Reason: Because it is Hesech ha'Da'as (a mental interruption).

Source: And we say the same thing in the third Perek of Menachos (Daf 36.) 'Someone who speaks between Tefilin shel Yad and Tefilin shel Rosh needs to recite a new B'rachah.

Halachah #1: And the same Halachah applies if someone speaks between Birchas ha'Motzi and eating, or between Kidush and drinking, needs to repeat the B'rachah, unless it has something to do with the meal, such 'Take a piece of the bread over which I recited a B'rachah!'

Halachah #1 (cont.): And likewise by Shechitah, one needs to repeat the B'rachah (if one speaks between the B'rachah and the Shechitah), unless it has to do with the Shechitah, such as 'Are there any more animals or chickens to Shecht, or if one says to one's assistant 'Hold the animald wel, so that it will not slip out of your grasp and invalidate the Shechitah!' - That is not an interruption.

Halachah #2: We do not have the Minhag to bring salt or other condiments ...

Reason: Since our bread is Chashuv, in which case it is like what we will say shortly 'It is not necessary to wait for (condiments for this (good, clean bread!)

Halachah #2, Opinion #2: Rebbi Menachem however, was extrremely particular to bring salt to the table.

Proof: As it states in the Medrash 'When Yisrael sit at table and wait for one another without Mitzvos, to wash their hands' the Satan accuses them (of doing nothing); and it is the covenant of salt that protects them.

Halachah: The Halachah it seems, is like Rebbi Yehudah, since a S'tam Mishnah supports him; Consequently, if one recites over fruit of a tree, 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah', one is Yotzei.

Reason: There are some who explain that the reason that one brings but does not read is because it seems as if, rather than praising Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu, one is complaining that He gave bhim land that is not fit to produce fruit.

Halachah: From here it seems that over berries, 'Frizaish' and 'Buntunch' and the likes, one recites 'Borei P'ri ha'Eitz', since the trees on which they grow, lasts a long time; and even if one picks the fruit, more fruit will grow in the same year.

Halachah, Opinion #2: Rebbi Menachem however, brings a proof from the Yerushalmi in Kil'ayim, that over all kinds of bushes one recites 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah' ...

Proof: Since the Gemara says there that 'bushes and brambles are species of trees, and are therefore not considered Kil'ayim in a vine-yard'.

Proof (cont.): It then asks 'from a Beraisa, which defines artichokes and brambles as species of herbs, and it answers that 'The latter is referring to the B'rachah, the former, to Kil'ayim'.

Proof (cont.): So we see that with regard to the B'rachah, they are a species of herb.

Exception: All opinions agree however, that one recites over 'Frizaish' 'Borei P'ri ha'Eitz', since they do not grow on bushes and the tree remains from one year to the next.

Halachah: And this the Halachah, since even when Rav and Rebbi Yochanan argue, the Halachah is like Rebbi Yochanan.

Halachah (cont.): How much more so when the latter argues with Rav Huna, who was the Talmid of Rav.

Question: How can Rav Huna hold like Rebbi Yossi, seeing as he concedes that by other things, besides bread and wine, one is Yotzei if one recites 'Shehakol' ...

Question (cont.): Whereas according to Rebbi Yossi, based on the principle that 'Anyone who changes from the text that the Chachamim fixed is not Yotzei at all?

Answer: Some commentaries explain that perhaps even Rebbi Yossi only says that one is not Yotzei if one says 'Baruch ha'Makom ... ', which is not a B'rachah at all, but that if one recites 'Shehakol', one is Yotzei.

Halachah: There are some commentaries who rule like Rav, since the Beraisa seems to go like him.

Halachah, Opinion #2: The Rif however, rules like Rebbi Yochanan, and so does the Ri - that 'Any B'rachah that does not contain Malchus (Shamayim) is not considered a B'rachah.

Conclusion: Therefore the Ri used to say that if one omitted Malchus in the B'rachah of ha'Motzi, one is obligated to repeat the B'rachah.

Conclusion: Even if he merely omitted 'ha'Olam', since 'Melech' without 'ha'Olam' is not considered Malchus.

Implied Question: The B'rachos of the Amidah do not contain Malchus,

Answer #1: Since, on the one hand, they do not begin the sequence (See Tosfos, 49a DH 'Baruch'), and on the other, Malchus has no place at the conclusion of the B'rachah.

Answer #2: Moreover, 'Elokei Avraham' is like Malchus, since Avraham Avinu crowned Hash-m over whole world, by informing them about His Sovereignty.

Implied Question: And as for B'rachah Achas Me'ein Sheva' that we recite on Friday night ...

Answer #1: The phrase 'ha'Keil ha'Kadosh she'Ein Kamohu' is akin to Malchus, - just like the PAsuk 'Sh'ma Yisrael ... ", which is in place of Malchus.

Answer #2: And according to what Tosfos just stated that wherever 'Elokei Avraham' is mentioned, it is akin to Malchus, the question is also answered (since 'Elokei Avraham' is mentioned there).

Refuted Question: And one cannot ask on Rebbi Yochanan why the Beraisa does not state 'u'Malchuscha alav" (See Mesores ha'Shas) ...

Refutation: Since it is not necessary to mention all the details, like a peddler.