Explanation: It begins with Baruch, even though each is Samuch l'Chavertah, since they are short. If it would not begin with Baruch, it would seem that it is all one Berachah.

Similarly, if Asher Yatzar would not begin with Baruch, it would seem that it [is the same Berachah that] began from "Baruch Yotzer ha'Adam Asher Yatzar..."

Distinction: However, "Sos Tasis", which is after a long Berachah, need not begin with Baruch;

Asher Bara begins with Baruch because we bless it by itself when there are no Panim Chodoshos, like Rashi explained.

Regarding sheha'Kol Bara li'Chvodo and Yotzer ha'Adam, he gave a different reason [why they begin with Baruch, for they are not related to marriage].

R. Chananel explained that Yotzer ha'Adam begins with Baruch because some did not say it, like it says below (on this Amud).

R. Tam's text: In Berachos (11b), regarding Birkas ha'Torah, the text says "R. Yochanan concluded "v'Ha'arev Na...", for it is one Berachah;

If it were two Berachos, it would have to begin with Baruch, even though it is Samuch l'Chavertah, since the Berachah before it is short.

Afterwards, the text says "therefore, we say both of them." It does not say "all of them", for this would connote that there are three.

Explanation: We must say that this is like the opinion that [Adam ha'Rishon] had one face, since it says afterwards "all agree that there was one Yetzirah (formation). One holds that it depends on intent (Hash-m initially intended for two Yetziros)."

In Eruvin (18a), it explicitly connotes that according to the opinion that there was one face, Hash-m initially intended to create two;

However, the opinion that there were two faces does not hold like this! (Rather, Hash-m initially intended to create one. If so, why does one opinion here say two Berachos?!)

Support: The Rashbam explained like this.

Implied question: Why didn't he answer that the Beraisa discusses Birkas ha'Mazon, like R. Yochanan answers?

Answer: He held that it is difficult to establish it like this. He prefers to say that Rav argues with it.

Inference: We did not say that R. Yochanan is a Tana, and argues with it. This proves that he is an Amora. If he were a Tana, we would have answered like we answered for Rav!

Implied question: Why didn't we answer that R. Yochanan holds like Rav, who is a Tana?

Answer: R. Yochanan did not consider Rav to be a Tana. He argues with him everywhere.

Observation: There was a R. Yochanan who was a Tana;

Citation (Nazir 65a - Beraisa): What is the Shi'ur of how much soil [one must take with the Mes]? R. Yochanan says...

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is to join with two others for Birkas ha'Mazon, for he is obligated in all the Mitzvos.

Objection #1 (Ri): If so, he comes to teach only that he is obligated in Mitzvos. He should have explicitly said that he is obligated in Mitzvos!

Objection #2 (Ri): If so, what was the question from "Birkas Avelim is with 10, and Avelim are not counted [towards 10]. Is there a Berachah in the consolation line?!"

We were forced to say [that R. Yochanan refers to a Berachah in Havra'ah (the Avel's first meal after the burial)), i.e. in] Birkas ha'Mazon. The question returned, for the Beraisa taught that Avelim are counted, and we established it to discuss Birkas ha'Mazon.

According to Rashi, this is not difficult at all! The Beraisa teaches that Avelim are counted, i.e. to join to a Zimun, to say Baruch she'Achalnu mi'Shelo;

Birkas Avelim that we bless in Birkas ha'Mazon, R. Yochanan said that Avelim are not counted for it!

Explanation #2: Rather, we must explain that the Beraisa discusses Birkas ha'Mazon, i.e. Birkas Avelim in Birkas ha'Mazon.

Inference: From here it connotes that Birkas Avelim in Birkas ha'Mazon is only with 10, since the Makshan thought that [R. Yochanan] discusses Birkas Avelim in Birkas ha'Mazon, and said that it is with 10;

He was happy to say so, if not that the Beraisa said that Avelim are counted.

Conclusion: This shows that we need 10.

Observation: If the text says "Ela" (which denotes retraction), this connotes that also the above teaching [of R. Yochanan] we establish to discuss b'Rechavah (Havra'ah).

Question: Why were R. Yochanan's two teachings needed, i.e. above (Sof Amud A, in which he merely said that Avelim do not count), and here (in which he said that it requires 10, and Avelim do not count)?

Answer: We must say that [he taught only one of them]. One of them was inferred from the other, i.e. the above teaching was inferred from this [which teaches even more].

Alternate text: However, if the text does not say "Ela", this is fine. Above, R. Yochanan discusses in the consolation line. Here he discusses b'Rechavah, without Panim Chodoshos.

Explanation: The third teaching of R. Yochanan (in which he said that it requires 10, it is all seven days, and Avelim do not count) was needed to teach that with Panim Chodoshos [there is Birkas Avelim all seven days, and] Avelim do not count.

Implied question: Why didn't the third teaching suffice? (The second follows from it!)

Answer: One might have thought oppositely, that it is only after the first day, but on the first day, they (Avelim) apply more to it, and we bless [Birkas Avelim] without 10 [consolers, i.e. Avelim join towards 10].