In what tense should we bless?

Rashi: We should bless in past tense, for Hash-m already took out of the ground the bread that he comes to eat.

Rav Elyashiv: Birkas sheha'Kol, many say to say Nihyeh with a Segol under the Yud, for with a Kamatz, it means only past tense; with a Segol, it means past and present tense. So did the Vilna Gaon.

How does R. Nechemyah dispel the proof from "ha'Motzi Lecha Mayim mi'Tzur ha'Chalamish"?

Rashi: Hash-m continued to do so the entire time that they were in the Midbar.

R. Nechemyah dispelled the proof from "ha'Motzi Lecha Mayim..." Chachamim should have brought a proof from an earlier verse "ha'Motzi Eschem me'Eretz Mitzrayim" (Vayikra 22:33)! The above rejection does not apply to this!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Nachalas Yakov Yehoshua (Ekev): Perhaps Chachamim hold that in the Midbar, they blessed 'ha'Motzi Mayim mi'Tzur ha'Chalamish' on their water. If so, we should bless similarly on bread!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Shevus Yakov (Sof Chelek 1): "Ha'Motzi Eschem me'Eretz Mitzrayim" is present tense, for in every generation, one must see himself as if he left Egypt!

What will Hash-m do for Yisrael to make them know that He took them out?

Tzlach: He will take them out with wonders.

NOTE: It seems that the following is the intent of Megadim Chadashim, but there are printing mistakes. R. Nechemyah rejects - ha'Motzi is future; it refers to what He will do. When they left, Hash-m already did the wonders! Also, 'Milsa' implies a particular matter. Yalkut Shimoni (Va'era 177) says 'after I will take you out...' Zayis Ra'anan on the Midrash, Mar'eh ha'Panim on Yerushalmi 6:1 and Chasam Sofer (Shemos 6:7) say that it refers to the Slav and/or manna - "Erev vi'Ydatem Ki Hash-m Hotzi Eschem me'Eretz Mitzrayim" (ibid. 16:6). Megadim Chadashim - how did the Slav or manna prove that Hash-m took out them out more than the wonders of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim? Rashi (Shemos 18:2, from Mechilta) says the miracles of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim were greater than the manna, well and war with Amalek! Rav Sadya Gaon (introduction to Emunos v'De'os) says that the manna was greater; this requires investigation. (PF)

Rav Elyashiv: While they were subjugated in Egypt, they thought only about leaving Shibud (subjugation) of the body. They did not think about acquiring spiritual attributes, for they did not realize the Shibud of the Nefesh. When they will leave, they will receive the Torah, which will reveal that there was also Shibud of the Nefesh. They will be redeemed from this, and be close to Hash-m. Megadim Chadashim - also Al ha'Ge'ulah veha'Te'udah says so. This is like the Rambam (Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 8:1) says,that Yisrael did not believe in Moshe due to the wonders, for they could be via witchcraft. Rather, at Matan Torah we heard Hash-m say that Moshe is His Shali'ach.

Is it better to be Yotzei according to all opinions, or to follow the opinion that we rule like, to teach that this is the Halachah?

Tosfos (39a): We conclude that one says ha'Motzi, even though all agree that Motzi can mean past tense. The Yerushalmi says that we do not say Motzi, lest one not separate the Mem at the end of ha'Olam from the Mem at the start of Motzi. Even though this concern applies to 'Lechem Min', there we say like the verse "Matzmi'ach Chatzir... Lehotzi Lechem Min ha'Aretz" (Tehilim 104:14).

Daf Al ha'Daf: Why are we not concerned for the Berachos Matir Asurim and Malbish Arumim? Kovetz va'Ylaket Yosef (12:93) says that the Stam Yerushalmi is like R. Yochanan, who holds that the Torah obligates blessing before eating (18b). He is concerned for slurring letters only for Torah Berachos. Alternatively, because he is anxious to eat, he will not be careful to separate the letters. Normally, we rely on people to separate the letters. We find that Korban Pesach is eaten when satiated, lest amidst hunger he break a bone. (NOTE: All Korbanos are eaten when satiated, to fulfill "l'Mashchah" (Shemos 29:29), the way kings eat (Rashi Pesachim 86a)! It seems that we are more concerned for Korban Pesach. We bring Chagigah with it, and eat Pesach after it, when satiated. Also Chagigah should be eaten when satiated! - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf: Most Poskim hold that Aravos that do not grow by water are Pasul l'Chatchilah. The Rosh is Machshir l'Chatchilah, and so rules the Shulchan Aruch (OC 647). The Taz (ibid. 4) asked why we are not concerned for the majority opinion. He answered that a Chacham should show a Chidush, like it says here, like the Rosh brought about Bi'ur Chametz (Pesachim 1:10). Bikurei Yakov (647:2) disagrees. That is for Berachos mid'Rabanan, but for a Torah Mitzvah, there is a Safek Isur (Bitul Mitzvah) mid'Oraisa. One should be concerned for those who disqualify! (NOTE: If the argument about Aravah is only l'Chatchilah, there is no concern for a Torah Isur! Perhaps he holds that some disqualify even b'Di'eved. He said 'most Poskim disqualify Al Kol Panim l'Chatchilah.' - PF) Ba'al ha'Ma'or (on Pesachim 7a) says that we bless Al Bi'ur Chametz to show that we rule that also this is future tense, and not Leva'er, which all say is fine. Rav Y. Feinstein (Moriyah 18 5-6 p.66) asked that a Chacham should teach Chidushim via his Berachos. A commoner need not! He suggested that this is a law in Berachos; they should be said in a way that shows a Chidush. This requires investigation.