Explanation #1: Because he is anxious, whereas all the other guests are Chayav.

Clarification (cont.): Rashi explains that these Tana'im do not hold of the principle 'ha'Oseik ba'Mitzvah Patur min ha'Mitzvah (See Maharam).

Question: In that case, why is the Chasan not Chayav Sukah - since it implies that he exempts him more than the Tana Kama?

Explanation #2: One must therefore explain that the Chasan is unable to concentrate at all, even whilst reciting the first Pasuk; whereas the other guests are; and he is referring to Keri'as Sh'ma exclusively.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas in all other cases he concurs with the Tana Kama.

Question: The reason that he sees fit to mention these (three) Mitzvos is ...

Answer: Because the previous Beraisa mentioned them.

Clarification: All this the Tana learns from "Teishvu", 'Ke'ein Taduru' - just as a person would not refrain from leaving his house to go on a journey.

Clarification (cont.): And similaly 'Mitzta'er' which the Gemara exempted earlier from Sukah, the reason is because of "Teishvu" Ke'ein Taduru' - since a person would not reside in a location that causes him discomfort.

Clarification: Assuming he rests at night in an inhabited area.

Clarification: Not because Rava does not hold the D'rashah of "Teishvu", 'Ke'ein Taduru', which is cited in a Beraisa later in the Perek (Daf 28b).

Clarification: Even though the eye is not endangered ...

Clarification (cont.): Since an endangered eye is equivalent to life danger even with regard to desecrating the Shabbos on account of it ...

Source: As is evident in Perek Ein Ma'amidin (Avodah Zarah, Daf 28a) in connection with 'An eye that malfunctioned'.

Implied Question: Even though Rabah bar Rav Huna, in the first Perek (Daf 11a) ruled that it is Mutar to sleep in a canopied bed, even if it has a ceiling, and even if it is higher than ten Tefachim ...

Answer: The Halachah is not like him, as Tosfos explained there.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that one places two or three times into his mouth - Murshil (mouthfuls) in old French.

Explanation #2: Others have the tecxt 'two or three egg-volumes ...

Conclusion: Both however, are one and the same, as is evident in the Gemara later (on Daf 27a) when it asks 'Let us say that this is a Kashya on Rav Yosef and Abaye?' ...

Conclusion: And which concludes 'the amount that a Talmid-Chacham tastes before leaving for the Shi'ur', which is a mouthful, the equivalent of an egg-volume.

Specifically Bread: This Shi'ur is confined to bread however, since fruit does not require a Sukah anyway ...

Source: As the Gemara concludes in the last Perek of Yoma (Daf 79b & 80a) 'Their fixture (i.e. of fruit) is equivalent to a casual meal of bread'.

Refuted Explanation: And when the Gemara says , in Perek Bameh Tomnin (Shabbos, Daf 49a & 49b) 'Tefilin require a clean body - like Elisha Ba'al Kenafayim' ...

Refuted Explanation (cont.): And Abaye adds - that one may not emit a smell whilst wearing them; Whereas according to Rava, it means that he should sleep with them on ...

Refuted Explanation (cont.): This does not mean that Abaye permits sleeping with them on ...

Refutation: Seeing as Abaye himself forbids it here ...

Authentic Explanation: Only he holds that even though he is not careful not to sleep in them - like Elisha was - he may nevertheless wear them, since he is careful not to emit a smell ...

Reason: Seeing as sleeping itself is only forbidden as a Gezeirah - that may emit a smell (in his sleep).

Explanation #1: The Lashon implies that Rebbi Ya'akov permits even a Sheinas K'va (a proper sleep) ...

Proof: Because otherwise, over what are they arguing?

Explanation #2: Alternatively, they both agree that a Sheinas K'va is forbidden ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And they are arguing over the words of Rebbi Nasan, who will shortly permit sleeping (a nap) with Tefilin during the day, seeing as one does not normally sleep a Sheinas K'va by day; whereas he forbids doing so at nighttime, in case he changes his mind and decides to sleep properly ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): Whereas Rebbi Ya'akov is not worried about that.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains - 'because of cleanliness'.

Refutation: But he does so unnecessarily ...

Explanation #2: Since Rebbi Tzadok was a Kohen, as is evident in Perek Mi she'Meiso (B'rachos, Daf 19b) and at the end of Perek P'sulei ha'Mukdashin (B'choros, Daf 36a) ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): He was accustomed to eat his food 'al Taharas T'rumah', and hands are Sheniyos, which render T'rumah Pasul ...

Source: This is one of 'The eighteen things' in the first Perek of Shabbos (Daf 14a) ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): Sincce even less than a k'Beitzah of food is subject to Tum'ah, as is evident in the second Perek of Taharos (Mishnah 1) which states 'If it is less than a k'Beitzah, then it is Tamei, but the rest is Tahor'.

Clarification: He holds like Rebbi Yehudah in Perek Sheloshah she'Achlu (B'rachos, Daf 49b), who Darshens "ve'Achalta ve'Sava'ta u'Veirachta" - that one requires eating that satisfies - which is a k'Beitzah.

Machlokes Tana'im: Whereas Rebbi Meir argues and says that one recites the B'rachah on a k'Zayis.

Halachah: The Halachah it would seem, is like him ...

Proof #1: Since the Gemara in 'Keitzad Mevorchin (Ibid., Daf 38a & 38b) cites Rebbi Chiya bar Aba who saw Rebbi Yochanan eating a salted olive, over which he recited a B'rachah both before and after.

Proof #2: Furthermore, the Gemara there (on Daf48a & 48b) citing Rebbi Chiya bar Aba in the name of Rebbi Yochanan who specifically states that one cannot render others Yotzei unless he has eaten a k'Zayis. And Rav Huna bar Yehudah citing Rav concurs with that.

A Beryah: The Yerushalmi implies that a Beryah (a complete entity) does not (even) require a k'Zayis - and one recites the B'rachos before and after even over a single grape or pomegranate seed ...

Yerushalmi: Here is what the Yerushalmi says at the beginning of 'Keitzad Mevorchin) - 'Rebbi Yochanan took an olive and recited a (long) B'rachah both before and after it. When he noticed Rebbi Chiya bar Aba watching him ...

Yerushalmi (cont.): He asked him why he was looking at him, and whether he did not agree that all seven species require a (long) B'rachah before and after, to which he replied in the affirmative, and that his query was regarding the pit, which rendered the olive smaller than the Shi'ur ...

Yerushalmi (concl.): And the Gemara goes on to attribute Rebbi Yochanan's opinion to the fact that he was eating a Beryah, and that even one grape and one pomegranate seed requires a dual B'rachah.

Bavli: Our Gemara cites a similar episode in Perek Keitzad Mevorchin (B'rachos, Daf 38b), where Rebbi Chiya bar Aba related how he had seen Rebbi Yochanan eat a salted olive, and recite over it a dual B'rachah ...

Bavli (cont.): And in response to Rebbi Yirmiyah's query that an olive without the pit is less than the Shi'ur ...

Bavli (concl.): Rebbi Zeira explained that a 'k'Zayis only needs be an average size olive, whereas the olive that Rebbi Yochanan ate was a large one.

Explanation #1: If the episode in our Gemara ia the same as the episode in the Yerushalmi, it transpires that the Yerushalmi argues with the Bavli ...

Ramification: In which case we will rely on it since the Bavli does not answer that it is a Beryah.

Explanation #2: It may well however, that they were two different episodes - in that in the case in the Yerushalmi, he ate a whole olive with the pit, making it a Beryah ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): But the olive in our Gemara did not contain a pit - as is the case with S'tam salted olives, in which case it was not a Beryah ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): which explains why the Gemara had to establish it by a large olive, whilst the olive in the Yerushalmi was smaller than an average one.

Halachah: Someone who wants to avoid a Safek should always eat a k'Zayis even something that is a Beryah.

Clarification: And this is confined to the B'rachah Achronah, because before eating, one recites a B'rachah on even less than a k'Zayis regardless of which food, since the B'rachah Rishonah does not require a Shi'ur ...

Reason: On account of the prohibition of benefiting from this world without reciting a B'rachah ...

Proof: Which is implied by the episode with Rebbi Tzadok, and where the Gemara states that he did not recite a B'rachah afterwards, as Tosfos explained earlier - because he concurs with Rebbi Yehudah; implying in turn,that beforehand he did recite a B'rachah.

Halachah: The Yerushalmi also states at the beginning of Perek Keitzad Mevorchin that 'Over whatever one recites three B'rachos (i.e. Benshing), one recites "ha'Motzi Lechem min ha'Aretz" ...

Halachah (cont.): And over whatever one does not Bensh, one does not recite "ha'Motzi Lechem min ha'Aretz" either ...

Question: But what about less than a k'Zayis, they asked, over which one does not Bensh? Will you also say that one does not recite "ha'Motzi Lechem ... "? ...

Answer: R. Ya'akov explained that this ruling was issued with regard to other kinds - in other words, it does not come to distinguish between somthing that has the required Shi'ur and something that doesn't ...

Answer (cont.): But between bread and food made out of the five species of grain - such as 'a food prepared in the pot, over which one does not Bensh ...

Answer (concl.): And the same applies to 'Kuva de'Ar'a (a dough that is baked in a hole in the gound) and Pas ha'Ba'ah be'Kisnin (a kind of cake) over which one does fix one's meal, bread made out of rice and millet, over all of which one does not Bensh, and which one therefore does not recite 'ha'Motzi either.

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara at the beginning of Keitzad Mevorchin (B'rachos, Daf 35a & 35b) learns the B'rachah Rishonah with a Kal va'Chomer from the B'rachah Achronah - 'If he recites a B'rachah when one is satiated, how much more so when one is hungry!' ...

Answer: One cannot apply the principle 'Dayo', and one recites it over a Mashehu, even though this is not the case by the B'rachah Achronah ...

Reason: Because that Kal va'Chomer is merely a Giluy Milsa (an indication), since the B'rachah Rishonah is not in fact, d'Oraysa ...

Source #1: As we learned in Perek Mi she'Meiso (Ibid. Daf 20b) 'A Ba'al-Keri recites the B'rachah after he has eaten but not the B'rachah before ...

Source #2: And in Perek Hayah Korei (Ibid., Daf 16a & 16b) in a Beraisa 'Laborers who are working by the owner may eat their bread without reciting a B'rachah beforehand, but they recite two B'rachos afterwards.

The Shi'ur for Drinking: Regarding drinking - the Shi'ur for 'al ha'Gefen ve'al P'ri ha'Gefen' would appear to be a k'Zayis (which is less than a M'lo Lugma - a cheek-full) ...

Implied Question: Despite the fact that the Shi'ur with regard to Yom Kipur is not less than a M'lo Lugma ...

Answer: We cannot learn the Shi'ur of the B'rachah Achronah over wine from it.

Proof: Regarding eating, the Shi'ur on Yom Kipur is a large date, whereas that of a B'rachah Achronah is a k'Zayis, since the Halachah is like Rebbi Meir, as Tosfos explained earlier.

Kidush: Opinion #1: There is an opinion that holds that Kidush does not require a M'lo Lugma, and that is why the B'rachah Achronah may well also not require a M'lo Lugma ...

Kidush: Opinion #2: One can however learn that Rebbi Meir concedes that drinking requires a k'Beitzah ...

Proof: Because in Perek Sheloshah she'Achlu (B'rachos, Daf 49a & 49b) Rebbi Meir Darshens ' "ve'Achalta"refers to eating and "ve'Sava'ta", to drinking - and eating requires a k'Zayis ...

Proof (cont.): Whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah, "ve'Achalta ve'Sava'ta" refers to eating an amount that satiates - which is a k'Beitzah.'

Proof (concl.): And since Rebbi Meir learns drinking from "ve'Sava'ta", he will require a k'Beitzah, seeing as less than that does not satiate.

Refutation: It is possible however, to differentiate between eating and drinking - and perhaps satiation regarding drinking is less than a k'Beitzah.

Conclusion: All these Shi'urim however, are de'Rabanan, as is evident from Perek Mi she'Meiso (Ibid, Daf 20b & 21a) - when the Gemara says 'Here we are speaking when he ate a Shi'ur de'Rabanan'.

Conclusion (cont.): And concerning the B'rachah Achronah, the only Shi'ur we find is a k'Zayis according to Rebbi Meir, and a k'Beitzah according to Rebbi Yehudah.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says in Perek Sheloshah she'Achlu (Ibid., Daf 48a) that 'Simon ben Shetach did his own thing' - implying that one cannot be Motzi others unless one eats a k'Zayis of grain, but that if one did eat a k'Zayis of grain, one can ...

Implied Question (cont.): Even though one can assume that the king and queen ate to satisfaction ...

Answer: One cannot compare a Gadol de'Rabanan to a Katan de'Rabanan, who cannot be Motzi someone who is Chayav d'Oraysa ...

Reason: Because even if the Gadol did not eat at all, he would be eligible to render others. An this concurs with Rashi there (See Mesores ha'Shas).