Clarification #1: Such as a radish and an olive, Rashi explains.

Clarification #1 (cont.): In which case, there is no more Machlokes; Because, since the one does not exempt the other. even Rebbi Yehudah will concede that the seven species do not take precedence, and that one recites a B'rachah first over whichever of the two one prefers, and then over the second one.

Clarification #2: So too, is it correct to explain that it is Rebbi Yehudah who concedes to the Chachamim ...

Clarification #2 (cont.): Seeing as the Gemara did not clarify, it is preferable to say that that individual concedes to the majority than vice-versa.

Question: Rashi asks why one should not recite the B'rachah over the radish and exempt the olive ...

Question (cont.): Bearing in mind the Mishnah earlier that 'If someone recited 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah' over a fruit of a tree, one is Yotzei.

Answer: And he answers that the case there is different, inasmuch as there is only one species there and the person erred and recited 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah' ...

Answer (cont.): As opposed to here, where he recited 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah' over the radish, he will not cover the fruit, which requires 'Borei P'ri ha'Eitz' even Bedieved.

Question: But did we not learn earlier (on Daf 39.) in connection with the case of bar Kapara, that the B'rachah of 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah' is more Chashuv than 'Sheha'kol', since it is more specific.

Question (cont.): By the same token, 'Borei P'ri ha'Eitz' is more specific than the B'rachah of 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah' (and ought to take precedence)?

Answer: The Chashivus of 'Borei P'ri ha'Eitz' is not as superior to that of 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah', as that of 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah' is to that of 'Shehakol'.

Implied Question: And what the Halachos Gedolos says that 'Borei P'ri ha'Eitz' takes precedence over 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah', because it is more specific ...

Answer: That is according to the Sugya's conclusion, where they argue where the B'rachos are not equal, where we rule like Rebbi Yehudah.

Answer (cont.): But according to the current Lashon, where do not arhue where the B'rachos are not equal, the P'sak of the Halachos Gedolos does not work, as we just explained.

Clarification: The Kashya is that one can recite 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah' even to cover 'Borei P'ri ua'Eitz' ...

Clarification (cont.): Even to cover olives which belong to the seven species, how much more so to recite Borei P'ri ha'Adamah over parched ears of corn (which belong to the seven species, to cover apples (which do not).

Conclusion: Consequently, one needs to introduce this Halachah, as we just explained.

"Clarification: Such as apples and radishes.

Explanation #1: Rashi and the Ri explains that - according to this text, when Rav Yosef says 'Kol ha'Mukdam ... ', he is going specifically according to Rebbi Yehudah.

Explanation #2: R. Sh'mayah, on the other hand, has the text 'Amar Rav Yosef ... '. in which case he goes according to the Rabbanan ...

Clarification: And he is speaking where one is not more preferred than the other, as that is where we go after 'Mukdam'; because if one was more preferred, it would be obvious that 'Chaviv' takes precedence ...

Proof: Seeing as by other species where there are the seven species, tha Rabbanan give precedence to which species one chooses.

Clarification (cont.): And Rav Yosef's ruling is an independent statement.

Refutation: This is not correct however, because a little later it implies that the correct text is 'de'Amar Rav Yosef ... ' ...

Refutation (cont.): Where the Gemara says that 'Rav Chisda and Rav Hamnuna were sitting at a Se'udah, when one asked the other whether he does not hold like Rav Yosef, who said 'Kol ha'Mukdam ... '?

Clarification: Meaning what is Rebbi Yehudah's reason for saying that the seven species have an advantage ...

Clarification (cont.): What sort of advantage do they have if they do not cover other species?

Conclusion: And the Gemara answers that the teir advantage is that they take precedence over other species.

Clarification: This means that if one ate the Shi'ur of a Revi'is of wine of leaves or the branches, he is Chayav.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas if one ate the Shi'ur of a Revi'is of water he will not be Chayav, since water is thinner and spills easily from the cup.

Clarification (cont.): But if one assesses against wine, one requires a larger Shi'ur, since wine is thick, allowing the wine to pile-up on top of the cup before a Revi'is spills from it ...

Clarification (cont.): If it was water on the other hand, more than a Revi'is would spill.

Clarification: This is learned in connection with wooden vessels.

Clarification: But not to eat together with the bread ...

Reason: because then the bread would be the Ikar (main food), and they would be only Tafeil (secondary) ...

Source: And we have learned in a Mishnah that 'The B'rachah that one recites over the Ikar covers the Tafeil'.

Halachah: Nevertheless, if there is wheat and olives or barley and dates, even though they are equally close to "Eretz", the one that closer to the first "Eretz" takes precedence.

Clarification: This speaks where they do not come merely to eat together with the bread, but rather as a dessert.

Clarification: Which requires a B'rachah before but not afterwards (other than 'Borei Nefachos Rabos ... ').

Source: Like rice and millet, about which we learned earlier (on Daf 37:) that one recites 'Borei Miynei Mezonos' before, and 'nothing' afterwards.

Clarification (cont.): Since they added many almonds.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it speaks even if he ate it after Birchas ha'Mazon.

Refutation #1: This does not seem right however, firstly because we learn earlier (on Daf 44.) that 'Whatever is made from the five species, requires a B'rachah Me'ein Shalosh'.

Refutation #2: And secondly, what does the Gemara refer to Pas ha'Ba be'Kisnin, and not to rice and millet.

Explanation #2: One therefore needs to explain that the Gemara is referring to eating it during the meal, before Bensching, about which the Sugya is speaking.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And what the Gemara means to say is 'With the exception of Pas ha'Ba'ah be'Kisnin during the meal, before Bensching, which does not require a B'rachah Achronah, which Bensching covers, even according to Rav Sheishes - because it is only a small amount.

Explanation #2 (cont.): But not during the meal, it requires a B'rachah Achronah Me'ein Shalosh.

Implied Question: And the reason that it does not mention rice and millet is ...

Answer: Because even not during a meal, they do not require a B'rachah Achas Me'ein Shalosh after them.

Halachah: We do not rule like Rav Sheishes, but like Rav Huna and Rav Nachman ...

Since the Halachah is not like a Yachid (an individual) against a majority.

Clarification: It appears that this ruling speaks about someone who drinks wine independently of a meal ...

Proof: Because, if it was together with bread, then the bread would cover them anyway?

Proof (cont.): Since the Gemara will shortly suggest that even wine ought to be covered by the bread, if not for fact that it fixes a B'rachah for itself.

Conclusion: It must therefore be speaking not during a meal, and nevertheless, wine exempts other beverages.

Ruling: The Halachah is not like him (Rebbi Chiya) however ...

Reason: Because, since the Halachah is not like him with regard to bread exempting ... , only like Rav Papa's final ruling (as we shall see shortly), it is not like him regarding wine exempting beverages, either.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'To eat together with the bread, does not require a B'rachah, since it is secondary (to it).

Refutation #1: But that is not correct, since that is synonymous with the Mishnah (on Daf 44.), which says that 'The B'rachah over the Ikar covers the Tafeil', and what is Rav Papa then coming to teach us?

Refutation #2: Moreover, when the Gemara asks shortly 'Let the bread also exempt wine?' what is the Kashya, seeing as the wine is not secondary to the bread, and we are speaking about something that is?

Rejected Answer: Nor can we explain that Rashi establishes the Gemara's Kashya 'Let the bread also exempt wine?' where one soaks the bread in wine, in which case the wine becomes Tafeil ...

Rejection: Because nowhere do we find that one recites a B'rachah (over the wine) in such a case.

Conclusion: So it must speak there where one actually drinks it.

Refutation #3: Furthermore, Rashi establishes 'things that come in the middle of the meal but not as part of the meal', as porridge, spinach and cabbage that does not come to eat together with the bread, to sustain and satisfy, and requires an independent B'rachah, since it is not secondary, but is Patur from a B'rachah Achronah since it is a kind of sustainer.

Refutation #3 (Cont.): This too, is not correct, since we say in our Mishnah that 'A B'rachah over bread exempts one from making a B'rachah over the Parperes (the minor dish), and the Gemara explains that the same applies to all cooked dishes.

Refutation #3: And things that generally come after the meal, Rashi explains - such as fruit, even if one brought them to the table during the meal, but not to eat together with the bread, requires a B'rachah both beforehand (seeing as they are not Tafeil) and afterwards (i.e. Birchas ha'Mazon does not cover them) seeing as they do not sustain.

Refutation #3 (Cont.): But this is like Rav Sheishes, who said earlier that 'If one brought before him figs or pomegranates during the meal, they require both a B'rachah Rishonah and a B'rachah Achronah, which is not Halachah, since we rule like Rav Nachman and Rav Huna, as Tosfos explained above (at the end of DH 'Ela').

Explanation #2: Consequently, the Ri explains that things that come during the meal because of the meal - refers to things that one usually serve during the meal to eat together with the bread such as meat and fish, and all kinds of cooked dishes that one brought during the meal. These require neither a B'rachah Rishonah nor a B'rachah Achronah, because, seeing as they come because of the bread, the bread covers them.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas things that do not generally come during the meal, such as dates, pomegranates and other fruit, which one not tend to eat together with bread, require their own B'rachah Rishonah ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Since they do not come as a condiment, the bread does not cover them.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And this conforms with the opinion of Rav Nachman and Rav Huna above, who say that they require both a B'rachah Rishonah, but not a B'rachah Achronah.

Fixing the Text: And no More.

Fixing the Text (cont.): And we do not have the text 'Devarim ha'Ba'im ... ' in the Seifa.

Clarification: And the explanation is that if one brought to the table the things in question after the meal (i.e. after they had withdrawn from eating bread), the bread no longer exempts them from a B'rachah, and it is as if one had eaten them not during the meal.

Clarification (cont.): And irrespective of whether one tends to eat them as part of the meal or not, they require a B'rachah both before and after ...

Conclusion: Since this refers to everything mentioned earlier.

Halachah: Nowadays however, this Din no longer applies, since it is not customary to withdraw from bread up until Birchas ha'Mazon.

Halachah (cont.): Only as long as long as we are still eating fruit or anything else before Birchas ha'Mazon, we still have in mind to eat bread at any time.

Halachah (cont.): And we rule like the P'sak of Rav Papa.

Explanation #1: Since wine certainly comes because of the meal, because one tends to drink a number of times; and were it not for the meal, one would not do so. Consequently, let the bread cover the wine?

Explanation #1 (cont.): And the Gemara answers that 'Wine is different, since it causes its own B'rachah'. Rashi explains that wine is brought in many places and one recites a B'rachah over it, even though one does not need to drink, such as Kidush and Birchas Eirusin.

Explanation #2: The Rashba however, explains that one recites the B'rachah 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen', even though, initially one recited (over the grapes) 'Borei P'ri ha'Eitz', as opposed to other beverages, over which one recites 'Shehakol Nih'yah bi'Devaro'.

Ruling: Rabeinu Tam however, states that over other beverages such as water and beer that come as a result of the meal, are covered by the bread, bearing in mind that it would exempt even wine, if not for the fact that it fixes a B'rachah for itself.

Refutation: Not like Machzor Vitri, who writes that each time that one drinks water, one needs to recite a fresh B'rachah, even during the course of a meal, since it is as one changed one's mind (to stop drinking).

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara did not ask from water is ...

Answer: Because whereas wine sustains, water doesn't.

Source: As we learned above (Daf 35.) 'Someone who declares a Neder not to eat 'Mazon ... '.

Refutation of Question: In which case it is obvious that bread does not cover it.

Refutation of Question (cont.): Seeing as it is not included in the B'rachah over bread.