv Zimun will not take effect on them. Nevertheless, they are not permitted to separate.

Clarification: This means that each of the three stopped to hear Mezuman up to 'ha'Zan', as we learned earlier (Daf 45:).

Clarification: The Chiyuv Zimun has "flown away" from them'; in other words they are then Patur from Zimun, and they are permitted to separate.

Second Opinion: Rashi however, explains the Gemara differently (See Tos ha'Rosh).

Question: We have learned in Succah (Daf 16.) that 'A bed is Metamei when it is dismantled, such as the long-side together with the two legs.

Answer: It seems that that speaks where it stands to be re-assembled as it was before, since the legs are still intact and even a layman can re-assemble it.

Question: Why does the Gemara here not cite the Halachah that every vessel that is broken is Tahor, from which we see that once it has been broken into two, it becomes Tahor?

Answer: It seems that that is different, since it is no longer possible to re-assemble the vessel, to render it Tamei it Tamei even from now onwards.

Conclusion: And it is not comparable to three people (who separated), who are able to re-assemble.

Clarification: For Zimun, and the same will apply to two rooms where there are servants that are serving from one to the other (and the Yerushalmi concurs with this) ...

Clarification (cont.): Provided they all hear Birchas Zimun from the Mevarech.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Mishnah 'Bayis Echad' ...

Answer: Is because of the Chidush contained in the Seifa that even in one room 'If they cannot see each other, then even in one room, 'Ein Mezamnin'.

Halachah: And similarly at a wedding, when they eat at the Chupah in two rooms, and there are servants who are serving from one to the other, they combine, provided they hear Birchas ha'Mazon from the mouth of the Mevarech.

Clarification: Rashi explains that if one does not add water, then it is not wine but fruit-juice.

Halachah: And from here it implies that fruit-juice is Kasher for Netilas Yadayim.

Refutation: And one can draw a distinction between this case and the case in Perek Kol ha'Basar (Daf 107.), where the Gemara goes after the appearance (See Tosfos ha'Rosh).

Alternative Halachah: There are however, some who require water for Netilas Yadayim (See Maharsha).

Proof: As the Torah writes "And he did not wash his hands with water".

Clarification: We seem to extrapolate this from the the fact that Rebbi Eliezer says 'Notlin ...'.

Question #1: The Gemara says in Perek Bameh Tomnin (Daf 50:) 'Perhaps Shmuel speaks exclusively about something that does not become disgusting; Did he even say it with regard to something that does?

Question #1 (cont.): How can we then equate Shmuel with Rebbi Eliezer, bearing in mind that wine (about which Rebbi Eliezer is speaking) is something that becomes disgusting when one washes one's hands with it, and Shmuel concedes that something that is disgusting is forbidden.

Question #2: Furthermore, here it implies that the Halachah is not like Shmuel, seeing as we establish him like Rebbi Eliezer; whereas in the second Perek of Beitzah (Daf 21:.) the Gemara says S'tam that 'One is permitted to throw date-pits to the animals on Yom-Tov,since one can move them together with bread like Shmuel' - implying that the Halachah is like him?

Answer: The Gemara here means to say that Rebbi Eliezer holds like Shmuel in principle, but that he goes even further than him, in that he permits even something that becomes disgusting.

Answer (cont.): Because the Gemara here is only concerned in giving Rebbi Eliezer's basic reason, as Tosfos explained.

Alternative Halachah: The B'hag explains that the Halachah is like the Rabbanan here and like Shmuel

Reason: Because Shmuel speaks exclusively about food that does not become disgusting ...

Rabeinu Chananel: And not like Rabeinu Chananel who Paskens not like Shmuel, since we equate him with Rebbi Eliezer.

Alternative Halachah (cont.): But to be sure we Pasken like Shmuel, as we explained ... in which case one is permitted to support a dish with a piece of bread, provided it does not become disgusting.

Qualifier: Some maintain however, that one is subsequently obligated to eat the bread.

Minhag: And some have the custom to eat porridge with bread, seeing as one subsequently eats the bread.

Maseches Sofrim: However, in Maseches Sofrim they forbid it, since it says there (Perek 3) 'One is not permitted to eat food using food unless one eats them both simultaneously.

Conclusion: But that may well not go like Shmuel.

Question: We say later (on Daf 51.) that 'Four things were said concerning the Kos shel B'rachah ... Chai (undiluted) and full ... '.

Answer #1: Initially, one pours the wine into the cup undiluted, but afterwards, one adds water.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it must come from the barrel undiluted.

Answer #3: Or that 'Chai' refers to the cup, and means (not undiluted, but) complete ...

Proof: As we have learned ion Makos (Daf 16:) 'If one crushed ten ants and one whole (Chai)'.

Conclusion: Here too, the cup must be complete, and not broken.

Clarification: How has it changed for the better? And the Gemara answers 'To drink as a beverage'.

Halachah: And the Halachah is like the Rabbanan - that over undiluted wine one recites 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen'.

Proof: As we have learned in Pesachim (108:) 'If one drank them (the four cups of wine) undiluted, one is Yotzei.

Clarification: Shmuel concedes to the following three Halachos That one may not pass a full Kos over bread; that one may not cut meat on it, and that one may not throw bread even there where it will become disgusting.

Halachah: And similarly, one is not permitted to throw other food (but only if it will become disgusting).

Implied Question: Even though the food inside the nuts does not become disgusting ...

Answer: Nevertheless, when they fall in the mud they become disgusting.

Halachah: Consequently, nowadays, when it is customary to throw wheat kernels during a wedding, one must take care to throw them in a location that is clean.