Clarification: Since the salty food is the Ikar, seeing as it comes to revive the person after he became weak-hearted due to the sweetness of the fruit, and the bread that followed was merely Tafeil (secondary).

Question: Why is the fruit not the Ikar and the salty food, the Tafeil?

Answer #1: It speaks where the fruits that he ate was in a different sitting.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it speaks where at the time that he ate the fruits of Ginusar, he did not yet have the salty food and the bread in front of him, because he was not aware that the sweetness of the fruit would make him so weak-hearted.

Implied Question: Even though we have already learned that the bread exempts the Parperes ...

Answer: It is necesary to teach us here that sometimes the bread is the Tafeil.

Implied Question: This cannot be compared what we learned earlier (on Daf 37.) where Raban Gamliel gave permission to Rebbi Akiva to Bensch (over dates) ...

Answer: Since it is different here, seeing as one fixed one's meal over it.

Halachah: But over wine, one recites the B'rachah (Achronah) 'al ha'Gefen ve'al P'ri ha'Gefen ... '.

Reason: Since, on account of its importance it fixes an independent B'rachah (before drinking it), it does the same after drinking it.

Halachah: With regard to the conclusion, there are some who say 'al ha'Aretz ve'al P'ri ha'Gafen'.

Alternative Halachah: It would seem however, that it is not necessary to change the conclusion ...

Reason: since the only change we make is to say 'P'ri ha'Gafen' instead of 'P'ri ha'Eitz'.

Reason (cont.). But there where we do not say 'al ha'Eitz', only al ha'Aretz ve'al ha'Peiros', by wine too, no change is made.

Halachah: The Rambam requires that one mentions any special day, such as Shabbos and Yom-Tov in the B'rachah Achronah, and so it is implied in the Yerushalmi.

Minhag: This is not the accepted custom however.

Compromise: The reason for this may well be the fact that whereas it was customary in those days to fix a meal over wine and a variety of fruit ...

Compromise (cont.): We do not do so nowadays.

Halachah: Rabeinu Chananel rules that someone who eats kinds of Mezonos, such as porridge and figs and who then drinks wine, recites the B'rachah 'Baruch Atah Hash-m ... al ha'Michyah ve'al ha'Kalkalah al ha'Gefen ve'al P'ri ha'Gefen ve'al ha'Eitz ve'al P'ri ha'Eitz ve'al Tenuvas ha'Sadeh ... '.

Halachah (cont.): And he concludes 'Barush Atah Hash-m, al ha'Aretz ve'al ha'Michyah ve'al ha'Peiros'.

Implied Question: This is not considered concluding with two different items ...

Answer: Since the land produces both the Mezonos and the fruits.

Clarification: The questioner it seems, assumes that the Amora'im of Bavel would not speak on behalf of those of Eretz Yisrael.

Question: Despite the fact that Rabeinu Tam said that they would - regarding the Sugya in Kidushin (Daf 29:), where one Beraisa states 'A person should first get married and then study Torah', whereas another Beraisa says that 'One should study Torah first and the get married'?

Question (cont.): And the Gemara there concludes 'The one Beraisa refers to us (the B'nei Bavel); the other, to them (the B'nei Eretz Yisrael)!'

Question (cont.): And Rabeinu Tam explains there that Rebbi Yochanan was talking on behalf of his Talmidim who were from Bavel?

Answer: Perhaps the questioner here knew for a fact that at the time that Rav Chisda made his statement, there were no Talmidim from Eretz Yisrael present. And likewise that there was no Talmidim of Rebbi Yochanan from Bavel present either.

Answer (cont.): That being the case, Rav Chisda, who was from Bavel, would only have referred to the B'nei Bavel.

Conclusion: Hence the Gemara asks 'How could the B'nei Bavel say 'al ha'Aretz ve'al Perosehah', which implies specifically the fruit of Eretz Yisrael, seeing as they (the Talmidim who were present) did not eat them?

Minhag: Our custom is like Rav Ashi ...

Minhag (cont.): In that we recite after water and after vegetables 'Borei Nefashos Rabos ... '.

Halachah: We do not do like the B'nei Ma'arva ...

Reason: Because the B'rachah of 'Lishmor Chukav' is applicable specifically to them, since they would remove their Tefilin at nighttime, as the Torah writes "And you shall observe this statute in its time by day ... ".

Reason (cont.): Unlike us, who remove our Tefilin in the middle of the day, and perhaps even if we remove them at night, "Chukah" is not applicable.

Source: This is because it is only according to the B'nei Ma'arva, who hold that 'Night is not the time of Tefilin', since "mi'Yamim Yamimah" comes to preclude nights, that the B'rachah of "Lishmor Chukav" is applicable.

Source (cont.): Whereas we who hold that 'Night is the time of Tefilin', establish the Pasuk with regard to the Korban Pesach.

Implied Question: And the reason that we do not wear them at night-time ...

Answer: Is in case one comes to emit a smell whilst wearing them.

Answer (cont.): Consequently, even if we wait until night-time to remove them, we will not recite the B'rachah.

Halachah: And even though we hold that Shabbos and Yom-Tov are not the time of Tefilin, still we do not recite a B'rachah (when removing them then) ...

Reason: Because it is specifically they, who maintain that "Chukah" pertains to Tefilin, who recite the B'rachah.

Proof: Proof for this lies in the fact that even they recited the B'rachah exclusively over Tefilin, because the Torah writes there "Chukah"; but not by other Mitzvos, such as Tzitzis, Lulav and Succah.

Question: Then why did the Gemara not answer here 'to preclude other Mitzvos,even with regard to the B'nei Ma'arva'?