Refutation (cont.): The Ri and Rabeinu Tam however used to say that one should not recite a B'rachah at all over other beverages that are served during the meal.

Reason #1: Because just as bread exempts all food that comes because of it, so too, does wine exempt all liquids (See Maharsha); seeing as it is the principle beverage. Therefore, it is the Ikar, and they are all secondary to it regarding the B'rachah.

Conclusion: Consequently, the bread exempts beverages that come on account of the bread to wash down the food.

Reason #2: Moreover it is impossible to eat without drinking.

Conclusion: Therefore, bread exempts them (with the exception of wine), as per the reason given in the Gemara.

Consequently: According to this reason we can justify the fact that we recite only the B'rachah of 'al Achilas Maror'.

Question: Since the question is asked as to why we do not also recite 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah', seeing as the 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah' of the other vegetables (that we recited earlier) does not cover them, as Tosfos explained there (in Pesachim), because of Hagadah and Hallel in between, which is considered a Hesech ha'Da'as.

Answer: Evidently, the reason is because the Torah made it a requisite, as it writes (in Beha'aloscha) "They shall eat it (the Korban Pesach together with Matzos and Maror"?

Explanation #1: Rashi translates this as wafers/cakes.

Refutation: But this cannot be correct, because in such a case, one will be obligated to recite 'ha'Motzi' even without fixing a meal over them, seeing as, bearing in mind that it was dough both at the beginning and at the end, it is proper bread.

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that they are 'Nilish' (?)

Ruling: Which require the B'rachah of 'ha'Motzi' if one fixed one's meal over them, such as on Purim.

Refutation: Rabeinu Shimshon however, explains that onedoes notrecite 'ha'Motzi over it, since it is similar to porridge.

Inference: This implies that it was their custom to remove the table before Birchas ha'Mazon.

Question: This seems to pose a Kashya on our custom, seeing as we are particular not to remove the bread before Birchas ha'Mazon?

Answer: Perhaps in those days too, they did not remove the table from before the person who is Benching, only from in front of the other participants.

Reason: Because in those days everybody had his own little table from which he used to eat.

Reason (cont.): Whereas we tend to eat from one large table which is shared by all the participants. And it is not nice to remove it until after Birchas ha'Mazon.

Question: According to the popular ruling that after 'Hav lan ve'Navrich one is forbidden to drink without a B'rachah Rishonah, why did he not simply recite a B'rachah and eat?

Answer: Perhaps it was a dish containing bread, which would have required 'ha'Motzi' and washing his hands - and this would have involved too much trouble.

Halachah #1: If somebody forgot to eat the Afikoman, and declared 'Hav lan ve'Navrich', it is not considered a Hesech ha'Da'as, since we rely on the hospitality of the Torah.

Halachah #2: And if, on the other hand, he Benched and forgot to eat it, he does not need to go back and eat, seeing as all the Matzos are prepared for the Mitzvah of Matzah.

Implied Question: And although we learned that one declared 'Hav lan ve'Navrich' is forbidden to drink, as are all the participants ...

Answer: That is only if it is the host who makes the announcement, in which case they are all forbidden.

Answer (cont.): But they are not forbidden on account of the guest ...

Answer (cont.): Who is himself permitted to continue eating together with the host.

Opinion #1: In a case where it customary to eat a variety of fruits, and they proceed to bring one fruit after another, there are some who maintain that the guests are obligated to recite a B'rachah over each one, since they do not know, after eating one species, whether they will bring another one.

Opinion #2: The correct ruling however, is that it is not necessary to recite a B'rachah, because one relies on the host's hospitality.

Source: Complying with the case of the bei Resh G'lusa.

Halachah #1: Consequently, the moment one washes Mayim Acharonim at the conclusion of the meal, eating becomes prohibited until one has recited a B'rachah.

Halachah #2: And the same applies if on declares 'Hav lan ve'Navrich', even before one has washed.

Clarification: It seems that this is referring to a Parperes that is served during the meal, because as far as one that is served after it, Rav Papa already ruled that 'Things that are served after the meal require a B'rachah both before and after.

Definition #1: Rashi explains that 'Parperes' is various kinds of fish and young birds.

Question: But this is a little difficult, because if so, why does the Tana need to teach us that Parperes does not exempt the bread from a B'rachah?

Definition #2: Tosfos therefore prefers the explanation of Rabeinu Chananel who defines 'Parperes' as dried bread in a dish that no longer has the shape of bread, over which one recites 'Borei Minei Mezonos'.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Now we can understand as to why the Tana needs to teach us that Parperes does not exempt the bread from a B'rachah, seeing as it is after all, a kind of bread.

Proof: And this is also implied in the Gemara which reckons Parperes as a kind of 'Ma'aseh Kedeirah, which is defined as 'wheat kernels divided into two, three and four, as we learned above (on Daf 37.).

Halachah: As for nowadays, the Din of Hasavah only applies to bread, and what's more, bread does not even need Hasavah ...

Reason: Since it was in the times of the Gemara that they used to lean during whilst eating; whereas our sitting is considered as much of a fixture as their reclining, since they tended to eat, each person on his own couch and at his own table.

Reason (cont.): But nowadays that we all eat at one table, when we eat together that is our fixture!

Halachah #1: The Gemara here implies that when the Mishnah says here 'They were sitting ... ' it refers both to the B'rachah of 'ha'Motzi' and to that of Birchas ha'Mazon'- to the latter from the episode with the Talmidim of Rav, and to the former, from the case where they argue as to whether wine requires Hasavah.

Halachah #2: However, when people eat on a journey whilst walking without sitting down, then each person must recite his own B'rachah.

Question: Why is our case different than incense, where one person recites a 'B'rachah for all the participants, even if they are not leaning?

Answer: The Yerushalmi asks this question, and it explains there that that is due to the fact that by incense, everybody benefits from it simultaneously; whereas by eating and drinking that is not the case.

Clarification: When they have already Benched, and there is a break between the wine and the incense

Halachah: The Halachah would appear to be like the Talmidim of Rav ...

Reason: Seeing as Rav Sheishes concurs with them, and although we rule like Rav Nachman in money matters, the Halachah is like Rav Sheishes in matters concerning Isur.

Implied Question: And even though we rule like Rav against Shmuel in matters of Isur ...

Answer: That is not the case here, because, seeing as the Talmidim of Rav disagree with him, they probably heard it from him.

Explanation #2: We do not need this P'sak however, since we do not tend to withdraw from bread at all.

Halachah: It would seem that wine before the meal covers wine during the meal ...

Implied Question: Even though we Pasken here that wine during the meal does not cover wine after the meal ...

Answer: That is different, since the first wine is to wash down the food and the second, to drink; but where the first one is to drink and the second, to wash down the food, such as wine before the meal and wine during the meal, it certainly does cover it.

Clarification: And when the Gemara mentions Shabbos and Yom-Tov, this is La'av Davka, since the same will apply if one fixed one's meal over wine during the other days in the year.

Halachah: So if wine is brought before the meal to drink during the meal, it is obvious that wine that one drank before the meal covers it.

Halachah (cont.): Similarly, Kidush wine exempts wine that one drinks during the meal, as does Havdalah wine that one brought to the table to make Havdalah at the beginning of the meal, which will exempt wine that one drinks during the meal.

Clarification #1: And as we just explained, Shabbos and Yom-Tov are La'av Davka, and the Gemara only mentions it to preclude where one changed one's mind (i.e. one did not initially intend to drink during the meal as well, and then decided to do so after all).

Alternatively: And even if the Gemara does mean Shabbos and Yom-Tov exclusively ...

Alternatively (cont.): One can nevertheless explain that it then speaks with regard to where one wants to cover the wine after the meal (i.e. after one has withdrawn from eating bread, at which stage it is unusual to have the automatic intention of drinking then - except for on Shabbos and Yom-Tov.

Alternatively (cont.): But as far as exempting the wine during the meal is concerned, when it is customary drink even on other days, the wine that one drinks before the meal covers the wine during the meal, since the one is to drink and the other to wash down the meal.

Alternatively (cont.): This is because the Gemara's She'eilah concerned wine that washes down the meal, which is not Chashuv, covering ine to drink, but wine to drink which is more Chashuv, certainly covers wine that is to wash down the meal.

Support: This is also implied in 'Arvei Pesachim' (Daf 101.) regarding Kidush in Shul, where Rebbi Yochanan states that 'They are also Yotzei with the B'rachah over wine, and it is not necessary to repeat it in the middle of the meal ...

Support (cont.): Despite the fact that they recited Kidush not in the location of the meal, nevertheless, Rebbi Yochanan holds that since they are Yotzei Kidush, they are also Yotzei with Borei P'ri ha'Gafen'.

Implied Question: Even though Rebbi Yochanan is disproved ...

Answer: That is with regard to a change of location exclusively.

Havdalah: One can therefore infer from there that the same applies to Havdalah, since one cannot differentiate between Havdalah and Kidush.

Refutation: This precludes from the opinion that disagrees, and that maintains that it is specifically Kidush that exempts, because Kidush must be recited in the location of the meal, but the wine of Havdalah does not exempt even there where one recited Havdalah after washing.

Proof: For that is how the case like which we rule speaks where wine that came before the meal covers wine that came during the meal (i.e. where they already washed).

Support: And this is also implied in the Beraisa that the Gemara will cite shortly, which describes the order of Hasavah.

Conclusion: It seems however, that since one has washed one's hands and one has the intention of eating and drinking there, even Havdalah exempts ... . as we proved from the Gemara in Pesachim.

Another Proof: Moreover, there is no reason as to why the wine of Havdalah should be any worse that wine before the meal, which exempts ... .

Another Opinion: There are those whoever, who are strict and who require reciting Havdalah before washing one's hands, to avoid entering into a Machlokes ...

Reason: Since by doing so, one definitely needs to recite a B'rachah Achronah Me'ein Shalosh, and will therefore not be exempt from reciting 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen' during the meal.

Clarification: This speaks where they did not have wine before the meal (See M'lo ha'Ro'im).

Question: Why does the Gemara ask from the inference, rather than from the Reisha directly, which says 'If they were sitting, each one recites his own B'rachah'?

Answer: From the Reisha, we might have thought that they sat down for some reason, not with the intention of eating, but had they sat down with the express intention of eating, then that would have combined them, even without leaning.

Clarification: This supports Tosfos' explanation in our Mishnah, that the Tana is speaking both with regard to the B'rachah of ha'Motzi and to Birchas ha'Mazon, as is evident from the Beraisa here 'Ten men ... '.

Question: Why did they wait until Birchas ha'Mazon to ask their She'eilah? How did they recite the B'rachah over bread in the first place?

Answer: Perhaps it speaks where they sat down to eat one after the other, and each person recited his own B'rachah.