What kind of minor is discussed?

Rav Elyashiv: Some Rishonim say that we discuss a minor from the age of Pe'utos (usually between six and 10, based on his astuteness). The Mechaber (199:10) rules like them. The Rema rules like those who say that he is 13 years old, just we did not check whether or not he brought two hairs. For a Zimun, we consider him to be an adult. (Rava's Chazakah says that he brings two hairs immediately after 13 years.) The Halachah follows R. Akiva Eiger, that this is only for Zimun mid'Rabanan. We do not rely on this for Torah Mitzvos, e.g. to be Motzi an adult in Birkas ha'Mazon. Toras Chesed holds that Stam, we assume that he brought hairs even for Torah Mitzvos, but if we checked him and did not find hairs, we do not rely on the Chazakah to say that he brought hairs and they fell out. We rely on it for mid'Rabanan laws, but not on the day that he turned 13. For Tefilah it is opposite - the Mechaber relies on Rava's Chazakah (55:4), but the Rema does not!

What was so special about Abaye's and Rava's answers?

Tosfos: They were very young. Rabah was not testing if he may be Mezamen on them, rather, whether they have understanding.

Maharsha: It was not enough that they said Rachmana. Perhaps their fathers or Rebbeyim taught them to say so. Likewise, saying 'in Shamayim' would not suffice, until they pointed up and showed that they know to Whom we bless.

Iyun Yakov: It was not enough for Abaye to point to the roof - perhaps he merely copies Rava! Therefore, he went outside to show that he understands.

Who was Yanai, and why did he kill the Chachamim?

Rashi: He was from the kings of Beis Chashmona'i. He killed the Chachamim, for they wanted to disqualify him from Kehunah.

Yanai was king and Kohen Gadol. Can it be that he, and everyone there, did not know Birkas ha'Mazon?!

Etz Yosef: Yanai wanted a great person and Tzadik, that his Berachah to the king will be fulfilled. There is a Berachah that the guest gives to the host (46a).

Rav Elyashiv citing Tzlach: Rashi (20b) said that the Safek about women in Birkas ha'Mazon was because they did not receive portions in Eretz Yisrael. Tosfos there said that the same Safek applies to Kohanim. He did not want to pardon "v'Kidashto" (the Mitzvah to honor Kohanim, e.g. to bless), lest this support those who disputed his Kehunah. He wanted a Chacham to bless, for this is no support; a Chacham has precedence over a Kohen.

Rav Elyashiv: This is astounding. Tosfos did not say that Kohanim are exempt; he merely asked according to Rashi! (NOTE: Yanai was not such a Chacham. Presumably, if others did not exempt a Kohen, he would not be Mechadesh this. If Chachamim of his generation held that Kohanim are Safek Patur, surely the custom was that Kohanim do not bless! If he blessed, this would support those who disputed his Kehunah! Rather, the custom was that Kohanim blessed; Yanai was concerned for a minority opinion that Kohanim are Safek Patur. - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf: Tzlach also said that one is obligated mid'Oraisa only if he was satiated from the bread. The kings table had delicacies; people were unsure if they were satiated from the bread or from other things. Arvus does not apply to matters without limit, e.g. mid'Rabanan laws. Perhaps Yanai was obligated only mid'Rabanan for two reasons - he was a Kohen, and he was not satiated from the bread. If so, he could not be Motzi others obligated mid'Oraisa (because Arvus does not apply), nor those whose Chiyuv was mid'Rabanan for only one reason. Pri Megadim agrees that there is no Arvus on mid'Rabanan Mitzvos, but some disagree. Imrei Binah (Shabbos 11) points out that one who was Yotzei in Hallel or Megilah can be Motzi (due to Arvus)!

Rav Elyashiv: Several Amora'im hold that the Chiyuv Zimun is only when one [of those who ate] is much greater than the others, like Moshe and David, from whom we learn ("Gadlu la'Shem Iti", "Havu Godel l'Eilokeinu." After he killed the Chachamim, there was no such person. (NOTE: He did not know that his wife saved Shimon ben Shetach. Did Yanai not consider himself much greater than the others, due to being king and Kohen Gadol?! - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ben Yehoyada: Surely Yanai used to bless for himself. However, since a mishap came via those who ate at his table, to kill the Chachamim, he regretted this, and made a fence to eat only with his wife. One day he desired a guest's Berachah. He told Shimon ben Shetach, I give to you more honor than is proper for you, for I regret killing the Chachamim. (NOTE: We must say that that day, Yanai ate with others, in order that there will be a Zimun. We can infer this also from 'should I bless 'from Whom Yanai and his friends ate'?'- PF)

Yanai asked 'is there anyone who can bless for us?' Why did she say 'if I bring a man for you...?'

Iyun Yakov: It was not so important for her, for a woman is not obligated mid'Oraisa (20b).

NOTE: First the Gemara said that obviously she is obligated. Later, Ravina asked Rava; Rava's proof [from a Beraisa which says that a son may bless for his father, and a wife for her husband] was rejected [a minor exempts his father only if his father did not eat to satiation]. Perhaps Iyun Yakov understands that since a woman was taught with a son, also she is exempt mid'Oraisa. Shulchan Aruch (186:1) brings two opinions about her obligation. Perhaps she meant, for myself, I could bring a woman, but this would not help for you - 'if I bring a man for you...' (PF)

How does "Salseleha u'Seromemeka" teach that the Torah honors him?

Rashi: The verse continues "Techabedcha Ki Sechabekenah."

Maharsha: In our texts it says Salseleha u'Seromemeka u'Vein Negidim Toshivecha. This is a 'verse' in Sefer Ben Sira, like Tosfos (Bava Kama 92b) says. Rashi's text said only Salseleha u'Seromemeka, therefore he brought the Seifa, to teach unlike Tosfos; it is better to bring a verse from Mishlei. Tosfos holds that u'Vein Negidim Toshivecha is better, for he was seated between the king and queen.

Why did Shimon ben Shetach need to tell him 'you do not honor me, rather, the Torah honors me'?

Iyun Yakov: Yanai wanted him to enjoy the honor done for him. He answered that the Torah honors him, so he may not benefit from it. He did not say so due to pride!

Why did Shimon ben Shetach ask 'what should I bless?'

Rashi: He did not eat anything.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ben Yehoyada: He did not say so to them; he said so in his heart.

What did Shimon ben Shetach do like his opinion?

Rashi: He was Motzi others even though he merely drank one cup of wine.

Rav Elyashiv: Why did Rashi specify one cup of wine? Also, Rashi said 'no one agrees with him about this.' Rml obligate Birkas ha'Mazon for figs, grapes and pomegranates, and R. Akiva obligates even for cooked vegetables, if that was his meal! Tosfos (37a) said that R. Gamliel obligates Birkas ha'Mazon only if he fixed his meal on these fruits, but not for drinking one cup.

Can one be Motzi others who were satiated if he ate only a k'Zayis?

Rashi: Even though he is obligated only mid'Rabanan (20b), he is called obligated in the matter. Even though a minor cannot be Motzi others, that is because he is not obligated even mid'Rabanan; his father is obligated to train him. Bahag says that he can be Motzi only others who similarly ate a k'Zayis or k'Beitzah, but not if they ate to satiation. I cannot resolve this. Yanai and his friends ate to satiation, and Shimon ben Shetach was Motzi them! Even though he did according to his opinion, that is because he did not eat a k'Zayis - but had he eaten a k'Zayis, he would be Motzi them [even according to Chachamim!

Tosfos: The Gemara implies that had he eaten a k'Zayis, he would be Motzi others who ate to satiation. This is astounding. One is obligated only mid'Rabanan for a k'Zayis! How can he exempt others obligated mid'Oraisa?! We say that a curse should come upon one whose wife or children bless for him (20b). We can establish that a minor can exempt his father only when his father is obligated mid'Rabanan. If his father ate to satiation, he cannot exempt him. Rashi said that being obligated mid'Rabanan is called obligated, but a minor is not obligated at all; his father is obligated to train him. This is difficult. Also the former, the Torah does not obligate him. How can he exempt someone obligated mid'Oraisa? Also, if a minor who reached Chinuch is not obligated mid'Rabanan, how can he exempt his father? It seems that since the Torah did not obligate a minor even if he ate to satiation, he is called not obligated. Therefore, he cannot obligate an adult who ate to satiation. The Torah obligated an adult who ate to satiation, therefore he is called obligated, even if he did not eat at all. So it says in Rosh Hashanah (29a) - all Berachos, even one who was Yotzei can be Motzi, except for Berachos on (before consuming) bread and wine. This is because all Yisrael are Arevim (responsible for) each other. Also Birkas ha'Mazon, even if he was Yotzei, he can be Motzi. He needs to eat a k'Zayis only so he can say 'she'Achalnu mi'Shelo' (that we ate from His).

Rav Elyashiv: There are four opinions in the Rishonim. (a) Bahag holds that one who ate a k'Zayis can exempt only one who was not satiated. Yanai did like he holds, that one who ate a k'Zayis can exempt even one who was satiated. (b) Rashi holds that even one who is obligated mid'Rabanan can exempt one who was obligated mid'Oraisa. It is due to Arvus. If one is not obligated at all, Rabanan said that he cannot be Motzi others, for his Brachah is like l'Vatalah. A minor is not really obligated; his 'obligation' is only due to his father's Mitzvah to train him. However, it is enough so he can exempt someone obligated mid'Rabanan. If he is not obligated at all, his Brachah is like l'Vatalah. (c) The Ramban holds like Rashi, just he holds that a minor cannot exempt someone obligated mid'Rabanan. A son blesses for his father only if the son is an adult. The Ran (Megilah 6b) asked, if so, why can a minor be Motzi adults in Keri'as ha'Megilah? Even if minors were in the miracle, he is not obligated! (d) Tosfos holds that even one who did not eat can be Motzi others. He must eat a k'Zayis only so he can say 'she'Achalnu mi'Shelo.'

Once Yanai gave to him the cup of Birkas ha'Mazon, this ended the meal. How could Shimon ben Shetach join to a Zimun and be Motzi them? He did not eat with them initially!

Rav Elyashiv citing Tzlach: Since those who ate already joined for a Zimun, Shimon ben Shetach could be Motzi them due to Arvus. He needed to eat only to say 'she'Achalnu mi'Shelo.'

Rav Elyashiv: This is a Chidush! The Rishonim say that only one who ate with them can be Motzi them.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Magen Giborim (193, Shiltei ha'Giborim 4) says that that supports the Rosh, who says so.

Does Birkas ha'Zan apply to manna?

Maharsha: Yes; it is for anything that sustains a person and he was satiated from it.

Rav Elyashiv: The Chazon Ish (OC 28) asked, since the manna was immediately absorbed in the limbs, how could they bless afterwards? One must bless before the food is digested! He answered that one must bless immediately after eating; before it is digested is considered immediately. I say that it was a special enactment for the manna, unlike our Mitzvah of Birkas ha'Mazon.

Rav Elyashiv, citing Gilyonei ha'Shas: Birkas ha'Zan is only for bread! We must say that they blessed so when they intended to taste bread. He rejected this - still, it is not bread. One does not separate Chalah from it, and one cannot be Yotzei Matzah via it!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Sefer ha'Chinuch (430): Moshe, Yehoshua and David enacted the Berachos, but Ezra and his Beis Din fixed the texts. The Ramban (brought in Kesef Mishneh Hilchos Tefilah 2:1) says that Nevi'im fixed the text. The Bach (188) says that Moshe blessed all of them and fixed their texts. However, only the first is called on his name, for it did not change. Yehoshua and David changed the latter two. Gilyonei ha'Shas brings from Mabit that David put parts of Moshe's text into Tehilim ("Nosen Lechem l'Chol Basar", "Pose'ach Es Yadecha..." and added the word 'ka'Amur.' (Tehilim 145:16).

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Chidushei Ge'onim in Ein Yakov, from Shitah Mekubetzes: Tefilah is mid'Oraisa - "u'Le'avdo b'Chol Levavchem." It is called mid'Rabanan, because Chachamim fixed the text. Also Birkas ha'Mazon is mid'Oraisa, and Chochmah fixed the text! However, the Torah obligated to mention the food, land and Yerushalayim, therefore, it is called mid'Oraisa.

Did people bless before eating manna?

Megadim Chadashim: Chayei Adam (Nishmas Adam 151:1) says that surely they did not bless ha'Motzi Lechem Min ha'Aretz! Sedei Chemed explains that they did not bless, for Berachah Rishonah is mid'Rabanan. Bnei Yisaschar (Shabbosos 3:3) says that they did not bless, for a Berachah is to separate sparks [of Kedushah] from waste. There was no waste in manna! He questioned R. Menachem Azaryah who said that in the future they will bless ha'Motzi Lechem Min ha'Shamayim. Sefer Chasidim (1640; this is not in standard versions) says that they blessed ha'Nosen Lechem Min ha'Shamayim. Torah Lishmah (63) says that they blessed ha'Mamtir Lechem Min ha'Shamayim, like it says "Hineni Mamtir Lachem Lechem Min ha'Shamayim" (Shemos 16:4).

Did they not bless a third Berachah until David and Shlomo composed it?

Etz Yosef citing the Tur: They did, for we learn from a verse! Rather, they fixed the text based on good that was added to Yisrael. Surely they did not say before conquest and building [of Yerushalayim] like after these, just like we do not say David's text. We request Hash-m to return the Malchus and build the Bayis! They requested to extend serenity of the land, kingship and Bayis.

Rav Elyashiv citing Rashba: Three Berachos are mid'Oraisa, but one may say any text that he wants. Moshe, Yehoshua and David fixed texts.

Rav Elyashiv: Mid'Oraisa, one is Yotzei with one Berachah. Moshe, Yehoshua and David enacted to divide it into three Berachos. (NOTE: He cited this from the Rashba; it is not in our texts. Why did this require three people to enact it? Even if Moshe enacted only to say two Berachos, and Yehoshua enacted to say three, David did not need to enact! Perhaps this opinion agrees with Rashba's Perush that Moshe, Yehoshua and David fixed texts. It differs, and says that additionally, among all three of them, they enacted to says them as separate Berachos. Perhaps Moshe did this himself, or he (or Yehoshua) made it two Berachos, and David divided one of those into two. - PF)

Rav Elyashiv citing Ma'adanei Yom Tov: The Rosh asked only from David, for we learn Birkas ha'Mazon from "v'Achalta v'Savata u'Verachta" (Devarim 8:10), which is written after conquest of Sichon, which was the beginning of entering the land. The enactment of Moshe and Yehoshua was before this. (NOTE: The Gemara implies that they were two separate enactments - Moshe enacted Birkas ha'Zan, and Yehoshua enacted Birkas ha'Aretz! If it was in the days of Moshe, why was it attributed to Yehoshua? - PF) Therefore he asked only from David. However, if so, what was the Rashba's question from Moshe? Also he could hold that Moshe enacted before Matan Torah to bless on manna - afterwards, Hash-m commanded Birkas ha'Mazon! However, it seems that he does not hold like this.

Why did they enact ha'Tov veha'Metiv?

Anaf Yosef citing Tzlach: Do not say that since the bodies did not rot, there is no need to bury them, for in any case there is no disgrace. Burial is not only for the body; it is also for the Nefesh. Only after "v'Yashov he'Afar Al ha'Aretz", "veha'Ru'ach Tashuv El ha'Elokim" (Koheles 12:7). Mayan ha'Berachos asked, why did they enact ha'Tov for benefit of the body (they did not rot), and veha'Metiv for benefit of the Nefesh (burial)? The Akeidah (Va'eschanan) writes that Pegam (defect) of one Nefesh of Yisrael blemishes all of them. Mekubalim say that bodies are separate - each feels its pain or Simchah by itself. The Nefashos are united - they are Hash-m's portion, therefore one feels the defect of another, and via the perfection of one, all are fixed. Chazal explained (regarding ha'Tov veha'Metiv on Kelim or wine - 59b) ha'Tov is for himself, and veha'Metiv is for others. Also here, ha'Tov is for the body, and veha'Metiv is for the Nefesh, which benefit all of Yisrael.

Etz Yosef citing Avudaraham: Beitar was a great city to Hash-m. Romi overpowered it and killed everyone. The horn of Yisrael was totally cut off. For many years, birds ate from the bodies. After much time and great shame, R. Gamliel and his Beis Din fasted for several days and spent the storehouses of our fathers until they were permitted to bury them. They enacted the Berachah for this great benefit. It was enacted in a meal, which is a time of Simchah. Therefore they enacted it also for one who brings a different wine [than what he drank initially], for good tidings and for rain.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing R. C. Elazari, in Moriyah 4:10 p.41: Why do we say a Berachah for a benefit that happened once to a part of the nation? All of Yisrael are connected to each other. Regarding "Lo Sikom v'Lo Sitor" (Vayikra 19:18), the Yerushalmi (Nedarim 9:4) says, if one's right hand cut off his left, will he take vengeance and cut off his right hand?! The miracle of Beitar was for Klal Yisrael, so all of Yisrael must thank for it. Likewise, we must be pained over evil that occurred to previous generations.

How does "Es Hash-m Elokecha" hint to Birkas ha'Zimun?

Maharsha: The Zimun does not thank for anything. We merely say 'let us bless the One from whom we ate.' The primary Zimun is with 10; then we say Elokeinu. This is difficult - why does the verse hint to Birkas ha'Zan before Birkas ha'Zimun? Tosfos (46a) cited this Beraisa oppositely - "u'Verachta" is Birkas ha'Zimun; "Es Hash-m Elokecha" is Birkas ha'Zan. I do not know how the words imply this.

How does "Asher Nasan Lach" hint to ha'Tov veha'Metiv?

Maharsha: One who gives, he normally gives generously (Bava Basra 53a).

"Asher Nasan Lach" is past tense. How can it hint to ha'Tov veha'Metiv, for the future miracle with those killed in Beitar?

Rav Elyashiv: "Asher Nasan Lach" includes also the future.

The Kal va'Chomer (if one must bless when he is satiated, all the more so when he is hungry) should obligate three Berachos before eating!

Maharsha: It is not an absolute Kal v'Chamor. We could say oppositely - perhaps one should bless only after he benefited! Also Tosfos (35a) said that it is not a real Kal v'Chomer - if it were, a Berachah Rishonah would be mid'Oraisa! Rather, we rely on the Sevara that one may not benefit from the world without blessing first.

Rav Elyashiv: The Ritva says that it is not a real Kal v'Chomer. This explains why above (21a), R. Yochanan learned from it a Torah Chiyuv to bless before eating, and he was refuted, even though several Tana'im here make this Kal v'Chomer! However, why do we need this 'Asmachta'? Sevara teaches that one may not benefit before blessing, even for food other than bread! Another support is R. Nasan's words 'Eino Tzarich.' If the Kal v'Chomer obligated mid'Oraisa, surely it is needed! Do not ask that the Sevara should obligate Goyim to bless. Surely if Berachah Rishonah is mid'Rabanan, they enacted only for Jews. And even if it is mid'Oraisa, the Torah permitted them [to eat without blessing] - "v'Achalta Es Esev ha'Sadeh", "b'Zei'as Apecha Tochal Lechem." Surely it is considered theft only for Yisrael, who are commanded to bless over food.

NOTE: I do not understand this. If the Torah 'gave' food to Bnei Noach, and obligated Yisrael to bless after eating, if there is not a Kal v'Chomer to before eating, why is it like Gezel for Yisrael? (PF)

How do we learn from "u'Verach Es Lachmecha"?

Rashi: We read this 'u'Varech Al Lachmecha.'

Maharsha: We expound so, for it should have said 'va'Yevarech.' Also, the verse ends "va'Hasirossi Machalah mi'Kirbecha"; the Reisha should have said similarly u'Verachti Es Lachmecha. Therefore, we expound u'Verach to teach about the person, that he should bless on the bread and water that he eats and drinks. It says Lachmecha and Meimecha, for after you bless, it becomes yours, like we said above about Deganecha.

NOTE: When Yisrael do Hash-m's will, it is called Deganecha (your grain); when they do not, it is called Degani (35b). Why did Maharsha not cite 35a? It says "la'Shem ha'Aretz u'Melo'ah," and it says "ha'Shamayim Shamayim la'Shem veha'Aretz Nasan li'Venei Adam"! Before one blesses, everything belongs to Hash-m; after one blesses, it is considered his! (PF)

What Berachah is made on a Zevach?

Rashi: Asher Kideshanu b'Mitzvosav v'Tzivanu Le'echol Es ha'Zevach. We are commanded "veha'Basar Tochal."

Rav Elyashiv: We learn from Rashi that also Yisrael have a Mitzvah to eat Kodshim.

Question: Rashi writes that the Berachah is on the Mitzvah. Here we seek a source to bless on eating of Reshus!

Maharsha: The Mechilta says, 'Rav Nachman said, from here we learn to blessing before food.' This shows that we do not discuss Birkas ha'Mitzvos, rather, Berachos of Hana'ah (sheha'Kol on the meat, in addition to Birkas ha'Mitzvah).

Etz Yosef citing Tzlach: "Hu Yevarech ha'Zevach" implies that there is another Berachah [of Hana'ah]. Shmuel blessed only on the Mitzvah, but not ha'Motzi, for the Zevach was of the people of the city; they invited Shmuel to come. The Ba'al ha'Bayis blesses ha'Motzi (46a).

Rav Elyashiv #1: Above (21a), the Gemara wanted to learn from Birkas ha'Torah to Berachos of Hana'ah; this was rejected, for only Torah is Chayei Olam. If so, we can equate Birkos ha'Mitzvos and Birkos ha'Hana'ah, for neither is eternal life.

Rav Elyashiv #2: It says "Lo Yochal ha'Am Ad Bo'o Ki Hu Yevarech Es ha'Zevach Acharei Chen Yochelu ha'Keru'im." Ha'Keru'im are the owners of the Korban; ha'Am were others invited to eat from it. The latter do not bless on the Mitzvah; their Berachah must be of Hana'ah.

NOTE: What is the proof that the Am must bless? Perhaps they may not eat before the owners (like a guest does not eat before his host), and the owners do not eat until Birkas ha'Mitzvah! (PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ba'al Yechahen Pe'er: The verse implies that Shmuel will bless, and the invitees will eat before he eats. For Birkas ha'Mitzvos, this is no Chidush! Rather, the Chidush is that he exempts them for Birkas ha'Nehenin, even though he does not eat. So we say about the Berachah on Matzah and of Kidush (Rosh Hashanah 29a).

What is the question 'what is the reason for all of this?'

Rashi: Why did the women need to say all this?

Maharsha: Sha'ul asked only 'is the Ro'eh here?' They needed to say only 'yes'. They discussed many other matters.

What is the source that they elaborated in order to gaze at Shaul's beauty?

Iyun Yakov: Both Sha'ul and his servant asked them, and they answered both of them. "Lefanecha" (singular) implies that the spoke only to Sha'ul.

What was the answer 'a kingship cannot usurp even a moment from another kingship'?

Rashi: Shmuel was leading Yisrael; Sha'ul was going to take over leadership. Shmuel needed to reign for a little more time. Maharsha - Hash-m put these words in their mouths, in order to delay for this amount of time.

Iyun Yakov: They needed to hurry, for Sha'ul's father was worried. Presumably, Hash-m summonsed these women because the kingship needed to last the extra time. We can say that there is no argument between these opinions.

The Kal va'Chomer (if we must bless for temporary life, all the more so for eternal life) should obligate three Berachos after learning Torah!

Maharsha: It is not an absolute Kal v'Chamor. We could say oppositely - perhaps one should bless only for temporary life (this world), from which he benefited, but not for eternal life, which he did not yet benefit from!

Question: What Berachah do we make for Midah Tovah?

Rashi: Midah Tovah is Torah.

Maharsha: This is difficult. This was not brought above when we sought sources for Birkas ha'Torah! Also, 'what is the source that one must bless on bad, like he blesses on good' implies that it is clear that he blesses on good!

Maharsha: This is an additional Drashah, that the verse teaching Birkas ha'Mazon says "Hash-m Elokecha" - Midas ha'Rachamim and Midas ha'Din - to teach that one blesses on bad, like on good ("Al ha'Aretz ha'Tovah").

NOTE: Dikdukei Soferim says that Rashi's text lacked R. Meir's Drashah. It seems that in his text, we expound "v'Samachta b'Chol ha'Tov Asher Nasan Lecha Hash-m Elokecha", and not the verse of Birkas ha'Mazon; Rashi teaches that ha'Tov is Torah. (PF)

Why do we expound the prefix Hei in "ha'Tovah"?

Maharsha: It said above "El Eretz Tovah" - there was no need to write ha'Tovah. Surely it is the same land! The word is extra to expound from the Hei that it is called Tovah elsewhere - Torah or Binyan Yerushalayim.