Is there a Shi'ur that one may eat before feeding his animals?

Etz Yosef: The text in Gitin (62a) forbids tasting, and so say the Rif (Alfasi) and Rosh.

Rav Elyashiv: The Magen Avraham says that some hold that the Isur to eat before feeding his animals is mid'Oraisa. If so, it is any amount. Others say that it is only an Asmachta. Since the verse mentions Achilah, it is only for a Shi'ur of Achilah. Perhaps R. Yochanan holds like this. Since one may taste, there is no need to say 'knead for the cattle' before eating, so it is a Hefsek. However, it seems that R. Yochanan does not forbid eating before feeding his animals. If he did, he would not call say 'knead..' a Hefsek! The Rambam brought a different source for this law. It seems that it is not an Isur, rather, it is based on Musar (proper conduct). We infer from our Gemara that once he commanded someone to give to them, he may eat, even before the animals eat.

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Taz (OC 167:7) permits tasting before feeding them.

Is the Isur even on Shabbos, when there is a Mitzvah to eat?

Megadim Chadashim: Kesav Sofer (OC 32) was unsure. We may save from a fire three meals of food on Shabbos - what is proper for people for people, and what is proper for animals for animals (Shabbos 117b). Does an animal eat three meals on Shabbos?! Tif'eres Yisrael there and Bi'ur Halachah (334:1¸citing Tosefes Shabbos) infer that one must feed it before each of his meals. Tif'eres Yakov says that the Isur does not apply on Shabbos, and it is only when he intends to feed his animal. The Me'iri says that one saves three meals, which is what he needs for Shabbos, and also food proper for animals, what they need to eat on Shabbos.

Must one feed also his fish before he eats?

Chashukei Chemed citing She'elas Ya'avetz 15: Yes. Also fish work (Sanhedrin 59b). It is improper that they work and not be fed! [One who owns fish,] they are trapped; even if they do not work, he must feed them. Wherever the Torah says Shor, Chamor or Behemtecha, e.g. "v'Nasati Esev b'Sadcha li'Vhemtecha v'Achalta v'Savata", fish are included, and especially because the Isur to eat before them is due to Tzar Ba'alei Chayim.

Hash-m gave vegetation "Lachem Yihyeh Le'achlah", and afterwards "ul'Chol Chayas ha'Aretz... Le'achlah" (Bereishis 1:29-30)!

Pardes Yosef (Bereishis 24:33, citing Nezer ha'Kodesh), Yad Efrayim (on OC 167): Bereishis Rabah (33:1) says that animals come first, for sometimes man is fed in their merit - "Adam u'Vehemah Toshi'a Hash-m" (Tehilim 36:7). Before Adam's sin, he did not need the animals' merit.

Megadim Chadashim citing Nezer ha'Kodesh: Therefore, animals are first for all needs, including living space - "Pinisi ha'Bayis u'Makom la'Gemalim." (NOTE: I did not find this in Nezer ha'Kodesh there, and I do not understand this. "Ha'Bayis" is proper for people, and afterwards "u'Makom la'Gemalim"! - PF) Megadim Chadashim - the simple reason is due to Tzar Ba'alei Chayim. People can bear hunger more than animals can.

Pardes Yosef (ibid. citing Kesav Sofer OC 32): One must feed his animals before himself, but Ploni may give to Reuven before to Reuven's animal, and then Reuven may eat before his animals. (NOTE: If so, it is not difficult that Hash-m gave to Adam before to the animals. - PF) The Admor of Gur said that therefore "Lachem Le'achlah...; veli'Vhemtecha" (Vayikra 25:6-7) is not difficult, for it discusses Shemitah; the food is Hefker.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Maharil Diskin: Before Noach, man was not allowed to kill animals to eat them, so they were not considered [totally] his. This also averts a question from "v'Hayah Lachem v'Lahem Le'achlah" (Bereishis 6:21, the command to prepare food for during the Mabul).

May one drink before giving to his animals to drink?

Rav Elyashiv: Magen Avraham (167:18, citing Sefer Chasidim) permits. We find that Rivkah gave to Eliezer before to the camels. He did not learn from "v'Hishkisa Es ha'Edah v'Es Be'iram" (Bamidbar 20:8), for there was danger there. Obviously, man has precedence when there is danger! There is no Isur to drink before giving to his animals to drink. Therefore, if he interrupted to say 'give to the animals to eat [or drink, before he drank]', it is a Hefsek.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Both answers (man comes first for drinking, and man comes first when there is danger) are the same. There is danger if man does not drink!

NOTE: Is there also danger to delay drinking? Chachamim decreed fast days, and forbade drinking even water before Kidush! There is no proof from Rivkah or the Midbar according to some Meforshim. Yad Efrayim (ibid.) said that we feed animals first, for sometimes man is fed in their merit. When a miracle is done, surely it is for man, e.g. the water rose for Rivkah, and Hash-m gave water from a rock in the Midbar. Kesav Sofer (ibid) said that one may give to another before to the other's animals. Pardes Yosef (ibid.) cites Rav Tuvecha to say that animals come first when they eat animal food, but not when they eat the same food that man does.

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Taz (OC 167:7) permits tasting before feeding them. Drinking is permitted, for this is like tasting.

Why are we not careful to eat salt after eating, and to drink water after drinking?

Etz Yosef: The Rema (170:22) says that this is only if there was no salt in the food that he ate, and no water in what he drank.

What is Makfeh?

Rashi: He drinks much water after eating, until the food floats in water. The Targum of "va'Yatzef ha'Barzel" (Melachim II, 6:6) is v'Kafa Parzela.

Megadim Chadashim: The Rambam (Hilchos De'os 4:2) says to drink wine only a little with his food, and also after, when it is begins to be digested. Ginas Veradim (OC 1:38) says that nowadays doctors say not to drink much after eating, so we follow them. Why did he not mention that the Rambam already said so?

How much is 'one flask for bread'?

Rav Elyashiv: The Shi'ur was not taught explicitly. Rashi implies that it is so much that the food floats in the water.

How does eating lentils every 30 days prevent Askarah?

Rashi: It loosens the bowels; constipation causes Askarah.

It says 'one who eats lentils regularly, every 30 days.' Is this the Shi'ur of being regular?

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Derech Sichah p. 504: Yes. We learn from here to olives (eating them regularly, i.e. every 30 days, causes forgetting).

What is the meaning of Damo b'Rosho?

Etz Yosef: He causes his own death; he will be punished for this. We learn from "Damo b'Roshenu" that Yehoshua's spies said.

Why is sleeping to the east of his Goren dangerous?

Rashi: This refers to a Goren of Katzach. The west wind is moist, and enters the smell into his body.

Why does the Gemara bring all these matters of health?

Ha'Boneh: One must strive to be strong and healthy to serve Hash-m. It says "va'Chai Bahem" and "u'Shmor Nafshecha Me'od." Danger is more severe than Isur. Therefore, there are many warnings about this - "u'Leshon Chachamim Marpei" (Mishlei 12:18). Refu'ah preserves health, and returns it if it was lost. It does not give eternal life, but it extends life. Most illnesses are from the improper quantity or quality of food, therefore there are many warning about this.

What is the question 'do we bless Hash-m only during the day?!' 'Yom' includes night - "va'Yhi Erev va'Yhi Voker Yom Echad"!

Maharsha: The question is due to the repetition "Yom Yom." This implies that it comes to exclude night.

Iyun Yakov: The word "Yom" is extra. It should have said 'Baruch Hash-m Ya'amas Lanu"!

How do we bless Him according to each day?

Rashi: On Shabbos, the Berachah pertains to Shabbos; on Yom Tov, it pertains to Yom Tov.

Maharsha: We bless according to the salvation that He does for us each day.

If one has many Mitzvos to do, Chachamim say to bless 'Asher Kideshanu b'Mitzvosav v'Tzivanu Al ha'Mitzvos'; R. Yehudah says to bless on each one (Sukah 46a). R. Zeira said, he learns from "Baruch Hash-m Yom Yom." Why do we rule like R. Yehudah there, but not here?

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Zera Barech p.121: Berachos of Hana'ah are mid'Rabanan - we need not distinguish hem. The Yerushalmi says that Berachos on Mitzvos are mid'Oraisa, therefore we distinguish (bless on each by itself).

NOTE: We rule unlike the Yerushalmi! We hold that Safek Brachos Lehakel for almost all Berachos, for they are mid'Rabanan. The only exceptions are Birkas ha'Mazon and (according to many) Birkas ha'Torah! (PF)

What full Kli of Hash-m can contain [more]?

Rashi: A person who is a Chacham.

Rav Elyashiv: Also in other Chochmos, only one who hears old will hear new. However, there, once he understands the Chochmah, there is nothing to add. Torah is different - it is vaster than the sea. The more that one knows, he knows he lacks more, and desires to hear new. He is a full Kli that gets stronger and is renewed!\h

Maharsha: 'Kli' is a Mashal for the ear. "Kol ha'Devarim Yege'im Lo Yuchal Ish Ledaber... v'Lo Simalei Ozen mi'Shmo'a" (Koheles 1:8) - the ear can always hold (hear) idle matters. Something full of physical substance can hold only if it is empty. This is man's Midah. Hash-m is not limited to place. He fills the world, for He is the place of the world, and the world is not His place. A place full of spirituality has no boundary; it can hold more spirituality./h something empty of spirituality cannot hold it. If you will hear spiritual matters, you will hear more. If not, he wants to be empty of spirituality - he cannot hold it.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Why does it say that man's ways are unlike Hash-m's ways? It should say that Hash-m's ways are unlike the ways of people! (NOTE: This is because it is known that for people, who are physical, what is full cannot hold more. We come to teach that Hash-m is different. - PF) Also, this is not a Midah of people, rather, of Kelim! And why does it say that in Hash-m's Midah, the empty does not hold? People who learn Torah were initially empty! They differ only about what is full - Hash-m "Yahev Chochmesa l'Chakimin" (Daniel 2:21); this does not apply to people. Also, who can tell if Hash-m's Kli is full? Perhaps it holds more because it is not full! The Gemara was precise. About Hash-m, it said only that the full holds; it did not say that the empty does not hold, for also His empty Kli (one who did not yet learn Torah) holds. A full Kli that became empty (a Chacham who forgot his learning) does not hold, like we said about one who turns his heart to idleness after he learned - he will not hear more Torah. This difference we find - Hash-m's empty Kli does not hold, and man's empty Kli holds. We do not know about Hash-m's full Kli. We learn from His empty Kli, that it is unlike the way of people.

Anaf Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: Surely Hash-m's empty Kli can hold. If one did not fulfill a Mitzvah that came to him, and does not hear, and even if he transgressed, is he forced to transgress and not learn afterwards?! Did he lose his choice?! Even though Chazal said 'an Aveirah leads to an Aveirah' (Avos 4:2), it is not inevitable. Rather, "Im Shamo'a Tishme'u l'Kol Hash-m" (Shemos 15:26) is like Kli Yakar explained. "Es ha'Berachah Asher Tishme'u El Mitzvos Hash-m Elokeichem" - the Berachah is to hear words of Torah from Hash-m. In this world we heard from Hash-m via Moshe, His faithful Shaliach - "Daber Atah Imanu...", for we did not have strength to bear that great sweetness. Then, we will merit it. This is the reward of the world to come! Mayan ha'Berachos - we could hear only after keeping Mitzvos - "Na'aseh v'Nishma"! Also angels are "Osei Devaro Lishmo'a b'Kol Devaro" (Tehilim 103:20). Only after hearing from Moshe, we will be able to hear from Hash-m. The Ramban explains "Ki Lo Yir'ani ha'Adam va'Chai" (Shemos 33:20) - before hearing everything, one cannot see the King's face, After hearing and fulfilling everything, it is his time to die!

Iyun Yakov: An empty Kli, one can hammer nails in it to strengthen it to enable it to hold more. One does not do so to a full Kli, lest the contents spill out. Hash-m is different - Hash-m strengthens [one whose heart is full] so he can hold more 'one who comes to purify himself, [Shamayim] helps him' (Yoma 38b); He does not help one who is empty.

Why must we expound the repetition "Im Shamo'a Tishma"? One opinion in Bava Metzi'a 31b does not expound, for Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon Bnei Adam!

Maharsha: Even that opinion agrees that when there is what to expound, we expound.

Iyun Yakov: We see that this is so (a Chacham learns more)!

What is 'listening to old'?

Rashi: He reviews a second and third time what he learned already.

Rav Elyashiv: According to the first version, one who does not review will not learn new Menachos. According to the latter version, only one who turns his heart [to idleness] will not hear.

Why did R. Meir say that vines bring more misery to the world than anything else?

Rashi: Presumably, through it the world was punished with death and crying.

Etz Yosef citing Nezer ha'Kodesh: Bereishis Rabah (15:7) learns that Pri Etz ha'Da'as were grapes from "Anavemo Invei Rosh Eshkolos Meroros Lamo" (Devarim 32:32). Those clusters brought Meroros to the world. This is death, which is called Mar - "Mar mi'Maves" (Koheles 7:26). "Rosh" refers to Adam ha'Rishon, who was the head of all generations.

Megadim Chadashim: Seforim ha'Kedoshim say that Kidush over wine is a Tikun for Adam's sin. Magen Avraham (296:4) says that women do not drink from Havdalah wine, for she squeezed grapes [of Eitz ha'Da'as] and gave to Adam, to separate from him. The Vilna Gaon (Ma'aseh Rav 210) says that we do not eat grapes on Rosh Hashanah, based on Sod. Imrei Sha'ul says that this is based on the Zohar that Eitz ha'Da'as was a vine; he was created and sinned on Rosh Hashanah. Ben Yehoyada says that all three opinions are true. Adam was commanded about all of them, and ate from all of them. Therefore we have a Mitzvah of eating on three Regalim, to fix the sin. "Shalosh Regalim Tachog Li ba'Shanah" - Tachog is an acronym for the initial letters of Te'enah Chitah Gefen. IN Sefer Ben Ish Chai (Shanah Beis, Reish Bereishis) he explained that it had fruits that taste like figs, and like wheat, and like grapes.

According to R. Nechemyah why was their remedy from the tree with which they sinned?

Etz Yosef: Bereishis Rabah (15:7) gives a Mashal. The king's son sinned with a Shifchah; transgress expelled him from the palace. He went to the doors of the Shifchos; they did not accept him, except for the one that he sinned with. So Adam ate from Etz ha'Da'as and was expelled from Gan Eden. The trees did not accept him. (Yefe To'ar - even though they do not have Da'as, speech or refusal, Adam understood that due to his deed, it is proper that trees refrain from him. He should not benefit from them, like he was initially permitted. However, the fig tree, which he was fond) of and benefited from it, he did not refrain from using it (to make clothes from its leaves). The trees called him a thief - he thought to deceive his Creator.

Why did R. Yehudah say that a child does not know to call to his parents until he tastes grain?

Etz Yosef citing Nezer ha'Kodesh: Wheat gives Da'as to man. Before the sin, Adam had supreme Chochmah, but he lacked Da'as of matters of this world that depend on choice of the Yetzer ha'Ra, which is called Da'as Tov v'Ra. Corresponding to this, he lost the supreme Chochmah, for his physicality thickened with the Yetzer ha'Ra's filth.

Why would we think to bless Borei Pri ha'Etz on wheat?

Rav Elyashiv: Bereishis Rabah (15:7) says that before Adam sinned, wheat grew tall like cedars of Levanon, and so it will be in the future (Kesuvos 111b). However, nowadays it is not so. Why should one bless Borei Peri ha'Etz? Tosfos (Shabbos 66a) says that R. Akiva holds that a straw basket is Mekabel Tum'ah, even though the Torah said "Etz Oh Beged Oh Ohr Oh Sak" (Vayikra 11:32), for it is considered a tree, like R. Yehudah [who says that Eitz ha'Da'as was wheat]. Since for Tum'ah it is like a tree, perhaps also for Berachah. This is rejected, for wheat does not grow from the same stalk the next year. Even in the Havah Amina, one is Yotzei b'Di'eved, but l'Chatchilah one does not bless Borei Peri ha'Adamah l'Chatchilah.

What Berachah did he not forget?

Rashi: Asher Kideshanu b'Mitzvosav v'Tzivanu Lehafrish Terumah u'Ma'aser.

Tosfos Yom Tov (Ma'aser Sheni 5:11): Rashi means that the Torah obligates thanking Hash-m. The Berachah is mid'Rabanan; Anshei Keneses ha'Gedolah fixed the text.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Tal Torah: Why is this different than other Mitzvos? The Torah obligated Viduy Ma'aser, which is praise and thanks after doing the Mitzvah. Therefore, also before the Mitzvah one must thank Hash-m. Just like for physical Hana'ah, we say that if one must bless when he is satiated, all the more so when he is hungry (35a), also for spiritual Hana'ah! If one must bless after fulfilling a Mitzvah, all the more so beforehand! Several Tana'im hold that it is a real Kal v'Chomer; the Rashba holds like this. Likutei Imrei Emes on the Mishnah says, Sevara teaches that one may not benefit from the world without blessing; the same applies to Mitzvos, which are Hana'ah of the Nefesh.

Rav Elyashiv: Rashi implies that the Berachah is mid'Oraisa (we learn from a verse). The Yerushalmi (6:1) learns from "veha'Torah veha'Mitzvos" that just like one must bless on Torah, also on Mitzvos. However, above (15a) we explicitly said that the Berachah on Terumah is mid'Rabanan. The Bavli argues with the Yerushalmi. The Drashah here is an Asmachta. Tosfos ha'Rosh (ibid.) said that if the Berachah is mid'Oraisa, it is Me'akev the Mitzvah. This requires investigation. The Yerushalmi holds that the Berachah is mid'Oraisa, but if a mute separated Terumah, it was valid! Perhaps it is like R. Yonah said, that it was Mitzvah ha'Ba b'Aveirah, so the separation does not take effect. This is only for one who transgressed b'Mezid. It does not apply to a mute or others who do not bless due to Ones; their separation is valid.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Eretz Tzvi (1:19): Rashi holds that we learn from Torah that one must bless on Mitzvos. We say that the Berachah is mid'Rabanan, for mid'Oraisa one was Yotzei via Birkas ha'Torah. Just like Birkas ha'Torah exempt all he will learn that day, even if he interrupted, it exempts all Mitzvos that he will do that day. If one does a Mitzvah before Birkas ha'Torah, its Berachah is mid'Oraisa.

Rav Elyashiv: Shitah Mekubetzes says that it is Birkas ha'Mazon after eating Ma'aser Sheni. This is better according to the opinion that Birkas me'Ein Shalosh is mid'Oraisa (NOTE: for then it applies to all seven species for which Eretz Yisrael is praised. This is like most Meforshim, who hold that Ma'aser mid'Oraisa is only for grain, wine and oil. - PF) This is a Chidush that Birkas ha'Mazon is Me'akev Viduy, even though it does not affect the Ma'aser!

How do we learn from "Lo Avarti v'Lo Shachachti" Shem or Malchus?

Rashba: Rav explains, this is like a servants who tells the king who commanded him 'I did not transgress your commands, and I even blessed you and mentioned your name on it. This hints to fulfilling Mitzvos. R. Yochanan elevates the power of the Berachah more, and adds that I mentioned also your kingship. Every Berachah begins in Nigleh (second person) Baruch Atah, and switches to Nistar (third person), e.g. Asher Kideshanu, for everything is built on two foundations. (a) One must know that Hash-m must exist. There is no Safek about this at all. (b) Only He understands His Emes (essence). His existence is revealed, but His essence is hidden. Baruch Atah addresses One who is known, and he speaks to Him face to face. Lest one think that His existence is like that of other matters, we switch to [e.g.] Asher Kideshanu, to fix in our Nefashos that the essence of His existence is hidden. One can speak about Him only in third person.

Maharsha: Every Berachah must designate His name on every species, like His Berachos. R. Yochanan requires also Malchus, 'Melech' shows His unity - He is the King of kings of kings. This is why we conclude the 10 verses of Malchus in Musaf of Rosh Hashanah with "[Shma Yisrael...] Hash-m Echad."

The Gemara said that 'Baruch Rachmana' suffices. It does not have Hash-m's name!

Rav Elyashiv: People used to mention Hash-m via this name, therefore it is considered His name, even though it is only a Kinuy (nickname). Tzlach holds that even 'ha'Makom' suffices. I am unsure about this.

R. Yochanan holds that a Berachah must mention Malchus. There is no mention of Malchus in Shemoneh Esre!

Tosfos: 'Elokei Avraham' is like Malchus, for Avraham made Hash-m king over the entire world; he publicized His kingship.

Rosh: Ha'Kel ha'Gadol (Tur - ha'Gibor) is like Malchus.

Ma'adanei Yom Tov (6:1, citing Roke'ach 363): All Berachos are thanks to Hash-m, so they mention Shem and Malchus. Tefilah is not thanks; it is requesting needs - they did not enact Malchus for it.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Mahara mi'Belz: "Kevod Malchusecha Yomeru" - Berachos of Hoda'ah require Malchus; "u'Gvurasecha Yedaberu" - according to the Tur, Gevurah is Malchus.

Chashukei Chemed citing R. Ilya Lopian: A Mashal for this is the king's son speaking to a Tzibur. He calls his father 'his glorious kingship', and does not mention that he is his father. In his house, he calls his father 'father', and does not mention his kingship. In Shemoneh Esre, Yisrael are isolated with their Father, so they do not mention His kingship, rather, 'merciful Father.' (NOTE: We do say 'Mechal Lanu Malkeinu Ki Chatanu'! - PF)