## Tosafot on Berakhot Daf 50a

###### Tosafot on Berakhot 50a:2:1
[Tosafot on Berakhot 50a:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Berakhot/r/50a:2:1)

אלא ש"מ נברך עדיף - לאו דוקא עדיף אלא כי הדדי נינהו ועדיף היינו חשוב כמו הקישא עדיף וג"ש עדיף פ' איזהו מקומן (זבחים ד' מח.) ר"ל דההיקש חשוב ואין לבטלו מפני הג"ש וה"נ קאמר נברך חשוב כמו ברכו ולפיכך לא יוציא עצמו מן הכלל והקונטרס מוחק עדיף ומיהו אתי שפיר עדיף כדפי':

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
**RATHER, MUSTN’T ONE CONCLUDE FROM THIS: LET US BLESS IS PREFERABLE?** Rashi and Tosfos agree on the issues of this Gemara. Primarily, that there is no proof that **נברך**is preferable to **ברכו.**What the Gemara does do, is prove that **ברכו**is not preferred, and once that is established, Shmuel’s thought that it is better to include oneself with the others makes **נברך**preferable. The issue between Rashi and Tosfos is semantics. Rashi holds that the word **עדיף**means - better than. If we say the **נברך עדיף**that means that **נברך**is better. But we have no proof that **נברך**is better than **ברכו.**Therefore Rashi emends the text. The correct reading of the Gemara according to Rashi is **אף ברכו קאמר**that our Mishna is saying that **ברכו**is also acceptable. Once we know that **ברכו**is not preferred then we make the judgment that **נברך**is better because of Shmuel’s reason. Tosfos shows that the word **עדיף**doesn’t have to mean - better than, but it can also mean that something is important and worthy of consideration. If so, it is not necessary to emend the text.
When we use the phrase **נברך עדיף, it does not particularly mean that it is better**than **ברכו**as Rashi understands the word; **rather,**it means **that they are equal. And the word עדיף means – important as**we find **“a comparison**by the verse **is עדיף” and “a textual similarity is עדיף” in perek Aizehu M’komun (Z’vochim 48a). The Gemara means to say**not that a “comparison by the verse” is more important than a “textual similarity” but that **it is important**and must be considered **and we do not annul it in the face of a “textual similarity”.**We do not say that the “textual similarity” is more important and we should follow it, to the exclusion of the “comparison by the verse”, rather the “comparison” must be dealt with. The word **עדיף**there clearly does not mean that the “comparison” is better than the textual similarity”.
**And here as well the Gemara is saying that נברך is as important as ברכו, and therefore, once we know that it is equal, one should follow Shmuel’s reasoning and not exclude himself from the group. And Rashi erased עדיף, however it comes out well** as we explained.


###### Tosafot on Berakhot 50a:3:1
[Tosafot on Berakhot 50a:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Berakhot/r/50a:3:1)

שמש מצרפן לזמון - וה"ה בשני בתים ובני אדם עומדים ומשמשין מזו לזו מצטרפין וכן איתא בירושלמי ובלבד שישמעו ברכת המזון מפי המברך והא דנקט במתני' בית [אחד] משום חדוש דסיפא דאפילו בבית אחד אם לאו אין מזמנין וכן בבית חתנים כשאוכלים בחופה בב' בתים ובני אדם משמשין מזו לזו מצטרפין ובלבד שישמעו ברכת המזון מפי המברך:


###### Tosafot on Berakhot 50a:8:1
[Tosafot on Berakhot 50a:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Berakhot/r/50a:8:1)

על המזון הרי זה בור - דמשמע דמברך לבעל הבית המאכילו דאי לרחמנא למה הוא מזכיר מזון בלא מזון יש הרבה לברכו:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
**FOR THE FOOD [WE HAVE EATEN], HE IS AN IGNORAMUS.** Tosfos explains why one who says **על המזון**is an ignoramus. Rashi’s position is unclear. Some hold that Rashi agrees with Rav Alfas who says that the reason we do not say **על המזון**is because it appears that we are blessing the food and not Hashem. See Rosh, this perek, Chapter 26.**Because it appears as if he is blessing the master of the house who is**presently **feeding him, for if he meant the Merciful One, why does he**specifically **mention**that the blessing is for **food, notwithstanding food there is much for which to bless Him?
Rabainu Chananel said that this is how we rule, and therefore whether there are ten, one hundred or ten thousand one says: “let us bless our G-d upon the food that we have eaten”, but when there are only three, he should not mention “upon the food” as the Gemara said earlier. And also when there are ten, if he does not want to say “upon the food” he has permission to omit it.**The Gemara that says that with ten, one may say “upon the food” does not mean that one must say it, it only means that one may say “upon the food”. **And he says: and through His goodness**and not from His goodness.


###### Tosafot on Berakhot 50a:13:1
[Tosafot on Berakhot 50a:13:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Berakhot/r/50a:13:1)

אמר רבא הלכה כר"ע - פירש ר"ח דהכי קיי"ל והלכך בין בעשרה בין במאה בין ברבוא אומר נברך אלהינו על המזון שאכלנו אבל בג' לא יזכיר על המזון כדאמר לעיל וגם בעשרה אם אינו רוצה להזכיר על המזון הרשות בידו ואומר ובטובו חיינו:


###### Tosafot on Berakhot 50a:22:1
[Tosafot on Berakhot 50a:22:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Berakhot/r/50a:22:1)

שלשה שישבו לאכול כאחד - אף על פי שהיו חלוקין בככר שכל אחד ואחד אוכל מככרו אינן רשאין ליחלק כלומר אף על פי שהן חלוקין בככרות וס"ד אין זה צרוף ולא חל עליהם חובת זימון אפ"ה אינן רשאין ליחלק:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
**THREE [INDIVIDUALS] WHO SAT TO EAT AS ONE.** Tosfos seems to explain the first version of our Gemara as the text of the second version implies. Tosfos does not mention anything about a second version at all. Perhaps Tosfos only had one version and explained it as Rav Alfas does. The Gemara is explaining why the Mishna seems to repeat itself. There must be something new that we learn from this repetition. **Even though they were divided as far as their bread is concerned,**and are not acting as one group, **for they are each eating of their own bread, they may not separate**for birchas hamozon and they must stay together for zimun, **even though they are divided for bread, and it would enter upon our minds that the obligation for zimun is not in effect for them, even so, they are not permitted to separate.**