Explanation #1: According to Rashi, who explained earlier that Ula only said 'ha'Mavdil bein Kodesh le'Chol' and no more ...

Question #1: The Question arises what did the questioner think? Why is it not obvious that it is similar to Birchas ha'Peiros, since there is no shorter B'rachah than this?

Question #2: Moreover, we can say that Ula holds like Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi, who also did not apparently conclude with 'Baruch'?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that Ula too, inserted all the other Havdalos, and was then silent without a conclusion.

Explanation #2 (cont.): The questioner thought that, since the B'rachah is a little lengthy, it ought to conclude with 'Baruch', like Kidush, where one does so, since it is a little lengthy, even though it too, comprises thanks.

Explanation #2 (concl.): And the Yerushalmi answers that it is nevertheless similar to the B'rachah over fruit.

Support: And so it seems that Rav Yehudah only made inquiries to discover whether Ula would conclude like Rav or Shmuel (on Amud Alef there).

Clarification: Since it is forbidden to eat before Kidush even if one began to eat whilst it was still day.

Conclusion: Likewise, Shabbos fixes for Ma'aser even if one began to eat casually whilst it was still day.

Proof: Like we say at the end of 'ha'Meivi Kadei Yayin' (Beitzah, Daf 35.) 'If someone is eating a bunch of grapes and and Shabbos came in, Rebbi Eliezer permits him to finish eat, whereas Rebbi Yehoshua forbids him to do so.

Explanation #1: This implies that they used to eat on Shabbos just before nightfall.

Question: But they had the Minhag not to eat between Minchah and Ma'ariv?

Support #1: we also find that Rabeinu Tam was angry with Rabeinu Meshulam, when he introduced eating between Minchah and Ma'ariv ...

Source: Because the Medrash says that 'Someone who drinks water on Shabbos Bein-ha'Shemashos is guilty of stealing from his deceased relatives'.

Support #1: And he writes how they once did this in Losir and it resulted in a situation of life-danger.

Support #2: And only reluctantly did they permit eating after Viduy on Erev Yom Kipur, due to (the fear of) drunkenness (if one ate before).

Support #3: And they were similarly reluctant to allow eating on Tish'ah be'Av (before nightfall) which falls on Shabbos and is postponed until Sunday.

Explanation #2: One can refute the question by establishing the case where one began to eat be'Heter, and where in the middle of the meal one stopped to Daven Minchah, in which case one is permitted to complete the meal afterwards.

Clarification: This refers to drinking without eating, which does not have a fixture. Consequently, one must interrupt.

Implied Question: And the Beraisa which states that 'Whoever tastes will die of Ask'ra (croup)' ...

Answer: Is not talking about water.

Clarification: 'Will die of Ask'ra' is measure for measure - inasmuch as he allowed his throat to be satiated, he will be strangled, since Ask'ra is in place of Chenek (strangulation) ...

Source: As the Gemara says in Kesuvos (Daf 30:) 'Someone who is Chayav Chenek, will either drown in the river or die by 'Serunki' (which is equivalent to Ask'ra).

Question: The Gemara could have listed a ninth item - that it is permitted to eat before Havdalah in the event that one possesses only one cup of wine?

Answer: According to Rabeinu Nisim, who establishes the case where one began to eat whilst it was still day, this question is answered.

Reservation: There is a problem with his explanation however, as Tosfos explained above (See Tosfos 102: DH 'Manicho').

Question: In Perek Ein Omdin (B'rachos, Daf 33:), where, in answer to Ravina's question, Rava told him that Havdalah, like Kidush, must be said both in Tefilah and over a cup of wine ...

Question (cont.): Why did he not resolve Ravina's She'eilah from the current Beraisa?

Answer: On account of the Beraisa there, which maintains that it is not necessary to recite Havdalah both times, since it says that 'Someone who recites it both times (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) will receive many blessings'.

Implied Question: And when it implies here that one definitely recited it in the Tefilah, even though there are some people who do not do so, since it says 'ha'Madil ba'Zu u'va'Zu' ...

Answer: That is because most people recite it in the Tefilah (See Maharsha).

Inference #1: This implies slightly that even an individual requires a Kos when Benching, since 'Someone who enters' implies that he is on his own.

Inference #2: So too is this implied later (on Daf 117:) when the Gemara, after stating that 'One recites over the third Kos Birchas ha'Mazon' extrapolates from there that 'Birchas ha'Mazon requires a Kos' - and the four Kosos were instituted even for an individual.

Refutation: It is possible to refute this proof however, in that it is because generally Birchas ha'Mazon requires a Kos when there are three people that they instituted it on Pesach even by an individual.

Refutation (cont.): Because, if there was no occasion on which it needed a Kos, why did they institute it on Pesach? Why did they not rather institute some song or other for the third Kos?

The General Minhag: The accepted Minhag however, is to Bench with a Kos only when there are three people ...

Rashbam: Though R. Sh'lomoh ben R. Meir requires even one person to Bench over a Kos.

Support #1: And that is also evident in Medrash Shochar Tov in connection with the Pasuk (in Tehilim) "Shinei Resha'im Shibarta".

Support #2: And furthermore Mori R. Yechiel proves that even a Yachid requires a Kos

Support #2 (cont.): Because otherwise, why leave the Kos for after the meal? Let them recite Havdalah before Birchas ha'Mazon, and let each person eat by himself, in which case, a Kos will not be needed for Birchas ha'Mazon?

Question: According to Raban Gamliel, who says in 'Keitzad Merchin' (B'rachos, Daf 44.) that each of the seven species requires three B'rachos (i.e. Birchas ha'Mazon

Question (cont.): If Birchas ha'Mazon would require a Kos, then that Kos would require a Kos and so on ad infinitum ...

Conclusion: And one will never be Patur?

Answer #1: They only instituted a Kos after a meal consisting of bread.

Answer #2: According to the B'hag, who maintains that one does not recite 'al ha'Gefen' after Birchas ha'Mazon, the problem is also resolved.

Halachah: And it would seem that the Halachah is that Birchas ha'Mazon requires a Kos.

Implied Question: And as for the Beraisa in 'Eilu Devarim' (Ibid, Daf 52.)?

Answer: The Gemara there establishes it as a Machlokes Tana'im according to Beis Shamai.

Clarification: Seeing as one does not divide it into two cups.

Question: But surely the fact that the Tana says that he only has one Kos implies that he does not have another vessel into which to pour it?

Proof: Because so the Gemara says in B'rachos in 'Eilu Devarim' (Ibid.) 'Do Beis Shamai really hold that Birchas ha'Mazon requires a Kos? But did we not learn in the Mishnah that if wine is brought after the meal and he only has one Kos, one recites the B'rachah over the wine and then Birchas ha'Mazon.

Proof (cont.): Does this not mean that he recites the B'rachah and drinks immediately? 'No' replies the Gemara, 'it means that he recites the B'rachah and leaves it for Birchas ha'Mazon'.

Proof (cont.): 'But did Mar not say that whoever recites the B'rachah must drink some of it?'

Proof (cont.): 'It speaks when he drinks some from his hand' (that he pours some wine into his hand and drinks, without having to spoil the wine (by using for Birchas ha'Mazon a Kos from which he has drunk)'.

Proof (cont.): And it speaks there where there is not exactly a Revi'is (but a little more).

Conclusion: In any case, since the Gemara explains that he places some wine into his hand and not into another cup, it implies that 'if he only has one Kos' means that he only has one cup?

Answer: There, where it speaks where there is more than a Revi'is, 'He only has one Kos' indeed implies 'only one cup' ...

Proof: Because if it means that he has less than two Revi'iyos, one does not require a Shi'ur to drink, seeing as one recites a B'rachah even over a Mashehu, so as not to benefit from this world without a B'rachah.

Proof (cont.): Consequently, he could recite the B'rachah and drink what was in excess of a Revi'is, leaving the rest for Birchas ha'Mazon.

Answer (cont.): The Tana must therefore mean that 'he only has one cup'.

Answer (cont): Whereas here 'He only has one Kos' does not seem to mean that 'he only has one cup' ...

Proof: Since the Tana says 'Someone who enters his house' - who has not yet begun to eat, and it is impossible that he will not find another cup ...

Proof (cont.): because it is unlikely that the Tana is talking about someone who is destitute (who does not possess any household articles).

Conclusion: So it must therefore mean that he does not have enough for two Kosos.

Conclusion: And in B'rachos, where it speaks where they brought wine to the table, it may well speak where there was only one cup ion the table.

Clarification: And not wait until tomorrow prior to eating.

Clarification: The Gemara assumed that the cup contained more than a Revi'is, and that, because it did not contain two Revi'iyos, it referred to it as 'one cup'.

Clarification (cont.): In that case, the proof that 'Ta'amo Pagmo' is a good one, because, even though the cup of Birchas ha'Mazon requires a Shi'ur ...

Clarification (cont.): He need only taste the 'M'lo Lugmav' that is in excess of the Revi'is, leaving the Revi'is for Birchas ha'Mazon.

Conclusion: And Rav Ashi rejects the proof, in that it is speaking where there is not a Shi'ur M'lo Lugmav in excess of a Revi'is, so that if he were to taste it, less than a Shi'ur would remain.

Question: The question remains however, how it is possible to prove from here that 'Ta'amo Pagmo'?

Question (cont.): One can still ask why he does not taste it from his hand or from another cup, as we learned in Eilu Devarim?

Answer: Regarding an obligatory Kos, such as that of Havdalah, Birchas ha'Mazon or Kidush, one must drink directly from a Kos which holds a Revi'is.

Answer (cont.): In which case it is not possible to taste it from one's hand or from another Kos ...

Conclusion: Whereas in B'rachos, where it is not referring to an obligatory cup, it is possible to rectify the problem by tasting the wine from one's hand.