Clarification of B'rachah: Things such as water and bread, without which one cannot subsist.

Clarification of B'rachah (cont.): Where 'Al Kol Mah she'Bara Lehachayos bahem Nefesh Kol Chai' refers to commodities without which the world could still continue to exist, which Hash-m created purely for pleasure, such as apples and the likes.

Conclusion of B'rachah: And one concludes 'Baruch Chei ha'Olamim'; according to the Yerushalmi 'Baruch Atah Hash-m, Chei ha'Olamim'.

Clarification: Some commentaries explain this to mean that it is not soaked in water to the extent that if one picks up the piece, it will not break.

Explanation #2: Others explain that it is rice.

Explanation #2 (cont.): According to that explanation, Dochen presumably means 'millet'.

Clarification: On Dochen however, there is no Kashya.

Halachah: In which case, the Halachah may well be like them, and we will not recite over it the B'rachah of 'Borei Miynei Mezonos.'

Source: Since we learned above that even over wheat flour one recites 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah'.

Source (cont.): And Rav Nachman only disagrees with that because it has changed (its format).

She'eilah: With regard to the B'rachah Achronah however, there is reason to doubt as to whether one recites 'al ha'Michyah ve'al ha'Kalkalah', and conclude 'al ha'Adamah ve'al P'ri ha'Adamah', or perhaps not ...

Reason: Since we only find the B'rachah of 'al ha'Michyah ... ' there where, before eating the food, one first recites 'Borei Miynei Mezonos'.

Resolution: Rabeinu Tam recorded in his Machzor that one should recite 'al ha'Adamah ve'al P'ri ha'Adamah' ...

Retraction: But he later retracted ...

Reason #1: Since nowhere do we find such a B'rachah.

Source #1: Because later, (on Daf 44.) when defining the B'rachah Me'ein Shalosh, the Gemara explains that over the five species (of grain) one recites 'al ha'Aretz ve'al ha'Michyah', and on the (remainder of) the seven species of fruit 'al ha'Aretz ve'al ha'Peiros'. It makes no mention of 'al ha'Adamah ve'al P'ri ha'Adamah'.

Source #2: Furthermore, since the Gemara says here that someone who chews wheat recites 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah', and then adds that if he then grinds it and bakes it into bread ... 'If the pieces remain intact, one first recites "Borei Miynei Mezonos" and later B'rachah Achas Me'ein Shalosh ...

Source #2 (cont.): And does not say with regard to someone who chews wheat that he recites a B'rachah Achas Me'ein Shalosh after it, we can extrapolate that chewing wheat does not require a B'rachah Achas Me'ein Shalosh after it.

Implied question: And when the Gemara says 'Whatever is a kind of grain that has not been turned into bread ... the Chachamim require 'B'rachah Achas Me'ein Shalosh' ...

Answer: It is speaking where they made it in the form of a porridge, whose eating is considered more Chashuv.

Answer (cont.): Whereas eating raw wheat kernels is not so Chashuv, despite the fact that it belongs to the five species of grain.

Conclusion #1: Consequently, one recites after it (not a B'rachah Achas Me'ein Shalosh, but) 'Borei Nefashos Rabos ... '.

Alternative Ruling: However, says the Ri, there remains a doubt as to whether, at the end of the day the Chachamim did not incorporate it in the species of grain which was not baked as bread, on which the Chachamim required a B'rachah Achas Me'ein Shalosh.

Conclusion #2: Consequently, the corect thing to do is to avoid eating parched ears of grain or cooked wheat kernels other than during a meal, in which case, Birchas ha'Mazon will cover them - unless they have been well squashed, in which case they have the Din of porridge.

Yerushalmi: In fact, according to the Yerushalmi, the Amora'im expressed the same doubt, when, in reply to the question what B'rachah Achronah someone who eats 'So'les' (by which it means parched ears of grain) recites, Rebbi Yirmiyah replied that he never ate 'So'les' in his life.

Explanation: He (Raban Gamliel) thought that he (Rebbi Akiva) would recite over it three B'rachos, as he himself holds.

Question: What did Raban Gamliel think, in face of the Halachah that 'One does not Bensch Mezuman over fruit'?

Answer: Raban Gamliel holds that over all the Shiv'as ha'Minim one recites three complete B'rachos (with Mezuman).

What Rebbi Akiva Did: Rebbi Akiva however, recited B'rachah Achas Me'ein Shalosh - specifically for himself, due to the Halachah that 'One does not Bensch Mezuman over fruit', and each of the other guests Bensched independently.

Question: If, according to Raban Gamliel, who holds that one recites the three B'rachos together with Mezuman over Shiv'as ha'Minim, 'Birchas ha'Mazon requires a cup of wine', then he will be reciting Mezuman forever (seeing as one will need to Bensch three B'rachos with Mezuman over the cup of wine)?

Answer: It may well be that it is not necessary to actually drink from the Kos shel B'rachah.

Question: The person who Bensches however, who is obligated to taste the wine, will have to Bensch again, and there is no end to the matter?

Answer: There where one does drink in a regular way, only a mouthful, Raban Gamliel will concede that it is not necessary to recite three B'rachos ...

Proof: Because otherwise, it is not feasible that he never, under any circumstances, holds of 'B'rachah Achas Me'ein Shalosh'.

Refer to: See also Tosfos, Pesachim, Daf 105: DH 'Sh'ma Minah'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains such as 'Shalnaikuk'.

Question: But did we not learn earlier that ' ... when the pieces are intact, one does not recite 'ha'Motzi', even if they comprise a k'Zayis?

Answer: Rav Yosef interprets 'ha'Perusos Kayamos' to man that they comprise a k'Zayis, and 'Ein ha'Perusos Kayamos', as they do not.

Question: How can Rav Yosef compare the crumbs of Menachos which have not been cooked to the crumbs of 'Chavitza' (which have)?

Answer: Since the Minchah has been fried in oil, it is as if it has been cooked.

Question: From the statement 'If he collected from all of them a k'Zayis' (which the Gemara is about to cite), with reference to the five species (and not Menachos), as Tosfos will explain shortly. And that is not speaking where it was cooked, so how can one compare it to Chavitza, which was?

Explanation #2: Therefore it seems that 'Chavitza' is crumbs that are stuck together by means of soup or milk ...

Precedent: Like Chavitza de'Tamri' (in Bava Metzi'a 99:), where the dates are stuck together.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this refers to a Ba'al ha'Bayis who donates a Minchah.

Refutation #1: This is very forced however, since 'He was standing and sacrificing' implies a Kohen who is bringing Korbanos?

Refutation #2: Simnilarly, 'Natlan ve'Achlan' implies that it is speaking about a Kohen?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that it speaks about a Kohen who is the first in his group to sacrifice Korbanos.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Since there were twenty-four Mishmaros of Kohanim, and each week a different Mishmar would serve in the Beis-ha'Mikdash. Consequently, each Mioshmar would serve only twice annually; and since they had a fixed time, they would recite the B'rachah 'Shehechiyanu'.

Conclusion: And not like Rashi in Menachos, who explains that it is speaking about a Kohen who has never served in the Beis-ha'Mikdash before.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it refers to Menachos.

Refutation: This is not correct however, because if it was, then ow can the Tana discuss what the Din will be if it is Chametz, seeing as we have learned in Menachos (52:) that 'All Menachos must come in the form of Matzah'?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that it refers to the five species, and what the Beraisa is discussing a case where one collected a combined k'Zayis from all the five species of grain.

Halachah: And this is how we rule, since Rava is the last opinion.

Halachah (cont.): Awe do not therefore require the crumbs to be a k'Zayis, seing as, regarding 'ha'Motzi, it has the shape of bread ...

Halachah (cont): And according to Rashi, even if they have been cooked.

Implied Question: And when the Yerushalmi implies that the pieces are intact refers to where they are a k'Zayis ...

Answer: That is only because it is generally a k'Zayis that retains the shape of bread, but it sometimes happens that even less than a k"Zayis does so.

Clarification: Regarding 'Turisa de'Nahama': It seems that if one places crumbs in water, and the crumbs cause the water to turn white, they are no longer considered 'Turisa de'Nahama'.

Proof: And this Rabeinu David from Metz used to do. He would soak crumbs in water overnight, in order to eat them in the morning without having to recite Birchas ha'Motzi and Birchas ha'Mazon ...

Reason: So as not to delay, to give him the impetus to give the Halachah Shi'ur.

Clarification: This speaks where one baked the bread like 'Limudim', which Rashi explains as dough that is dried in the sun.

Question: We have learned in Maseches Chalah (Perek 1, Mishnah 5) that 'Whatever begins as dough and then becomes spongy, is Chayav Chalah, as is whatever begins as a spongy dough and then becomes a regular dough ...

Question: (cont.): And it is only if it begins and ends as a spongy dough that one is Patur?

Conclusion: If so, over 'Nivlish' and 'Rishulash' that begin as dough one recites 'ha'Motzi' and are Chayav Chalah, even dough they end up in a spongy form.

Explanation #1: Initially, Rabeinu wanted to say that it is specifically with regard to Chalah that they are Chayav, seeing as the Mitzvah of Chalah takes effect when they are still dough, as the Torah writes "Arisoseichem" ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And since they were initially dough, they became Chayav Chalah. But as far as 'ha'Motzi is concerned, they are Patur, since now (when one eats them) they are spongy.

Refutation: This is not correct however, since we learned earlier, with regard to th Minchah that 'If one took them to eat them, one recites 'ha'Motzi', dspite the fact that at the time, they are spongy, seeing as the Menachos were fried in oil?

An Exception: 'Virm'shaish' however, is Patur from 'ha'Motzi', even though it is Chayav Chalah, seeing as it was initially a dough, and one recites over it 'Borei Miynei Mezonos', since it does not have the shape of bread ....

An Exception (cont.): And after it, one recites the Brachah Me'ein Shalosh - 'Borei Miynei Mezonos'.