Clarification: Most likely the Chachamim instituted either three or seven corresponding to something specific, in which case, one should neither detract or add.

Precedent: Like the Gemara says in 'ha'Techeiles (Menachos, Daf 39. [with regard to Tzitzis]) 'Not less than seven corresponding to the seven Heavens, and not more that thirteen corresponding to the seven Heavens and the six spaces in between'.

Clarification: Because by the majority of B'rachos the beginning and the conclusion are of one and the same topic.

Question: . Efrayim asked Rabeinu Tam about the Minhag to add 've'es Yom ha'Shevi'i mi''Sheishes Y'mei ha'Ma'aseh Kidashta, Hivdalta ve'Kidashta es Amcha Yisrael bi'Kedushasecha' ...

Question (cont.): Which is neither like the beginning nor like the conclusion.

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answered - because, due to their fondness of the day they lengthened the text in order once at least, to say seven Havdalos ...

Answer (cont.): 'bein Kodesh le'Chol' (1). 'bein Or le'Choshech' (2). 'bein Yisrael la'Amim' (3). 'bein Yom Yom ha'Shevi'i le'Sheishes Y'mei ha'Ma'aseh' (4). 'bein Kedushas Shabbos li'Kedushas Yom-Tov Hivdalta' (since on Yom-Tov Ochel Nefesh is permitted), ve'es Yom ha'Shevi'i mi'Sheishes Y'mei ha'Ma'aseh Kidashta' (this refers to Chol ha'Mo'ed, on which things that entail a loss are permitted, but forbidden on Shabbos), incorporating the two differences between Shabbos and Yom-Tov (which are counted as one [5)]. 'Hivdalta ve'Kidashta es Amcha Yisrael bi'Kerushasecha' (two Havdalos - between Kohanim, Levi'im and Yisr'eilim [6/7]) ...

Conclusion: Which is similar to the conclusion of 'bein Kodesh le'Kodesh'.

Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked from Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi, cited earlier

Answer: Only the Gemara prefers to ask from a Beraisa.

Clarification: This refers to Rebbi Menachem, (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim 2) about whom the Gemara said in the last Perek of Mo'd Katan (Daf 25:) that 'When Rebbi Menachem bar Rebbi Sima'i died, all the images changed their form and became smooth.

Conclusion: Meaning 'smooth without any image; and he attributed his sanctity to his father, who was a holy man, too.

Implied Question #1: The Gemara could have asked that this is not written.

Implied Question #2: And the reason why this is not inserted at the end, says the Rashbam, is ...

Answer: Because it specifically mentioned it after three Havdalos, and when there are only three Havdalos (on a regular Motza'ei Shabbos) it is indeed similar to the conclusion.

Question: According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah and Rav, who conclude 'Mekasesh ha'Shabbos', how is this similar to the conclusion? On the contrary, Kohanim, Levi'im ad Yisre'eilim is more similar to the conclusion?

Answer: 'bein Yom Yom ha'Shevi'i le'Sheishes Y'mei ha'Ma'aseh' is indeed similar to the conclusion, because Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu sanctified us with His Mitzvos and gave us the Shabbos ...

Conclusion: Whereas in 'Kohanim, Levi'im ad Yisre'eilim' it only 'mentions' Yisra'elim to be lenient, since their Kedushah is lighter than that of Kohanim and Levi'im, and it is not similar to the conclusion.

Clarification: The reason for this is because one does not concclude with two different points.

The Text of Havdalah: The Rashbam explains that the Halachah is like Shmuel, that one concludes 'bein Kodesh le'Chol'.

Source: Because, since one says on Motza'ei Shabbos that leads to Yom-To 'ha'Mavdil bein Kodesh le'Kodesh', as we learned at the end of the first Perek of Chulin (Daf 26:), so too, do we say on Motza'ei Shabbos that leads to a weekday 'ha'Mavdil bein Kodesh le'Chol'.

Question #1: Why does the B'rachah of 'Elokai, Neshamah' not begin with 'Baruch', seeing as initially, it was not instituted next to another B'rachah, as the Gemara says in B'rachos (Daf 60:) 'Upon awakening, one recites 'Elokai, Neshamah'?

Question #2: And the same question pertains to 'Atah Hu ad she'Lo Nivra ha'Olam' and to Tefilas ha'Derech, which ends with 'Baruch' but does not begin with 'Baruch'.

Answer: Because they are not B'rachos, but merely praise and Tefilah.

The B'rachah after the Megilah: Regarding the B'rachah after the Megilah, it would seem that one concludes 'Baruch Atah Hash-m, ha'Keil ha'Nifra le'Amo Yisrael mi'Kol Tzareihem'.

Reason: Since it is not comparable to Birchas ha'Peiros and Birchos ha'Mitzvos, which are short.

Support: And so it says in the Yerushalmi and in our Gemara (according to old texts), that one concludes 'Baruch ... ha'Keil ha'Nifra ... '.

'Borei Nefashos': And as for the B'rachah of 'Borei Nefashos Rabos', the Yerushalmi cites the conclusion as 'Baruch Atah Hash-m, Chei ha'Olamim'.

Clarification: This means that since one concluded the first B'rachah with 'Baruch ... ', it is not necessary to begin the next B'rachah with 'Baruch ... '?

Implied Question: As for the B'rachah after the Haftarah of 'Tzur Kol ha'Olamim' till 'she'Kol Devarav Emes va'Tzedeck', where there is a break in the Machzorim, and which one then resumes with 'Ne'eman Atah Hu', and where neither the former ends with 'Baruch', nor does the latter begin with 'Baruch/'?

Answer: That is because it is all one B'rachah, as it all deals with the faithfulness and the integrity of Hash-m.

Implied Question: And the reason that there is a break in the Machzorim is ...

Answer: Because the entire congregation used to stop there and to say words of praise, as is mentioned in Maseches Sofrim (13:10).

Support: Indeed, it is implied there that they are one B'rachah, when it says that Maftir recites seven B'rachos corresponding to the seven people who are called up - Two during K'ri'as ha'Torah, one at the beginning and one at the end, one before the Haftarah and four after it; that makes seven.

Implied Question: By the Sheva B'rachos at a wedding 'she'Hakol Bara li'Chevodo', 'Yotzer ha'Adam' and 'asher Yatzar es ha'Adam ... ' all begin with 'Baruch' (See Maharsha)?

Answer #1: Rashi explains in Kesuvos (Daf 8.) that 'she'Hakol Bara li'Chevodo' was instituted for the gathering of the people; in fact it really ought to have been said when they all arrived; and it is therefore an independent B'rachah.

Answer #1 (cont.): Similarly, 'Yotzer ha'Adam' did not really need to be instituted, seeing as we say 'asher Yatzar' immediately after it.

Answer #1 (cont.): And we only mention it in order to mention the two creations (of man and woman). They placed it before 'asher Yatzar', and it too, is really an individual B'rachah.

Implied Question: Whereas 'asher Bara' begins with 'Baruch?

Answer: Because one recites it on its own when there are no 'new faces'.

Answer #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that 'she'Hakol Bara li'Chevodo' and 'Yotzer ha'Adam' begin with 'Baruch' but do not end with 'Baruch', due to the fact that they are short, much like Birchas ha'Peiros and Birchas ha'Mitzvos, since the beginning is in fact, the end too.

Answer to Previous Question (cont.): Whereas 'asher Yatzar es ha'Adam' needs to begin with 'Baruch', because if it didn't, it would all look like one B'rachah.

Clarification #1: And the B'rachah of 'La'asok be'Divrei Sorah and 've'Ha'arev Na' says Rabeinu Tam is in fact one B'rachah, since it does not begin 'Ha'arev Na' and with 'Baruch'.

Question: Whereas Havdalah begins with 'Baruch, even though it is next to the B'rachah over light?

Answer #1: So that it should not appear to be one B'rachah.

Answer #2: The Yerushalmi however, asks 'How about Havdalah (i.e. Why does it begin with 'Baruch')? and answers that 'Rebbi used to scatter them (i.e. did not recite them together)'.

Question: why do 'Yehal'lucha' after Hallel, 'Yir'u Eineinu' (before the Amidah at Ma'ariv [which many communities recite in Chutz la'Aretz) and 'Yishtabach' not begin with 'Baruch'?

Explanation #1: Because 'Yehal'lucha' is close to 'Li'kero es ha'Hallel', 'Yir'u Eineinu', to 'Hashkiveinu' and 'Yishtabach', to 'Baruch she'Amar'.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And the Pesukim are not a Hefsek just as the Pesukim after Keri'as Sh'ma are not a Hefsek before the B'rachah after it ('Ga'al Yisrael').

Consequently: One should not interrupt between 'Baruch she'Amar' and 'Yishtabach'.

Question: There is a problem however, with 'Yehal'lucha' of the Seider, where we do not recite 'Likero es ha'Hallel'?

Explanation #2: It would therefore seem that any B'rachah that follows Pesukim does not need to open with 'Baruch' ...

Reason: Seeing as even without an opening its beginning is recognizable.

Yerushalmi Question: The Yerushalmi (in the first Perek of B'rachos) asks 'How about Ge'ulah' ('asher Ge'alanu') which is close to the B'rachah of 'Lik'ro es ha'Hallel', yet it begins with 'Baruch'?

Answer: And it answers that 'Hallel is different in that if one hears it in Shul, one is Yotzei' (since they used to recite Hallel on Pesach night in Shul, as it says one should in Maseches Sofrim (Perek 20, Halachah 9).

Question: Rebbi Elazar bar Rebbi Yossi asked from the end - which Rabeinu Shmuel bar R' Sh'mayah explained with reference of the end of the B'rachah of 'asher Ge'alanu' - which ends with 'Baruch', even though it is all thanks (to Hash-m)?

Answer: And it answers that 'There are two (parts to the B'rachah) one which refers to the future and one, to the past ...

Answer (cont.): 'asher Ge'alanu' refers to the past; and 'Semeichim be'Vinyan Irecha ... ', to the future. And it ends with Baruch, because it is not all one set of thanks,, since there is a break and a Tefilah in the middle,that Hash-m should redeem us.

Question: The Gemara then asks first from Havdalah - as Tosfos explained earlier, and then from 'Nevarech' (i.e. 'Baruch hu she'Achalnu mi'Shelo ... ', which is in itself an independent B'rachah as the Gemara explains in 'Sheloshah she'Achlu' (B'rachos, Daf 46.), and then we begin the B'rachah of 'ha'Zan' with 'Baruch' even though it is close to 'Nevarech'?

Answer: And it answers that 'That is different, seeing as there were only two people eating, they would not say 'Nevarech'.

Question: Then it asks from 'ha'Zan' - which is followed by 'Nod'cha' which does not begin with 'Baruch', even though there are times when it is not close to Birchas ha'Zan - when two people want to Bench Mezuman, and the third person stops eating, where, according to Rav Sheishes, he is obligated to listen till the end of 'ha'Zan'.

Question (Cont.): And the Halachah is like Rav Sheishes in matters concerning Isur.

Question (Concl.): And, as the Gemara says there at the end of the Sugya, when he finishes his meal, the Rabbanan say 'that he continues from where he left off (i.e. from 'Nod'cha')?

Stymied: The Yerushalmi has no answer to this Kashya,

Question: Next the Yerushalmi asks from 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv' in Birchas ha'Mazon, which closely follows the B'rachah of 'Boneh Yerushalayim', yet it begins with 'Baruch'?

Answer: And it answers that that too is different, inasmuch as it was instituted in Yavneh (and is not an intrinsic part of Benching).

Question: It then asks from Kidush - which closely follows 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen', yet it begins with 'Baruch'?

Answer: That is different too, since, if one eats while it is still day (before Shabbos comes in), one does not recite 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen'.

Question: Finally, the Yerushalmi asks from the end of Kidush, which concludes with 'Baruch' ...

Question (cont.): Thinking that it is all one B'rachah of thanks, much like the B'rachah over fruit and the B'rachah over Mitzvos?

Answer: Rebbi Yonah answers that 'Such is the formula of B'rachos ...

Answer (cont.): As Rebbi Yudan says - 'A short text begins with 'Baruch' but does not end with 'Baruch'; whereas a long text both begins and ends with 'Baruch' ...

Answer (Concl.): And Kidush comprises a long text, with a break in the middle, when one says 'ki Hu Yom Techilah le'Mikra'ei Kodesh'. And that is why it ends with 'Baruch'.

Question #1: But it is a B'rachah Aruchah?

Question #2: Moreover, Rabeinu explains that one is obligated to say three 'Gemulos' and three 'Hatavos', just 'as one says three 'Malchuyos', as the Gemara says in B'rachos (Daf 49.) 'One needs to say two "Malchuyos", besides its own'.

Answer: This Is not considered 'long', since one merely mentions the Name of Hash-m using various expressions 'Our King, the One Who formed us, our Holy One, the Holy One of Ya'akov Our Shepherd'. Consequently, it would not be fitting to end with a 'Baruch'.