New Text: The Rashbam switches the text, since Rav Shmuel and Levi were contemporaries.

Refutation: It is not however, necessary to switch the text for his reason ...

Reinstating Original Text: Since the Gemara lists (together) all those who put wine first: 'Yokneh', 'Yinhak', 'Yehenak', then those who put Kidush first: 'K'niyah', 'Kinah', and then those who put Ner first: 'Nekiyah', Niyhak'.

Support for New Text: In the Yerushalmi however, it is implied like the Rashbam.

Explanation #1: The Rashbam explains that he wants to place Yayin next to Havdalah (rather than next to Kidush), since it is possible to recite Kidush over bread, but not Havdalah.

Explanation #2: But according to Rabeinu Tam, who explains later (Daf 106:) that one cannot recite Kidush over bread ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): One can explains that it is because if one were to distance wine from Havdalah, people would say that it only comes on account of Kidush, in honor of Yom-Tov.

Clarification: It is necessary to Pasken like Rava an account of the other Amora'im, but not because of Abaye, since, in the whole of Shas, we Pasken like Rava whenever he argues with Abaye, with the exception of 'Ya'l K'gam'.

Implied Question: It transpires that Rebbi Yochanan now argues with a S'tam Mishnah.

Answer: One can answer that he cited the Mishnah in the name of a Yachid, by specifically mentioning Rebbi Meir's name there.

Conclusion: And the 'Nahagu' here is not the same as the 'Nahagu' in the last Perek of Ta'anis (Daf 26:) where it means that, on the one hand we do not specifically rule like that, on the other if people act according to it, we do not object'.

Clarification: (The firs cup refers to) that of Kidush, and (the last one to) that of Birchas ha'Mazon.

Implied Question: But when the Mishnah in 'Keitzad Mevorchin' (B'rachos, Daf 42.) writes 'Beirach al ha'Yayin she'Lifnei ha'Mazon Patar Yayin she'le'Achar ha'Mazon' ...

Answer: It is referring to the wine at the end of the meal, before Birchas ha'Mazon ...

Conclusion: Because in those days it was customary to drink wine after the meal before Benching.

Explanation #1: The Rashbam explains 'When you recite a B'rachah over the first cup, you won't know whether they will give you another cup; in which case each cup is considered like the beginning of the meal'.

Explanation #1 (cont.): According to the Rashbam's explanation, it implies that they also used to recite a B'rachah in the middle of the meal.

Question: It seems however, that in the house of the Resh Galusa they used to do like Rava who recited a B'rachah only before the first and last cups?

Refuted Answer: And it is a Dochek to say that in the Resh Galusa's house they did not used to drink wine in the middle of the meal.

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that they did not used to recite a B'rachah during the meal, since they knew that their host would provide them with as much wine as they wanted.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Only for Birchas ha'Mazon, where only the Mevarech had a cup of wine, they were not sure whether the Kos woujld reach them or not.

Explanation #1: The Rashbam explains that, although we learn from here that Birchas ha'Mazon breaks the meal, it is nevertheless not necessary to recite a B'rachah before Birchas ha'Mazon, over the wine that one drank during the meal,.

Reason: Since Birchas ha'Mazon covers it.

Reason (cont.): Because if 'one B'rachah that is like three' will suffice, how much more so three B'rachos!

Support: And the B'hag too, learns like that.

Refutation: This is not a valid Kal va'Chomer however ...

Refutation (cont.): Seeing as we Pasken in B'rachos (Daf 21:) that 'things that are brought to the table that are not part of the meal, after the meal (i.e before Birchas ha'Mazon), require a B'rachah both before and after them' ...

Refutation (concl.): And the same applies to figs and grapes that are brought during the meal - and they ate not covered by the three B'rachos of Birchas ha'Mazon.

Explanation #2: Rashi, in a Teshuvah, explains that one needs to recite a B'rachah after it (wine) just as one does after figs and grapes according to Rav Sheishes.

Refutation: This is not correct however, since the Gemara, citing Rav Papa, concludes there that 'things that are brought to the table that are not part of the meal, during the meal, require a B'rachah before but not after them ...

Refutation (cont.): After the meal, require a B'rachah both before and after them.

Conclusion: And this is not like Rav Sheishes.

Answer: And even though Rashi interprets there 'after the meal' to mean things that are normally brought to the table after the meal, such as figs and grapes, that even if one brings them during the meal they require a B'rachah bot before and afterwards.

Refutation #1: This explanation is not correct, as Tosfos explains there.

Refutation #2: Furthermore wine is not comparable to figs and grapes, since it is considered as part of the meal, and does not therefore require a B'rachah afterwards, according to all opinions.

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara explains there that when they asked ben Zoma - why 'Devarim ha'Ba'in Machmas ha'Se'udah be'Toch ha'Se'udah Ein Ta'un B'rachah Lo Lifneihem ve'Lo le'Achareihem', he replied ...

Implied Question (cont.): "Because bread covers them". And when they asked him why bread does not then cover wine (as we learned 'If they brought wine to the table wine during the meal, each participant recites his won B'rachah') ///

Implied Question (concl.): He answered "Wine is different, seeing as it fixes a B'rachah for itself'?

Answer: That is speaking about the B'rachah before, but as far as the B'rachah afterwards is concerned, we do not find that it is Chashuv.

Conclusion: It is not the Minhag to recite a B'rachah after wine during the meal ...

Conclusion (cont.): And it would seem that one does even need to recite a B'rachah over wine that one drinks after the meal ...

Reason: Since it (wine) is always considered part of the meal.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara rules that things that are brought to the table after the meal require a B'rachah both before and after them ...

Answer: That is with the exception of wine.

Conclusion: We however, do not withdraw from the bread until Birchas ha'Mazon; In fact, everything is considered part of the meal, in which nothing requires a B'rachah after it, since it is all covered by Birchas ha'Mazon

Conclusion (cont.): And the days of the Chachamim were different in that they used to withdraw from the bread by removing the table before Birchas ha'Mazon, art which point they used to drink wine and eat fruit.

Question: In Perek Sheloshah she'Achlu (B'rachos, Daf 48.) where Yanai ha'Melech declared 'Who will give us someone to Bench Mezuman (which is equivalent to 'Hav ve'Nivrich)?' How could Shimon ben Shetach possibly combine with them ...

Question (cont.): Bearing in mind the Gemara there which cited the episode (on Daf 47.) where Rav and Shmuel were sitting at the table, when Rav Shimi bar Chiya entered and insisted on eating with them. But they said to him - 'What do you think; That you can join us for a Mezuman? We have already finished eating.

Question (concl.): We see from there that once two people have finished eating, the third one is no longer permitted to make up a Mezuman?

Answer: In any event, the Gemara says there that he (Rebbi Shimon ben Shetach) acted off his own bat (and what he did was not according to the Halachah).

Clarification: He did not recite a B'rachah afterwards, since Birchas ha'Mazon covered it.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara rules that a change of location requires a B'rachah ...

Answer: That refers to the B'rachah before, not the B'rachah afterwards.

Clarification: Even though Birchas ha'Mazon requires a Kos, he did not recite a B'rachah over it.

Support: The Yerushalmi too, says that if one begins to eat on Erev Shabbos before Shabbos comes in, it is not necessary to recite 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen' over Kidush - implying that any D'var Mitzvah that requires a Kos, does not require a 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen', unless there is a Hefsek.

Question: If so, why does one recite 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen' over the second cup, after the Hagadah - even if the Hagadah requires a cup of wine, it should not be necessary to recite a B'rachah over it, since one already recited a B'rachah over the first cup? Granted that over Birchas ha'Mazon one needs to recite a B'rachah, since it is a Hefsek, as it says here?

Answer: Because the Hagadah and Hallel are also a Hefsek?

Implied Question: Even though between the first and second cups one is permitted to drink if one so wishes ...

Answer: Once one begins 'Asher Ge'alanu' it is forbidden to drink, in which case it is like Birchas ha'Mazon, which requires a B'rachah, as we conclude here.

Chidush: Nevertheless, it is considered Kidush in the location of the meal, since in that regard, the Hagadah is not considered a Hefsek.

Implied Halachah: According to what Tosfos just wrote, that Hagadah is a Hefsek, one is obligated to recite 'Borei Nefashos' after the vegetables.

Conclusion: It would seem that one needs to recite 'al ha'Gefen' after each of the four cups except for the second one, which is close to the meal.

Extended Halachah: Likewise, one needs to recite 'al ha'Gefen' after each of the two cups of Erusin and Nisu'in.

Explanation #1: The Rashbam explains that Rav Ashi extrapolates from the fact one does not require two times 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen' - one for Kidush and one for Havdalah - that Kidush s not considered a Hefsek, and the same applies to Birchas ha'Mazon.

Question: How can possibly recite two times 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen' over one cup of wine? We never find such a thing!

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that he extrapolates from the fact that they did not institute wine at the end, that it is not a Hefsek, and the same applies to Birchas ha'Mazon.

Clarification: And this is the Gemara's conclusion, that one recites a B'rachah over the Kos shel Br'achah.

Question: We learned in 'Kisuy ha'Dam' (Chulin, Daf 87.) - 'Either you drink the Kos shel B'rachah or you take forty hold pieces!'

Question (concl.): Why not fifty, on account of the B'rachah of 'Borei P/'ri ha'Gafen'?

Answer #1: It does not contend with it there, on account of Rav Ashi, who did not recoue a B'rachah over the Kos shel B'rachah.

Answer #2: Moreover, there are times that one recites Birchas ha'Mazon without a Kos.