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 נברךis preferable to **ברכו.**What the Gemara does do, is prove that ברכוis not preferred, and once that is established, Shmuel’s thought that it is better to include oneself with the others makes נברךpreferable. The issue between Rashi and Tosfos is semantics. Rashi holds that the word עדיףmeans - better than. If we say the נברך עדיףthat means that נברךis better. But we have no proof that נברךis better than **ברכו.**Therefore Rashi emends the text. The correct reading of the Gemara according to Rashi is אף ברכו קאמרthat our Mishna is saying that ברכוis also acceptable. Once we know that ברכוis not preferred then we make the judgment that נברךis better because of Shmuel’s reason. Tosfos shows that the word עדיףdoesn’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 betterthan ברכוas Rashi understands the word; **rather,**it means that they are equal. And the word עדיף means – important aswe find “a comparisonby the verse is עדיף” and “a textual similarity is עדיף” in perek Aizehu M’komun (Z’vochim 48a). The Gemara means to saynot that a “comparison by the verse” is more important than a “textual similarity” but that it is importantand 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 עדיףthere 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.

FOR THE FOOD [WE HAVE EATEN], HE IS AN IGNORAMUS. Tosfos explains why one who says על המזוןis 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 המזוןis 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 ispresently feeding him, for if he meant the Merciful One, why does hespecifically mentionthat 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 goodnessand not from His goodness.

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 separatefor 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.