Berakhot 137

1:
This mishnah, too, is very simple and does not require a great deal of explanation. When separate groups of diners are within sight of each other they may join forces for zimmun. Let us imagine two people dining at one table in a restaurant and one person dining alone at another. In order to constitute a quorum of three for zimmun they may join forces. Or we could imagine one table of four, another table of three and a third table of three. The diners at the three tables may join forces in order to be able to recite zimmun with a quorum of ten.

2:
In rabbinic times the wine was bottled "neat" and in order for it to be drinkable it had to be diluted with water. The strength of the wine being served would depend on the ratio of wine to water. Rabbi Eli'ezer, in our mishnah, is of the opinion that "neat" wine is not really wine – and that anyone who is brave enough to drink it should recite the berakhah "Who creates the fruit of the tree", and that the berakhah "who creates the fruit of the vine" should be reserved only for properly diluted wine. The rest of the sages do not accept this view. Our contemporary wine is already "diluted". Incidentally, the necessity of diluting the wine with water explains why the Hebrew verb for "pouring" wine is actually "to mix" – limzog.

Concerning our treatment of the issue of the size of eggs and olives: Art Kamlet reminds us of the story of the spies and their bunch of grapes that were so large they needed two people to carry them: if the people of the times were so small that a bunch of grapes appeared to be too much for one man to carry, then maybe olives appeared to be much larger as well? Even if the people were not that small, a land that could grow giant-sized grapes could grow big olives, I would think?

On a more humorous level Art remarks concerning my statement that the most basic unit of all measurement is the "finger" that it's certainly the basic unit to measure a shot of whiskey.

Over the past couple of shiurim I have been explaining my view of the halakhic status of the modern woman. Reuven Lerner is ecstatic!

Wow! Your suggestion that there be two classes of women, one that falls under the standard Talmudic definition (and thus has rights and obligations similar to a slave), and a second that fits more closely with our modern definition of a woman as an independent person, really appeals to me – at least, at face value after 10 minutes of reading and thinking over what you said. With such a system, we would have two classes for men and women: Slave (men)/(slave) women and (regular) men/ (modern) women. It seems to me that such a division and definition would solve a number of problems that we can have when trying reconcile traditional texts and modern cultural norms. It certainly strikes me as a better justification for women's participation than the cultural argument alone, which basically says, "Times have changed, and so has our approach to women". My question, then, is whether there are any precedents for creating a new status in halacha, such as the "modern woman" status that you mentioned, which would be akin to a man, and would contrast with male slaves and "Talmudic" women.

I respond:

I know that my suggestion is novel; that is why it would be difficult to find an exact precedent. However, a reasonably similar solution was found by the sages when confronted by a similar question. Actually, we have already studied the passage in question [Berakhot 032, but under the circumstances it deserves repetition:

On the day that Rabban Gamli'el was deposed from the presidency of the Sanhedrin [and please, let's not go into that again!]

I do not think that it is too far-fetched to claim that just as the sages accepted that the contemporary inhabitants of Ammon and Moab were not the Ammonites and Moabites referred to by the Biblical record, so we might claim that the modern adult woman, not being held to be under the sway of her father or husband, is not "a woman" as understood by the rabbis.