Question: Rashi asks why, seeing as it ('ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv') is d'Oraysa, it begins with 'Baruch'?

Answer (Explanation #1): And he answers that it is because it is short, and is no more than a Hoda'ah, much like Birchas ha'Peiros and Birchas ha'Mitzvos.

Question: Why did the Chachamim present its format different than other B'rachos ha"Semuchos, which end with a Baruch, but do nor begin with one?

Question (cont.): Since it is d'Oraysa, they should have made it longer and finish it with a 'Baruch', and not to make it different than other Semuchos?

Answer (Explanation #2): This is indeed the case, that according to the opinion that considers it d'Oraysa, it ends with a Baruch but does not begin with one.

Support: And so it explicitly states in the first Perek of the Tosefta 'Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili used to extend it and conclude with a Baruch'.

Halachah: We rule however that it is mi'de'Rabbanan; and that explains why it requires ', Malchus', as the Gemara says 'It requires two 'Malchuiyos', apart from its own (as we shall now see).

Clarification: One for 'Boneh Yerushalayim', since it is not correct to mention Malchus Beis David and not Malchus Shamayim (as the Gemara explains).Consequently, one mentions it in 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv'.

Clarification (cont.): And now that one incorporates the Malchus for Boneh Yerushalayim in it (as we just explained), one also mentions Malchus for Birchas ha'Aretz, even though it is Semuchah la'Chavertah ...

Clarification (cont.): And it is because they were not instituted one after the other - since Yehoshua instituted Birchas ha"Aretz and Moshe, Birchas ha'Zan, that they really require 'Malchus', since essentially, they are not Semuchos.

Halachah: Only now that we arranged to recite them in order, we do not begin with 'Baruch'.

Conclusion: There are actually some who mention Malchus in 'Boneh Yerushalayim'.

Question: Why is it not considered Semuchah?

Answer: Because it was not inserted there as a regular B'rachah, only to mention on the occasions that one forgets to say 'Retzei ve'Hachalitzeinu'.

Answer (cont.): That is why it it needs to begin with 'Baruch'.

Implied Question: Why do the B'rachos of the Amidah not begin with 'Baruch'?

Answer #1): Because they are all Semuchos to that of 'Keil Chai ve'Kayam' (See Maharsha).

Answer #2): Alternatively, 'Elokei Avraham is considered 'Malchus'.

Source: Like we learned above (on Daf 7:) 'From the time of the Creation, there was not a person who called Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu Master', until Avraham came along, as the Pasuk says "My master Hash-m, how do I know that I will inherit it?" (Bereishis 15)" '.

Halachah: And if it is (also) Yom-Tov, and one forgot ('Ya'aleh Veyavo'), one includes and says 'Baruch ... she'Nasan Shabbasos li'Menuchah ve'Yom-Tov le'Amo Yisrael le'Simchah'.

Halachah (cont.): And the same will apply if Rosh Chodesh falls on Shabbos (and one forgot 'Ya'aleh Veyavo').

Question: But Rosh Chodesh is one of the days listed in Megilas Ta'anis on which fasting is forbidden?

Answer: What the Gemara means is that if one wishes, one does not need to eat bread, which would obligate the recital of Birchas ha'Mazon, whereas on Yom-Tov one is obligated to eat bread.

Question: But we say in the second Perek of Succah (Daf 27.[in connection with Succos]) 'If one wants one can eat and if one wants one can decline to eat'?

Answer: What the Gemara means is that one has the option of not eating in the Succah if one so wishes, though one is obligated to eat on account of Yom-Tov.

Question: What difference does it make whether one needs to eat because of Yom-Tov or because of Succos?

Answer Rebbi Yehudah explains that the difference will manifest itself there where it rained and one ate outside the Succah ...

Answer (cont.): Because now, as far as Kavod Yom-Tov is concerned, he has fulfilled his obligation, whereas as far as Succah is concerned, on the first day one will be obligated to eat again in the Sucah when it stops raining, since we learn via a Gezeirah-Shavah "Chamishah-Asar" "Chamishah-Asar" from Pesach that one is Chayav, whereas on the other days, it is not necessary.

Implied Question: That what the Gemara says in Perek eilu Devarim (Pesachim 68:) that 'Mar b'rei de'Ravina tended to fast the whole year round - implying that he fasted on Yom-Tov too?

Answer: The Ri establishes that by a Ta'anis Chalom, but other fasts are forbidden.

Halachah: The Ri was uncertain regarding Shalosh Se'udos (whether one needs to repeat Bensching if one forgot 'Retzei'), since perhaps one has the option of eating foods other than bread, as Rabeinu Tam explained, in the same way as we explained with regard to the Succos meal (See Tosfos, Succah 27. DH 'I Bai Achil').

Refutation #1: The Gemara in Kesuvos however in Perek Af-al-Pi (64:) in the Sugya of someone who appoints an agent to feed his wife, refers to three meals for Shabbos, implying that they are all equal.

Refutation #2: Furthermore, since we derive them from the Manna, they must all be the same.

Halachah: If however one eats a fourth meal on Shabbos and forgets to insert 'Retzei', one does not need to start again from the beginning, since one obviously has the option of not eating a fourth at all!

Clarification: The same will apply to Birchas ha'Mazon without Zimun ...

Clarification (cont.): Only the Gemara wants to teach us a Chidush, that one can even Bensch with Mezuman over a k'Zayis.

Explanation #1: Rashi in Pesachim (Daf 49.) defines it as 'A place that is called "Tzofim" '.

Refutation: Tosfos however, queries this in that it should then have added 'and the equivalent distance in all directions'.

Conclusion: One must therefore say that it is not a place-name

Explanation #2: But rather it is an expression of 'seeing' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And what the Gemara means is that if one has traveled from Yerushalayim so far that one can no longer see Yerushalayim, one burns it(the Hekdesh meat) where one is.

Clarification: The Ri explains that these Pesukim are a mere Asmachta, since min ha'Torah one needs to be fully satisfied (in order to have to Bensch)

Source: As the Gemara says in Perek Mi she'Meiso(Daf 20:) 'How can I not favor Yisrael ... ?'

Proof #1: Likewise we say there that 'A son can Bensch on behalf of his father', and we establish the case by someone who ate a Shi'ur de'Rabbanan' - which Rashi explains to mean a k'Zayis or a k'Beitzah.

Proof #1 (cont.): And in any case, if a k'Zayis or a k'Beitzah is d'Oraysa, then which Shi'ur is de'Rabbanan?

Halachah: The Halachah is 'a k'Zayis', since according to Rebbi Yochanan, who inverts the opinions, so that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'a k'Zayis', we rule that whenever Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah have a dispute, the Halachah is like Rebbi Yehudah.

Halachah (cont.): And even according to Abaye, who does not invert the opinions, and according to whom it is Rebbi Meir who holds 'a k'Zayis', that is the Halachah, despite the fact that we normally Pasken like Rebbi Yehudah, here the Halachah will inevitably be like Rebbi Meir ...

Proof #1: Since Rebbi Yochanan follows this opinion earlier (on Daf 48.), where he ruled that one cannot render Yotzei many people unless one ate a k'Zayis.

Proof #3: And like we said earlier (on Daf 38:) with regard to someone who ate a salty olive.

Conclusion: And this is the opinion of the B'hag, Rabeinu Chananel and the She'iltos.

Halachah: With regard to drinking, the Ri maintains that one should be strict and recite a B'rachah on even less thab a M'lo Lugmav (a cheek-full).

Implied Question: Even though this is not the Din regarding Yom-Kipur (See Yoma 73:).

Answer: We do not learn the Din of B'rachah from that of Yom Kipur.

Proof: And proof of this that that although we recite Birchas ha'Mazon over a k'zayis, whereas concerning Yom Kipur, one is not Chayav before eating the Shi'ur of a Koseves (a large date).

Clarification (of Text): We do not have the text 'Nevarech l'Elokeinu',with a 'Lamed' (in ffront) ...

Clarification (of Text [cont.]): Since it is only with regard to Shir and Hoda'ah that we add a'Lamed', such as "Shiru la'Hashem", "Hodu la'Hashem" and Gadlu laHashem", but by B'rachah, we do not find it (See Hagahos and Tziyunim).

Conclusion: And so it explicitly says in Seider Rav Amram.

Clarification: This implies that Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili concedes in Shul (that one does not differentiate between ten and a hundred), since Rebbi Akiva says 'Just as we find... ', which suggests 'where you agree with me!'

Question: Why do they argue over Birchas ha'Mazon, and agree in Shul?

Answer: To be sure, they do not draw a distinction between ten and a hundred with regard to Tefilah, since some people enter and some leave, irrespective of the Shatz;

Answer (cont.): Whereas by Birchas ha'Mazon, where they are all sitting down together, there is no room for error, seeing as nobody leaves the room until after Birchas ha'Mazon.

Question: The Yerushalmi asks from someone who reads in the Torah and from a Chazen, who say 'Borchu!'

Answer: And it answers that since they say 'ha'Mevorach', they are not excluding themselves from the community.

Clarification: The Gemara currently thinks that 'Barchu' is better, since 'Barchu' is a command to bless Hash-m ...

Clarification (cont.): Whereas 'Nevarech' is merely asking for permission.