Clarification: The Gemara cannot ask here 'Where is the Tana holding, that it asks 'How ... ?', as it asks at the beginning of the Masechta.

Reason #1: Since it is a S'vara to recite a B'rachah, as the Gemara concludes 'That it is forbidden to benefit from this world without a B'rachah'.

. Reason #2: Alternatively, it refers to the Mishnah in 'Mi she'Meiso' (Daf 20:) which states that 'A Ba'al-Keri recites a B'rachah after eating but not before'. So too, it is appropriate to recite over every item. That is why the Gemara asks 'How does one recite a B'rachah?'

Question: Why do we need a specific Pasuk, when in the second Perek of Kidushin, we learn Neta R'vai with a Gezeirah-Shavah "Kodesh" "Kodesh" from Ma'aser Sheini? If so, why can we not learn this Din too, from Ma'aser Sheini?

Answer #1: If not from the Pasuk of "Hilulim", we would have learn the Gezeirah-Shavah "Kodesh" "Kodesh" from Shevi'is le'Chumra, that it is not subject to Pidyon.

Answer #2: Furthermore Rebbi Chayim Kohen explains that had we learned it from Ma'aser Sheini, we would have compared it completely from Ma'aser Sheini, to the point that Chilul (transferring its Kedushah) only applies when Ma'aser Sheini applies - in the first, second, fourth and fifth years of the Sh'mitah cycle.

Answer #2 (cont.): But not in the third and sixth years, where Ma'aser Ani applies (but not Ma'aser Sheini). "Hilulim" therefore teaches us that this is not the case.

Clarification: This means that one does not say Shirah on any other Achilas Mizbe'ach, such as sprinkling the blood or pouring the water; only over wine.

Clarification (cont.): But it is obvious that we find Shirah without wine, such as Halel that accompanied the Shechitah of the Korban Pesach (Tamid Nishchat Daf 64. [See Tosfos there]).

Halachah #1: Nowadays we rule that Neta R'vai applies even in Chutz la'Aretz.

Halachah #1 (cont.): But only with regard to a vineyard, not to any other tree.

Reason: Due to the principle that 'Whoever is lenient in Eretz Yisrael, the Halachah is like him in Chutz la'Aretz''.

Halachah #2: And one redeems the fruit of Kerem R'vai with a P'rutah, which one defaces and throws into the river.

Proof: And so the She'iltos of R. Acha'i explicitly rules (in Parshas Kedoshim, Siman 100).

Question: One can ask that 'The Tzad ha'Shaveh is subject to Leket (seeing as Peret by a vineyard is equivalent to Leket), whereas an olive-tree is not?

Answer: The Gemara is happy to ask a Pircha, even there where the Tzad ha'Shaveh is sufficiently Chashuv to learn the olive-tree from it, and to explain that nevertheless one cannot learn other trees from it.

Reason: Because the main B'achah is the afterwards - as the Torah writes " ... and you shall eat and be satisfied, and bless Hash-m ... ".

Clarification: This is not a genuine 'Kal va'Chomer', because if it was, the B'rachah before eating would be min ha'Torah.

Source: Yet in 'Mi she'Meiso' (Daf 20:) it is implied (with regard to Ba'al Keri) that it is not.

Source (cont.): And what's more, even Rebbi Yehudah only argues there because they gave it the Din of Hilchos Derech Eretz (Ibid. Daf 22.).

Clarification: Such as Basar ve'Chalav.

Question: Why does the Gemara mention meat, and not vegetables, which one cannot learn from there (Neta R'vai) either?

Answer #1: Because the Gemara could then have answered 'Let standing corn prove it!'

Answer #2: But according to Rashi, who reads in the Gemara 'From where do we know whatever is not planted', the question falls away completely (See Maharsha).

Refuted Question: Nor can the Gemara answer (according to Rashi) that one can learn it (vegetables) from other trees and from standing corn ...

Refutation: Since one could still ask 'That they are different inasmuch as they are subject to Pe'ah (whereas vegetables are not).

Explanation: And the Pasuk which the Gemara cited earlier is merrely an Asmachta.

Explanation (cont.): Only the Gemara initially thought that it was a proper Limud.

Precedent: Similarly, we learned in Perek Kol Kisvei (Shabbos 119.) that 'When placing the table, they would say "la'Hashem ha'Aretz u'Melo'ah", and when they removed it, they would say "ha'Shamayim Shamayim la'Hashem, ve'ha'Aretz Nasan li'Venei Adam".

Question: Later, we establish the case where Yisrael are not performing the will of Hash-m?

Answer #1: In fact it is speaking where they are performing the will of Hash-m, but not to the extent that they should, in which case they are not complete Tzadikim.

Answer #2: One can also answer that the Gemara here argues with the Gemara later, which comes to draw a distinction between when they are performing the will of Hash-m and when they aren't ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Whereas here, it speaks where they performing the will of Hash-m, and there is no difference whether they do or they don't (See Hagahos ha'Bach).

Clarification: Rabeinu Tam explains that this ruling is d'Oraysa, but mi'de'Rabbanan, even a Chatzer fixes for Ma'asros, as is implied in Perek Yotzei Dofen (Nidah 47:) 'Which Chatzer obligates a person to Ma'aser ... '?'

Support: And this is evident in Perek ha'Meivi (Beitzah Daf 35.)

Halachah: From here it implies that one is forbidden to drink wine on Erev Pesach from Minchah-time and onwards ...

Halachah (cont.): And that someone who wants to drink wine, should drink a lot, which tends to whet one's appetite.