Berakhot 46a

UNTIL WHERE [DOES] THE ZIMMUN BLESSING [EXTEND]? Tosfos will cite Rashi’s explanation, the difficulties that he has with Rashi and his own explanation. Rashi says that one who is intending to continue eating after the zimun waits till הזן. And the b’rochoh of הזן is also included in the statement that when there are only two they do not recite the b’rochoh of הזן. Since we say that the b’rochoh of הזן is part of the zimun and we also say that two do not partake in zimun, then the b’rochoh of הזן that is part of the birchas hazimun should not be recited when there are only two who have eaten. The first of Tosfos objections to Rashi’s explanation: And this is not clear, for the b’rochoh of הזן is required by Torah law, and how can an individual who is not part of a zimun be exempt from reciting it. Tosfos second objection: And furthermore, we rule like Rav Shaishes in matters that pertain to prohibitions, as opposed to financial matters, so in this matter we should rule in accordance with Rav Shaishes since this issue is not financial, and according to him an individual only recites two of the biblical b’rochos, נודה and רחם. And in all places when the birchas hamozon is discussed, it is referred to as three b’rochos. If an individual only recites two b’rochos, why should the birchas hamozon be called three b’rochos? And it is awkward to say that according to Rav Shaihes, the term three b’rochos as a description of birchas hamozon is used only when there is a zimun, who according to Rashi holds that an individual does not recite הזן. The third objection: And furthermore, it is a daily occurrence that individuals who are reciting birchas hamozon do recite three b’rochos. And according to Rashi this is against the halochoh, which should follow Rav Shaishes who says that an individual does not say הזן. A fourth objection: And furthermore, from that which we learned in a Braiso later in our perek (48b), the Braiso is discussing how each b’rochoh is derived from the verse and says: וברכת, refers to the birchas hazimun, that begins with נברך. The verse continues את ה' אלקיך, that is the b’rochoh of הזן. And this is difficult according to Rav Shaishes who says that הזן is part of the birchas hazimun. If the b’rochoh of הזן is part of the birchas hazimun, why does the Braiso refer to it as something else? Tosfos now presents his explanation of the dispute between Rav Nachmon and Rav Shaishes. Therefore we should explain that the dispute between Rav Nachmon and Rav Shaishes about what is included in the zimun refers to the ruling mentioned earlier that when two of the three are ready to recite birchas hamozon, the individual interrupts his meal and answers the leader who says נברך. And the Gemara asks: how long does the individual have to wait while the others recite their b’rochoh until he can resume his eating. The first opinion is until and including נברך. As soon as they have completed נברך, the individual may resume eating. And Rav Shaishes says, the individual must wait until they complete הזן, and from there and beyond the individual may return to his eating. Now that Tosfos has explained what the point of disagreement is, he wants to point out that although Rav Shaishes holds that the individual must wait till the two finish הזן it is not because הזן is part of the birchas hazimun. And the reason the individual must wait till the two have completed הזן is not because the b’rochoh of הזן is considered part of the zimun. For certainly an individual is also obligated to recite הזן, rather, it is because נברך is not an actual b’rochoh, one should not say it alone unconnected to anything else, but he should complete together with נברך, also the b’rochoh of הזן which is a complete b’rochoh. And now it makes sense that we correctly rule in accordance with Rav Shaishes. And a similar explanation is to be found in Yerushalmee. In light of the difference between Rashi and Tosfos in the previous Tosfos, there will be a major difference in the interpretation of the Braisos that speak of “two and three” or “three and four”. And Rashi explained that the words in the Braiso two and three refer to the number of b’rochos recited, two, when an individual recites birchas hamozon, and three, when it is recited by a zimun. And he explained it this way following in his previously stated position and that is extremely awkward as was explained in the previous Tosfos. Can it be that an individual is not required to recite הזן? And furthermore since the words two and three are referring to the number of b’rochos recited, and in Hebrew the word b’rochoh is feminine, why does the Braiso use the masculine שנים ושלושה? He should have used the feminine שתים ושלוש. Since the Braiso employs the masculine שנים ושלושה for the words two and three, it must be referring to men, as Tosfos will now explain. The explanation of Rav Alfas takes into account the male gender used for the numbers. Therefore, it appears that the explanation of Rav Alfas that the words two and three of the Braiso refer to people is correct. And this is what the Braiso is saying: the birchas zimun can be divided between two or three people who will lead the birchas hamozon when each one of them knows only how to recite one b’rochoh. Tosfos now explains how each of the Braisos mentioned understand the division of the b’rochos. The Braiso that says two and three holds that zimun is till הזן, as Rav Shaishes does, this means that birchas hazimun is until and including הזן, and that the leader of the group recites till the end of הזן, because it is like one long b’rochoh of zimun. And the reason he says “two or three” is because he means to say that sometimes the entire birchas hamozon is completed by two leaders who know how to recite a b’rochoh, and the same is true of one, that the entire birchas hamozon may be said by one leader, but he mentioned two to teach us something of importance. And sometimes it can be completed by three people, that one recites from נברך till הזן, and the second one says נודה לך and the third one says till בונה ירושלים. But it cannot be completed by four leaders. There are two possible scenarios that one could add a fourth leader. A) To divide a b’rochoh in half. b) To separate נברך and הזן. The Braiso is rejecting both of these options. Tosfos is rejecting option a). But they cannot divide a b’rochoh in half, if one only knows half of a b’rochoh. Tosfos is rejecting option b). However, there cannot be a fourth leader, for נברך alone is not considered a b’rochoh, and therefore it is impossible to separate those two נברך and הזן. And the one who says that birchas hamozon can be divided among four people, holds that zimun is till נברך, because נברך is considered one b’rochoh for itself, and הזן is another b’rochoh and that is what is meant by the Braiso when it says that there are four, that one says נברך, and the second leader says הזן, and the third one says נודה לך and the fourth says until and including ירושלים בונה. Thus, there is a possibility of a fourth leader.

Toutes les bénédictions commencent par "Baroukh" (béni sois-Tu) et se terminent par "Baroukh", à l’exception des bénédictions sur les fruits, des bénédictions des mitsvot, des bénédictions qui suivent immédiatement une autre (et qui en sont donc dépendantes), et de la bénédiction finale du Kriyat Shema. Voici l’ordre : la bénédiction d’"Achèr Yatsar" n’est pas considérée comme adjacente à celle de la Netilat Yadayim, car la Netila est pertinente même sans "Achèr Yatsar", et il arrive souvent qu’on la dise seule. Quant à "Elohai Neshama", pourquoi ne commence-t-elle pas par "Baroukh", puisqu’elle ne dépend pas de "Achèr Yatsar", par exemple lorsque l’homme ne revient pas des besoins naturels et que ses mains sont pures, il n’a pas à réciter "Achèr Yatsar"? Il faut dire que, puisqu’elle ne contient qu’un remerciement pur, elle ne commence pas par "Baroukh". Malgré tout, elle se termine par "Baroukh", parce qu’elle est un peu longue. Il faut dire de même à propos de "Atta Hou ad chelo nivra haolam", etc., que toutes ces petites bénédictions sont chacune une bénédiction indépendante, comme on le disait autrefois : lorsqu’on marchait, on récitait "matza’dei gaver", et ainsi de suite pour toutes. De plus, elles sont courtes et ressemblent aux bénédictions des fruits. "Yehi ratson", à quoi est-elle liée? Rabbénou Tam dit qu’elle fait partie de la bénédiction "Baroukh atta Hachem hamavir cheina me’einay". Il faut donc dire "Yehi ratson". Et si tu demandes : toutes les bénédictions doivent avoir, dans leur conclusion, un contenu semblable à leur ouverture — or ici ce n’est pas le cas? Il faut répondre que c’est effectivement similaire à l’ouverture, car proche de la conclusion on trouve : "vétigmeléni ‘hassadim tovim" — ce qui signifie les bontés que Dieu fait en retirant le sommeil à l’homme et en renouvelant sa force, comme dit le Midrash : "‘Hadashim labkarim", etc., indiquant que Dieu restitue l’âme intacte et paisible dans le corps, comme elle l’était au départ même si elle était épuisée — c’est donc semblable à l’ouverture. Et "la’asok b’diverei Torah" et "vehaarev na" ne forment qu’une seule bénédiction, et il faut donc dire "vehaarev na". "Yishtaba’h" est juxtaposée à "Baroukh chéamar", et c’est pourquoi il faut veiller à ne pas parler entre les deux, même s’il y a une grande interruption due aux versets de louange (psoukei dezimra), car malgré tout cela ne constitue pas une séparation. Cela explique aussi la bénédiction finale du Kriyat Shema — Emèt, etc. "Emèt" est juxtaposée à Ahava, etc., et les versets du Kriyat Shema ne constituent pas une interruption. Et si tu demandes : la bénédiction finale lors de la lecture de la Torah, pourquoi doit-elle commencer par "Baroukh", puisqu’elle est adjacente à la première? Il faut dire que, puisqu’il était d’usage que seul le premier dise la bénédiction d’ouverture et le dernier celle de clôture, il y avait une grande interruption entre le premier et le dernier. Ensuite, on a institué que chacun dise les deux bénédictions (d’ouverture et de clôture), à cause de ceux qui entrent ou sortent (pendant la lecture), et la règle n’a pas changé depuis.