For Birkas ha'Nehenin, one blesses for everyone only if they reclined together. Here Beis Hillel do not require this!

R. Yonah: When they bring the lamp, everyone benefits from it together; this is like reclining together. Everyone cannot benefit from wine at once, so reclining is required.

Rav Elyashiv: This is like Birkas ha'Mitzvos, so reclining is not required. Because it is obligatory on everyone, they are considered to be fixed together.

How is there Bitul Beis ha'Midrash if one blesses for everyone?

Rashi: Everyone stops learning to have intent, listen to the Berachah and answer Amen.

Anaf Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: Why is this Bitul Beis ha'Midrash more than if everyone blesses for himself? It is due to the extra time to answer Amen. This is astounding, that we are concerned for Bitul Beis ha'Midrash due to one word. Therefore, we bring a proof from Merapei. (NOTE: The Bitul Torah is more than one word. If one was in the middle, and interrupts to intend and answer Amen, he might need to begin again from the beginning! It seems that others (except for Beis R. Gamliel) would say 'Merapei' - it is not a Chiyuv, so one who is in the middle of a matter would not interrupt. Beis R. Gamliel were concerned lest Ploni sneeze, and be insulted if others do not say Merapei, or lest people answer even if they were in the middle, amidst concern lest Ploni be upset. However, Shulchan Aruch ha'Rav (Talmud Torah 4:11) forbids Merapei in Beis ha'Midrash, even not when learning. - PF)

Rav Elyashiv: Beis Hillel hold that "b'Rav Am" overrides Bitul Beis ha'Midrash. Also they are concerned for Bitul Beis ha'Midrash; regarding Merapei, there is not b'Rav Am to override it. Someone wanted to infer that if one blesses aloud in the Beis ha'Keneses after the Tzibur began Pesukei d'Zimra, they need not answer. This is wrong. Even Beis Shamai said only not to do so; they do not exempt from answering Amen. It is an absolute Chiyuv to answer! Do not learn from Merapei (even though they heard him sneeze, they do not say so; that is not a Chiyuv). Surely one may ask the person to bless quietly.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing R. S. Vozner, in Kovetz Ohr Yisrael (3:1 p.74): The Shulchan Aruch rules like the Rambam, that one must answer Amen to a Yisrael's Berachah; the Tur says that it is Reshus. However, if there is concern for Bitul Torah, all agree that one need not answer. Also Beis Hillel are concerned for Bitul Torah, just b'Rav Am overrides.

Chashukei Chemed: We learn from here that if one cannot answer Kaddish and Kedushah in a Minyan, it is improper to interrupt a Tzibur that is learning in order to say Chetzi Kaddish, the first three Berachos of Shemoneh Esre and Kedushah. If he has a Yartzite and it will be Aliyas Neshamah for his father and Kivud Av, it seems that it is permitted; this requires investigation. (NOTE: If normally it is improper due to Bitul Torah, why is this Aliyas Neshamah? - PF)

What is 'Merapei'?

Rashi: They say so to one who sneezed.

Magen Avraham (20:6, citing Yam Shel Shlomo Bava Kama 8:64): If Ploni sneezed, another says to him 'Asusa'; Ploni prays for him, and then prays for his own salvation - one who prays for another is answered first. Megadim Chadashim - the Gemara brought this to show we are concerned for one word of Bitul Beis ha'Midrash. This shows that the days of the Gemara, they did not say all this! (NOTE: What is difficult? Magen Avraham discusses Asusa. Here it says Merapei - this was all they said! - PF)

Why did the Talmid who did like Beis Shamai find a wallet full of gold coins?

Maharsha: This was to fulfill Beis Shamai's words [in our Mishnah] - if one forgot his wallet on the top [of a building, he would return to get it]! This is like "va'Sigzar Omer v'Yakam Lach" (Iyov 22:28; Hash-m fulfills Tzadikim's words).

Rav Elyashiv: It is not a proper Mashal. If one does not return for the wallet, he will totally lose it. Here, he will not totally lose Birkas ha'Mazon - he can bless in his place! Rather, the Mashal, conveys that one would return for a wallet - all the more so he should return to honor Shamayim!

Here he was rewarded for doing like Beis Shamai. Above (11a), it says 'you were liable to die for transgressing Beis Hillel's opinion!'

Iyun Yakov: Here is different, like the Rosh brought from Rav Amram, for even Beis Hillel agree that it is good to do like Beis Shamai, just they did not burden him to do so. This Talmid [who returned] brought Shalom between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel - this is one of the matters for which one eats the Peros in this world, and the principal is intact for the world to come.

Etz Yosef: Rav Amram rules like Beis Shamai, for even Beis Hillel say that it is better to do so.

Rav Elyashiv: Above, according to Beis Hillel, there is no reason to lean like Beis Shamai. It is like a disgrace (to recline wile accepting Ol Malchus Shamayim)! Teshuvas Rema (91) says that it is always better to be stringent like Beis Shamai, except for Keri'as Shma [at night], due to disgrace. R. Akiva Eiger on that Mishnah asked, the Shulchan Aruch (63:2) calls one who stands to recite Shema [in the morning] a transgressor! How can the Rema say that everywhere else, it is good to be stringent like Beis Shamai? I answer that both of these arguments depend on how we expound "uv'Shachbecha uv'Kumecha" - does it teach posture or the time to recite? If one does like Beis Shamai in the morning [when there is no disgrace], he will come to do like them at night. Also, he expounds the verse unlike the Halachah. (NOTE: He can agree that Beis Hillel's opinion is primary, just he is also stringent for how Beis Shamai expound! - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Kerem Shlomo (11:3 p. 35): In that Teshuvah, the Rema holds like Tosfos (11a), that Beis Hillel do not forbid doing like Beis Shamai for Keri'as Shma. Therefore, he was forced to say that for Birkas ha'Mazon, Beis Hillel agree that it is better to do like Beis Shamai. However, if so, why was R. Tarfon liable for doing like Beis Shamai for Keri'as Shma? Rather, at night it is disgraceful to lie. Also in the morning, one who sits has better Kavanah than one who stands (Taz 63:2).

What is the meaning of 'he did b'Mezid like Beis Hillel'?

Rashi: He intentionally left the place where he ate, with intent to bless elsewhere, for he needed to go.

Etz Yosef: Seemingly, he transgressed even Beis Hillel, for they agree that b'Mezid one must return! Rashi explains 'he needed to go' to teach unlike this. One who left before Birkas ha'Mazon for a need, this is like Shogeg, and he need not return. Mezid is if he left without a need.

Why did a lion eat the other Talmid?

Iyun Yakov: He widened the argument between them, that even b'Mezid, Beis Hillel hold that he blesses where he is. This is wrong; therefore he was punished so harshly. He entered the argument of the lions (Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel) and was false, therefore he was punished via a lion.

Rav Elyashiv: He was not Chayav Misah for doing like Beis Hillel! Rather, it was a dangerous place. A lion was waiting in ambush. Had he been stringent to fulfill the law, this would have saved him. (NOTE: This is according to the Rambam, that Beis Hillel are lenient even if he left b'Mezid. The Talmid did not transgress. - PF)

Megadim Chadashim: Tzava'ah l'Chayim (Palaji) citing Sefer Zechirah says that one who does not bless where he ate, does not merit burial. Perhaps this is Midah k'Neged Midah - burial is returning to his place "Afar Atah v'El Afar Tashuv" (Bereishis 3:19), like the Ramban wrote (Toras ha'Adam).

If one did not return, was he Yotzei?

Rav Elyashiv: Some say that he was Yotzei b'Di'eved, and some say that he was not Yotzei. If it is hard to return, he can wash and eat where he is now. Some say that he must eat a k'Zayis now, and some say that less than a k'Zayis suffices. All agree that he can bless here even if he left b'Mezid. If he was Mezid, some Rishonim say that he must return only for bread; some say for anything from the five grains, even Pas ha'Ba b'Kisnin/ (NOTE: I do not know why he says 'even'. Pas ha'Ba b'Kisnin is Safek bread. It is a bigger Chidush to return for the five grains when they were cooked! - PF), and some say for all the seven species. For other matters, he need not return. The Vilna Gaon rules like the middle opinion. This leads to a leniency - if one left his house in the middle of eating, if he need not return to his place, if he eats more, he needs a Berachah Rishonah, for leaving was a Hefsek. If he must return to his place, he does not need a Berachah Rishonah, for leaving was not a Hefsek. However, even if he ate other fruits of the seven species, since there are different opinions, Safek Brachos Lehakel (he need not make a Berachah Rishonah).

Rav Elyashiv: The Mishnah Berurah (184:8) says that he need not bless ha'Motzi when he eats in the new place. However, the Rambam holds that Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai argue even about one who left b'Mezid; b'Shogeg, there is no Hidur to return to his place. If so, this is like matters for which one need not bless in their place. If so, he must bless ha'Motzi in the new place!

Why is Yisrael compared to a dove?

Maharsha: A dove mates [its entire life] only with its partner (the first dove with which it mated); so Yisrael are intimate only with their Father in Heaven.

What was Rabah bar bar Chanah's Heter to lie to them, and cause them a delay? The Halachah permits to bless where he remembered!

Iyun Yakov: He did not lie. He forgot a golden dove, i.e. Birkas ha'Mazon, which protects Yisrael like a dove's wings. Gold refers to Torah and Mitzvos.

Etz Yosef: Presumably, the caravan was mostly or all Nochrim. He was in danger - perhaps they would kill him if did not return with what he claimed that he forgot, and caused all of them to wait for a small matter! Therefore, he said that he forgot a gold dove, to which Yisrael are compared, so the Mitzvah would protect him. (NOTE: If there was mortal danger, he could lie and say that he did not find what he lost. Perhaps he did not want to lie. However, he could tell them not to wait for him, and return and travel alone! If he expected a miracle (to find what he told them), all the more so Hash-m would protect him if he was alone - he is like a Shomer Mitzvah! A small caravan would be adamant that no one leave, for a smaller caravan is more prone to be harmed, e.g. via plunderers. However, Etz Yosef says that the caravan was big! - PF)

Chashukei Chemed: If an intercity bus was about to leave, and one forgot his Gemara and cannot travel without it, may he say that he misplaced $5,000 so they will agree to give to him three minutes to look for it? It seems that it is only if it is truly worth so much to him (NOTE: i.e. he would pay this amount if he could buy it right there - PF).

Rav Elyashiv: We must say that they had agreed among themselves to wait for each other if one will suffer a significant loss. To him, losing Birkas ha'Mazon in its place was a major loss. He needed to lie so that his words would be accepted.

Rav Elyashiv: Shulchan Aruch 184:2 brings the opinion of R. Peretz, that even if he left b'Mezid, he may eat more where he is and bless there. If so, why did he return? It seems that there is a Hidur to return to his first place! Perhaps he had no more bread, or there was Hesech Da'as and he did not have water to wash again. Daf Al ha'Daf citing Moriyah (13:10 p.30) - if it suffices to eat less than a k'Zayis where he is now, he need not wash for this! We can say that he was unsure about this. Or, he was unsure if the Halachah follows Beis Shamai, like the Rosh rules.

Why was this verse brought? Many verses compare Yisrael to a dove!

Maharsha: The verse was brought in Shabbos (49a) regarding the episode with Elisha Ba'al Kenafayim; due to this, it was brought also here.

Iyun Yakov: The verse teaches that he did not lie. Birkas ha'Mazon protects Yisrael like a dove's wings. Gold refers to Torah and Mitzvos, which are examined like gold and very dear.

Etz Yosef: The verse teaches that only Mitzvos protect Yisrael.

How does a dove save itself through its wings?

Rashi: It flees, or it fights using the end of its wings.

How can one seize the opportunity to bless?

Rashi: When they pass the Kos Shel Brachah, strive that they should give it to pass the Kos Shel Brachah, strive that they should give it to you.

How can one who answers Amen be greater than the Mevarech?

Rav Elyashiv #1: The Zohar says that one blesses with Shem Adnus (Aleph Dalet...); its Gematriya is 65. The Gematriya of Amen is 91, like that of Shem Adnus and Havayah together.

Rav Elyashiv #2: His reward is greater, for he completes the Berachah. This is like the Mashal of Giborim who win the war after the officers fought.

In what are the one who blesses and the one who answers Amen included?

Rashi: It says "Kumu Barchu Es Hash-m... va'Yvarchu Shem Kevodecha" (Nechemyah 9:5). The latter is how they answer Amen in the Mikdash (Baruch Shem Kevod Malchuso l'Olam va'Ed - Ta'anis 16b).

How do we rule about which is greater?

Me'iri (Nazir 66b): Usually, the one who answers has more Kavanah (but if the Mevarech has more Kavanah, he is greater).

NOTE: The Rema (167:2) says that the Mevarech listens to Amen, and it is as if he said it. Chashukei Chemed - Eretz Tzvi (22) says that we learn from the Yerushalmi. If one is unsure whether he may answer Amen, he can be Yotzei via someone else who answers. We should say that one can be Yotzei only if the one who answers Amen intends to be Motzi him! Rather, Lev Beis Din stipulates [that it is as if he had intent]. Chashukei Chemed - seemingly, the Yerushalmi said only that if the Mevarech hears Amen, it is as if he said it, but not if someone else hears it. The Mishnah Berurah disagreed with how the Rema learned the Yerushalmi.

Daf Al ha'Daf: One who stole Mitzvas Kisuy ha'Dam was fined (Chulin 87a). The Shach (CM 382:4) says that he blessed quietly. If not, he is exempt, for the one who answers is greater. Chasam Sofer (ibid. 87a) disagreed. Since he stole the Mitzvah, "u'Votze'a Berach Ni'etz Hash-m" (Tehilim 10:3), so we do not answer Amen to his Berachah.

Rav Elyashiv: The Mechaber (201:4) rules that one should strive to receive the Kos Shel Brachah, to bless. However, the Rosh (Chulin 6:8) brought from R. Tam that if Reuven told Shimon to circumcise his son, and Levi circumcised him, if Shimon was there to answer Amen to the Berachah, Levi need not pay for stealing the Mitzvah, for the one who answers is greater! And so rules the Rema (CM 382:1)! We can say that the Rosh means that they are equal, therefore Levi need not pay the fine. The Shach (ibid.) infers that there is no Shelichus for Mitzvas Milah, therefore he does not pay for the Mitzvah itself. (NOTE: In Chulin 87a we conclude that the fine is not for stealing the Mitzvah, only for depriving him of the Berachah! - PF)

How does "v'Hiskadishtem" allude to Mayim Rishonim?

Maharsha: It is due to Kedushah and Taharah, due to Terumah (so people will be used to guarding their hands, lest they be Metamei Terumah).

Daf Al ha'Daf: It says (Chulin 106a) that they enacted it due to Terumah and Mitzvah, i.e. the Mitzvah to heed Chachamim. R. Yosef Chayim Zonenfeld (Moriyah 11:11 p.18) asked, what does the latter answer 'and a Mitzvah to heed Chachamim' add? We asked why they enacted it! Most Rishonim hold that we bless on washing for every Tefilah. This shows that even without concern for Terumah, Netilas Yadayim is cleanliness and Kedushah.

Since our verse teaches about Mayim Rishonim, why does it say (Chulin 106a) that they enacted it due to Terumah?

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Rashba said, our verse applies only to the Mevarech. It was enacted that others wash due to Terumah. Pri Megadim (introduction to Hilchos Netilas Yadayim) infers that one must wash even for less than a k'Zayis. Beis Aharon v'Yisrael (3:1 p.70) said, he did not see Mishmeres ha'Bayis, where the Rashba obligates Mayim Rishonim and Acharonim for Kedushah only if he eats a k'Zayis. Our verse applies only to one who will bless Birkas ha'Mazon!

How does "vi'Hyisem Kedoshim" allude to Mayim Acharonim?

Maharsha: Also this is for Kedushah, like it said just before this, just like Mezuham (a smelly Kohen or animal) is invalid for Avodah (Bechoros 41a), filthy hands disqualify from blessing. It says in Chulin (105a) that Mayim Acharonim is due to danger. This is for others, but for the Mevarech, there is also a Pesul (to bless).

Is Mayim Acharonim obligatory?

Tosfos: It was obligatory for them (in the days of the Gemara), due to Sedom salt. Sedom salt is not found among us, so it is not Me'akev for us. However, pampered people who normally wash after a meal, surely it is Me'akev Birkas ha'Mazon for them; they must wash beforehand.

Rav Elyashiv: Tosfos (Eruvin 17b) supported this from the law of an army camp. Soldiers are obligated in Mayim Acharonim only due to danger. Nowadays there is no danger, so we are exempt. The Vilna Gaon (181:1) rejected this. Soldiers are exempt from Mayim Rishonim; they would have been exempt also from Mayim Acharonim, if not for danger. For others, Mayim Rishonim and Acharonim are both obligatory. Also women are obligated, for it is not an Aseh limited to certain times (Zman Gerama). Since it is not due to danger, why do we not bless on it? (NOTE: The Mitzvah is so we will bless with clean hands. Will one bless on it with filthy hands?! Granted, one may bless on Mayim Rishonim between washing and drying, for drying completes the Mitzvah, since one should not eat with wet hands. This does not apply to Mayim Acharonim; drying is not part of the Mitzvah. - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf: Kaf ha'Chayim (181:1, citing the Zohar) brings that the Satan is at the table and can rule over him more than at other times, especially if there is not a Zimun, which makes him depart. Mayim Acharonim is like a gift to him; afterwards, he departs. Initially he is like a guest; if one does not have intent in Birkas ha'Mazon, he becomes the host, and prosecutes. Beis Yosef (ibid., citing R. Yerucham) says that once, someone died due to not washing Mayim Acharonim; this suffices to obligate it.

What is the reason for scented oil?

Rashi: It is to anoint the hands after Mayim Acharonim.

Maharsha: Also this is for Kedushah, to remove filth before the Berachah.

Rav Elyashiv: People used to eat with their hands. One's mind was not settled until he removed the filth from his hands via scented oil. Nowadays oil disturbs people. One should clean the oil from his hands!

NOTE: In Shabbos (140b), Rashi wrote that oil was before Mayim Acharonim! Perhaps a support for this is 'Tekef li'Ntilas Yadayim Berachah' (above, 42b); Rashi explained that Birkas ha'Mazon must be right after Mayim Acharonim. However, perhaps that merely comes to forbid eating in between, like Rashi said there. It seems that here, Rashi learns from the Drashos; we derive oil from "Kadosh" after learning Mayim Acharonim from "vi'Hyisem Kedoshim." If "Ani Hash-m Elokeichem" is from the beginning of this verse, surely the Gemara expounded the verse out of order in order to teach the proper order (Mayim Rishonim, Acharonim, oil, Birkas ha'Mazon). However, Maharsha says that it is from another verse. If so, perhaps we expound the verse in order, even though oil is before Mayim Acharonim. - PF]

Why do we expound "Ani Hash-m Elokeichem" at the end? It is at the beginning of the verse!

Maharsha: The first three Drashos are from Parashas Shemini (Vayikra 11:44), which discusses forbidden foods and their Tum'ah; it is proper to expound it about Kedushah of a meal. "Ani Hash-m Elokeichem" is from Parashas Kedoshim (ibid. 20:7) regarding the punishment for Ov and Yid'oni. Also that is due to Kedushah.

How does "Ani Hash-m Elokeichim" allude to Berachah?

Maharsha: Any Berachah without Hash-m's name is not a Berachah.