BUT [THOSE MEMBERS] DID NOT INCLUDE THEM IN THE ZIMMUN IN THEIR ORIGINAL PLACE. Rashi says that each one had been a member of a group of zimun. As they were leaving their respective groups, the other two members of each group asked them to remain for a moment and listen to the zimun. They complied. Since they have actually been part of a zimun, they no longer have the obligation of zimun and the three of them are not a zimun together. Tosfos offers another explanation. The explanation is that each one of the threethat have formed a new group was eatingtogether with a group and interrupted his meal so that the others who were reclined with himcould say the zimun, and he remained there until they completed **הזן, as is mentioned earlier (45b),**and then the three came together to form a new group. When they each answered the zimun with their respective group **the obligation to recite zimun flew away from upon them, this,**flew away, means that they are exempt from zimunbecause they have already fulfilled their obligation, and they are now permitted to separate.¹And Rashi did not explain it so.

footnotes: ¹ See Rosh Chapter 29, who explains that even though they ate together in the newly formed group, they are not obligated for zimun, since the initial obligation comes from their original groups where they recited the b’rochoh of המוציא and ate together, and that obligation “flew away” from them they do no become obligated again when they form a new group.

[A BED] THAT WAS DIVIDED BY BROTHERS OR BY PARTNERS, IT IS RITUALLY PURE. The bed frame of the Mishna consists of two sideboards, a headboard, a footboard and four legs. The legs may be attached to the sideboards, or to the footboard and headboard. When the Mishna speaks of a bed that has been divided, it means that the various parts of the bed are no longer attached and therefore no longer qualify as a bed and in this condition it will not become tomay when exposed to a source of tumoh, and if it had already been tomay, and then dismantled the tumoh ceases to be since it is no longer a bed. **This is bewildering, for the Gemara says in Sukoh (16a) that a bed becomes tomay even when it is in parts,**¹ it has been dismantled, **for example,when you have a long sideboard and two legsthat are together.**It is clear that the whole bed need not be in one piece to become tomay. Why does the Mishna say that if the bed has been divided it is no longer tomay?² And it appears to me that there it is speaking of when it can be reassembled as it originally was and it can be repaired. For the legs are intact and a layman can put it back together.Since it is easily reassembled, it maintains its status as a bed, even though the parts are not presently attached. However when the parts are not easily reassembled, it loses its status as a bed and is no longer tomay. And if you ask: why doesn’t the Gemara askin order to prove its pointfrom every vessel that breaks and is tohor? We see that since it has been split the tumoh flies away.³And it appears to me, that there, every vessel that breaks, is different, because the vessel is no longer fit to come together as one and to become tomay even for the future. This is it is not similar to three people who are eligible to combine for zimun again.

footnotes: ¹ אברים Literally means limbs. When we say that an item is in limbs it means that it has been taken apart. ² See Maharsho who quotes a Tosfos in Sukoh that offers a relatively simple answer. That Gemara is speaking of when all the unassembled parts belong to one person. Since they can be assembled, they are considered a bed. Our Gemara is speaking of when the ownership is divided and there is no assumption that the individual parts will be used together again. ³ A euphemism for bringing out that its status has changed and the previous tumoh is no longer in effect.

Selon qui va cet enseignement de Chmouel, etc. ? Selon Rabbi Eliezer — il semble à première vue que cela découle de ce que dit Rabbi Eliezer : qu’on peut prendre [le pain pour soutenir le plat, même s’il est utilisé comme support]. Et cela est étonnant, car nous disons dans le chapitre Bameh Tomnin (Chabbat 51b) : “Admettons que Chmouel ait parlé d’une chose qui ne se salit pas, mais d’une chose qui se salit, a-t-il dit cela ?” Si c’est ainsi, comment peut-on établir l’opinion de Chmouel selon Rabbi Eliezer, alors que le vin est quelque chose qui devient répugnant lorsqu’il entre en contact avec les mains, et sur ce qui se salit, Chmouel admet que c’est interdit ? De plus, c’est problématique, car ici il semble que la halakha ne suit pas l’opinion de Chmouel, puisqu’on l’associe à celle de Rabbi Eliezer, alors que dans le deuxième chapitre de Beitsa (21a), il est dit de façon anonyme dans la Guemara qu’on peut porter de la viande crue à l’aide d’un plateau pendant Yom Tov, comme l’a dit Chmouel — ce qui indique que la halakha suit son opinion. Et on peut répondre qu’ici, on ne vient que pour expliquer les paroles de Rabbi Eliezer, qui pense comme Chmouel, et va même plus loin que lui, en permettant même dans un cas où l’aliment devient répugnant. Et donc ce passage ne vise qu’à expliquer la position de Rabbi Eliezer, comme nous l’avons expliqué. Et dans les Halakhot Guedolot, il est écrit que la halakha est comme les Sages dans ce passage, et également comme Chmouel : car quand Chmouel parle, c’est uniquement pour une chose qui ne se salit pas, mais pour ce qui se salit, il n’autorise pas — et donc, pas comme l’a expliqué Rabbénou Tam, qui a tranché que la halakha ne suit pas Chmouel parce qu’il est associé à Rabbi Eliezer ; en vérité, la halakha suit Chmouel, comme nous l’avons expliqué. Ainsi, il est permis de soutenir un plat avec du pain dans un cas où celui-ci ne sera pas sali. Certains disent qu’il faut le manger ensuite, et certains ont l’usage de manger du porridge avec du pain, afin de consommer ensuite ce pain. Mais dans le traité Sofrim, cela est interdit, car il y est dit (chapitre 3) : “On ne mange pas un aliment avec un autre sauf s’ils sont consommés ensemble en une seule fois” — et peut-être que ce passage ne suit pas l’opinion de Chmouel.