Clarification: This speaks specifically with reference to the B'rachah Achronah, which requires a Shi'ur, but as for the B'rachah Rishonah, one recites the B'rachah even over less than a Shi'ur ...

Clarification (cont.): Since it is forbidden to benefit from this world without a B'rachah, as regards both eating and drinking.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas the B'rachah Achronah (for drinking) requires a M'lo Lugmav (a cheek-full).

Halachah (Opinion #1): One should therefore take care to drink a M'lo Lugmav of the Kos shel B'rachah, in order to recite a B'rachah Me'ein Shalosh after it.

Halachah (Opinion #2): The Ri used to recite 'Borei Nefashos' even over less than a Shi'ur, seeing as 'Borei Nefashos is not a major B'rachah.

Refutation: This is not correct however, because, since the Chachamim instituted 'Borei Nefashos' corresponding to 'Al ha'Gefen', just as 'Al ha'Gefen' requires a Shi'ur, so too, does 'Borei Nefashos'.

Yerushalmi #1: The Yerushalmi asks how Rebbi Yochanan could recite a B'rachah Achronah over an olive, seeing as it lacks the Shi'ur?

Yerushalmi #1 (cont.): And it answers 'Because of 'Beryah' (a complete entity). Since even if one eats a single grape or a single pomegranate pit, one is obligated to recite a B'rachah Achronah because of 'Beryah', even though it is less than a k'Zayis.

Dispute (Opinion #1): The Yerushalmi argues with our Gemara however, as is implied in the current ruling.

Conclusion: That being the case, the Halachah is not like the Yerushalmi.

Opinion #2: Rav Yosef (Tuv Ileim) however, explains that the Yerushalmi does not in fact, argue with our Gemara ...

Explanation: Which speaks where the pit was removed and the olive salted, in which case, the olive is not like it originally was. But something that he eats whole, even a mere pomegranate pit, requires a B'rachah both before and after eating it.

Explanation (cont.): Whereas the Yerushalmi understood that the olive was in fact, complete, which explains why it had to establish it by a case where he ate a complete entity (a Beryah) - and the two are not arguing.

Yerushalmi #2: Furthermore, the Yerushalmi rules that if someone recites a B'rachah over a Turmus (lupine) bean with the intention of eating it, and he drops it and takes another one, he is obligated to recite a fresh B'rachah.

Question: It asks in what way this differs from water in a spring over which one recited a B'rachah, and which then flowed away, and one drinks water that was not there when he recited the B'rachah.

Answer: The latter case is different, the Yerushalmi explains, inasmuch as (knowing that the water would flow away) he initially had in mind to drink the water that would arrive later.

Answer (cont.): Which is not the case with the Turmus bean, which he did know would fall from his hand.

Halachah: And he should say the Pasuk 'Baruch Shem ... ", since he recited a B'rachah le'Vatalah.

Conclusion: In fact, it is the right thing to say "Barush Sheim" whenever one has recited a B'rachah Levataleh.

Explanation #1: Rashi translates this as plums.

Refutation: It is not however, correct, since it will shortly be implied that one recites over it 'Borei ha'Adamah' - whereas if it is plums, one ought to recite 'Borei P'ri ha'Eitz'

Explanation #2: It therefore seems to be a kind of cabbage.

Clarification: It would appear that this is referring to the B'rachah Rishonah ...

Proof: Because if it referred to the B'rachah Achronah, we have learned in Chulin (106.) that there is no Mezuman over fruit.

Clarification (cont.): And that is speaking where they sat down together.

Halachah: As far as we are concerned however, the Din of sitting down together (even as regards the B'rachah Rishonah) is confined to bread.

Conclusion: Consequently, everyone is obligated to recite his own B'rachah, both as regards fruit and as regards wine.

Conclusion: And this is the Halachah - that if someone has before him two kinds of fruit what he prefers takes precedence.

Conclusion (cont.): So too, 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah takes precedence over 'Shehakol Nih'yah biDevaro', since it more specific and therefore more Chashuv.

Conclusion (cont.): So he should recite the B'rachah over the fruit that requires 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah' even though he prefers th over which one recites 'Shehakol ... '.

Halachah: If on the other, there are a number of fruit in front of a person that all require the same B'rachah, only one of them belongs to seven species (which require a B'rachah Achas Me'ein Shalosh) the latter takes precedence.

Clarification: One recites over it 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah, even though it is basically water with the taste of vegetables, one nevertheless recites the same B'rachah as one would over vegetables.

Implied Question: Even though we learned earlier that fruit-juice is considered mere 'perspiration' (and requires the B'rachah of 'Shehakol')

Answer: One can draw a distinction between the two..

Question: How is it speaking here? If there is a Shaleim in front of him, we will learn shortly that everyone agrees that a Shaleim takes precedence?

Question (cont.): Whereas if there are only the pieces, on what basis does Rebbi Chiya argue, seeing as we concluded earlier (37:) that 'Over crumbs, even if they are smaller than a k'Zayis, one recites ;'ha'Motzi', provided they have the form of bread?

Answer: It speaks where there is a whole loaf in front of him, and he recited the B'rachah over the broken pieces:

Answer (cont.): Rav Chiya bar Ashi maintains that it is considered Shaleim, seeing as he prefers it, which is why he recites the B'rachah over it.

Answer (cont.): Whereas Rebbi Chiya holds that 'the B'rachah must conclude with the loaf.

Answer (cont.): Which means that the conclusion of the B'rachah must coincide with the cutting of the complete bread.

Conclusion: Consequently, since the Tzenumah is already broken into pieces, the complete loaf takes precedence.

Halachah: But were it not for the complete loaf, Rebbi Chiya would concede that one recites over the crumbs 'ha'Motzi'.

Clarification: This means that one should not separate a piece form the loaf until after the B'rachah.

Minhag: And there are in fact, some people who recite the Birchas ha'Motzi before cutting the loaf (i.e. without separating it), so that it remains complete for the duration of the B'rachah.

Refutation: This is not the correct thing to do however, since it (cutting the bread) is an interruption between the B'rachah and the eating.

Qualification: But on Shabbos one should be strict and recite the B'rachah before cutting the Chalah, not to cut the bread before one has finished the B'rachah, since then (if one does) the Chalah will lose its status of 'Lechem Mishneh'.

Proof for First Opinion: In Perek Sheloshah she'Achlu (B'rachos 47.), we conclude that one should not cut the bread before the participants have answered 'Amen' to the B'rachah.

Support: And there are some who prove from there that one is obligated to conclude the B'rachah before cutting the bread, based on Rebbi Chiya in the Yerushalmi, who states that 'One recites the B'rachah over bread only at the time when one cuts it (i.e. before one severs it ...

Reason: Because, if one were to cut it before the B'rachah, perhaps the severed piece will fall from his hand, and he will not be permitted to eat a fresh piece without reciting a new B'rachah, which constitutes a B'rachah Levatalah.

Conclusion: Whereas if he would need to recite the B'rachah over the complete loaf, without being permitted to sever a piece before the B'rachah, then, even if a piece were to fall from his hands, he would not need to recite a second B'rachah, but would be Yotzei with the first one.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that if the pieces and the complete loaves are the same size, then one may recite the B'rachah over whichever one wants; whereas if the pieces are larger, then one is obligated to recite the B'rachah over the pieces to cover the complete loaves.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan 'It is preferable to recite the B'rachah over the complete loaves'.

Question #1: In that case, they hold opposite opinions, in that Rav Huna considers larger pieces better (than complete loaves), whilst according to Rebbi Yochanan, the complete loaves are preferable?

Question #2: Furthermore, why do they change the wording, when he refers to a 'P'rusah of wheat' (from the 'Pesisin' that they discuss here)?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that the Gemara is talking about large pieces and small loaves ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And what Rav Huna is saying is that one recites the B'rachah over the pieces if one so wants, and over the complete loaves if he prefers.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan, the complete loaves take precedence.

Halachah: And this the Halachah, because if we rule like Rebbi Yochanan against Rav, whenever Rav, how much more so against Rav Huna, who was Rav's Talmid.

Conclusion: And it is only by the later Amora'im that we Pasken like the latter opinion.

Clarification: Since wheat takes precedence, because it appears first in the Pasuk.

Clarification (cont.): But if there are pieces and complete loaves of the same species, even if the pieces are of 'Pas Nekiyah' (made from fine white flour), and the loaves of black bread, one recites the B'rachah over the complete loaves.

Proof: Like we find in the Tosefta (Perek 5) 'Complete loaves of baker's bread and complete loaves privately baked, one recites the B'rachah over the baker's loaves ...

Proof (cont.): Pieces of baker's loaves and complete loaves privately beaked, one recites the B'rachah over the privately-baked loaves ...

Proof (cont.): 'Kasher' bread and bread baked by a Nochri, one recites the B'rachah over the 'Kasher' bread Lechatchilah ...

Precedent: Similarly it says in the Yerushalmi that 'Tahor bread and Tamei bread, one recites the B'rachah over the Tahor bread'.

Conclusion: But if one prefers the bread of a Nochri and it is Pas Naki, and the bread of the 'Kasher bread' is not preferred, one recites the B'rachah over whichever bread one wants

Proof: As the Yerushalmi says: 'Pas Naki Tamei and black bread Tahor, one recites the B'rachah over whichever one one pleases.

Another Opinion: Rabeinu Shimshon however, demanded that (in the latter case) one remove the white bread of a Nochri from the table until after Birchas ha'Motzi.

Proof (cont.): 'If there are two loaves of the same kind of bread, if one of them is Pas Naki, then it takes precedence, since it is generally preferred.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that half a large onion is considered 'Chashuv', since it is larger than a small complete one.

Refutation #1: But this is not correct, since what the Gemara appears to mention half a large onion, because it is the same size as the small complete one, and not because it is larger.

Refutation #2: Moreover, if that is the case, it is not similar to the Chashuv that we learnt with regard to a piece of wheat-bread, where the two kinds of bread mentioned there are equal.

Explanation #2: One therefore needs to explain that the two breads are equal, the (half) larger one is tastier than the smaller one.

Clarification: Rashi also explains that the Gemara cites 'Tana'i' on the Seifa - where one recites the B'rachah over the piece of wheat-bread and exempts the complete the complete barley-loaf from a B'rachah.

Clarification (cont.): Because he holds that Chashuv takes precedence, whilst the other opinion holds that wheat, which comes first in the Pasuk, takes precedence.

Proof: One cannot explain however, that wheat is preferable because wheat-bread is mofre Chashuv than barley-bread, since we explained (in the previous Dibur) that when there are two breads of the same kind, even if is Pas Neki'ah and the other, black bread, the complete one takes precedence.

Question: From where does he know this? Perhaps wheat is more Chashuv, because it appears first in the Pasuk?

Answer: What the Gemara means is that just as there, although logically, 'Chashuv' ought to take precedence as fara s the Kohen is concerned, seeing as the Pasuk says (in Bamidbar 18) "When you separate the best from it", yet nevertheless, we say that 'Shaleim' takes precedence ..

Answer (cont.): By the same token, we will say say that 'Shalem' takes precedence over pieces of wheat-bread, even though the Pasuk mentions the latter first.

Supporting Rashi: Rashi is right, in not explaining 'ki'Tana'i with reference to the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Rav Huna ...

Proof: Since from the fact that Rav Huna explains that when they are equal, he can recite the B'rachah over whichever one he wants, we see that he is particular neither about 'Chashivus' nor about 'Sh'leimus'.

Proof (cont.): In which case 'ki'Tana'i' makes no sense.

Even According to Rabeinu Tam: And even according to Rabeinu Tam, who explains that he may recite the B'rachah either over the large pieces or over the small complete ones, we see that he gives neither of them precedence, but considers them both equal.

Even According to Rabeinu Tam (cont.): In which ki'Tana'i cannot refer to the Amchlokes regarding the pieces.

Implied Question: Granted, he said earlier that in a case of large pieces and small complete ones, the latter takes precedence ...

Answer: That speaks specifically with regard to the B'rachah ...

Answer (cont.): Where one does not care to recite the B'rachah over the large one; Why should he, seeing as it is not better quality than the other one.

Answer (cont.): But as far as giving to the Kohen is concerned, it is certainly preferable to give him the larger, more Chashuv one, seeing that is what the Kohen would (obviously) prefer.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains - 'And he breaks from both Matzos, or he breaks from the complete one only ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): In which 'both of them' refers to the fact that one places the broken one underneath the complete one, giving the impression that one is breaking both of them.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Even though he breaks specifically the complete one.

Refuted Explanation: He declined however, to explain that he breaks whichever one he wants, either the broken piece or the complete one ...

Refutation: Because, because the fact that Rav Papa said 'inside the complete one' implies that the complete one is the main one.

Conclusion: According to Rashi, 'Yerei Shamayim Yotzei Yedei Sheneihem' refers to - the opinions of Rav Huna and Rebbi Yochanan - regarding their Machlokes concerning both the pieces and the complete ones.

Explanation #2: Whereas according to Rabeinu Tam, one cannot explain it like that. It cannot refer to the pieces, since there would be no need to do that, only to recite the B'rachah over the complete Matzah, and that would suffice according to both opinions ...

Proof: Because even Rav Huna only said that one may recite the B'rachah over the pieces if one wants, but it is obvious that if one recited over the complete one, one is Yotzei.

Conclusion: It therefore seems that Rabeinu Tam has the text 'Sheneihen' (rather than 'Sheneihem') with reference to the two loaves - the piece of wheat bread and the complete barley loaf.

Explanation #1: Because the Torah writes "Lechem Oni", one places the brokem Matzah underneath the complete one, giving the impression that one is breaking them both.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Nevertheless, one breaks only the complete one, and over the broken one recites ' ... al Achilas Matzah', before making a sandwich and eating them together.

The Custom: And this is the accepted Minhag.

Opinion #1: One cannot however, recite both 'ha'Motzi' and 'al Achilas Matzah' over the broken Matzah ...

reason: Since that would be akin to making Mitzvos into 'bundles'.

Opinion #2: It seems to me, says Tosfos, that since one of the B'rachos is a Birchas ha'Nehenin, it is not called 'bundles' ...

Proof: Like we find by Kidush, where we recite Kidush and then the B'rachah over wine.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Menachem from Yuni however, used to recite both B'rachos over the broken Matzah, since the complete one comes only to make up the Lechem Mishnah.

Explanation #3: Whereas the Ri was accustomed to recite the B'rachah of ha'Motzi over both Matzos before breaking them, then 'al Achilas Matzah, before breaking them both.

Explanation #3 (cont.): And this is not considered 'Making the Mitzvos bundles', seeing as he recited them over both Matzos.

Reservations: Sometimes however, the Ri would avoid Machlokes, since he did not want to change the Minhag ...

Conclusion: So he recited first the B'rachah of 'ha'Motzi' before partially breaking the coplete Matzah, without separating it completely. Then he would recite over the broken Matzah 'al Achilas Matzah and break both Matzos together.