Question: In that case, we are faced with two contradictory rulings, seeing as we Pasken, on the one hand, like Rebbi Yehoshua, on the other, like Beis Hillel?

Answer: It is specifically there that we do not follow the bas-Kol, seeing as it goes against the majority, and the Torah has already taught us that "One must rule according to the majority".

Implied Question: And why does the Gemara cite Rebbi Yehoshua here, even though it is not really comparable (as we just explained) ...

Answer: The Tana here goes further than Rebbi Yehoshua, and holds that we do not follow the bas-Kol at all, even where it is supported by a majority, since Beis Shamai were sharper (than Beis Hillel)

Question: Why is it that by Kidush and Havdalah, we recite the B'rachah over wine first, whereas by Birchas ha'Mazon, we do not recite the B'rachah over wine until after three B'rachos (See Rashash)?

Answer: What alternative do we have? Seeing as if one was to recites the B'rachah beforehand, Birchas ha'Mazon would be an interruption ...

Answer (cont.): Thie is not a problem by other B'rachos, where one has not taken one's mind off drinking, since by Kidush one has in mind to eat, and by Havdalah, one has in mind to drink.

Conclusion: But by Birchas ha'Mazon, one has taken one'smind off drinking.

Inference: It is implied here that one is permitted toeatsomething before Havdalah.

Question: Then why, in the Gemara in Pesachim, did Ameimar stay overnight hungry (i.e. fast), because he did not have wine for Havdalah?

Answer: Ameimar was different, inasmuch as either he anticipated having a cup of wine on then following day, or he was simply strict with himself.

Answer (cont.): And here was different, in that the Mevarech thought that Birchas ha'Mazon requires a Kos, and that is why he set it aside for Birchas ha'Mazon (See M'lo ha'Ro'im).

Qualification: The Rashbam explains that it is only concerning Kidush and Havdalah that the Kos should not be Pagum, but as far as drinking is concerned, one is obligated to recite a B'rachah over a Kos even if is Pagum, due the principle that prohibits benefiting from this world without a B'rachah.

Halachah: In fact though, regarding Kidush and Havdalah too, the Chachamim only forbade it where it is possible, one may recite a B'rachah even over a Kos Pagum, by adding water to it ...

Halachah (cont.): As we learned in the Yerushalmi 'Rebbi Yonah drank from the cup and then rectified it' (i.e. after having drunk from it he added a little water or wine and recited a B'rachah over it.

Clarification: But during the meal, one need not worry about this, since people dry their hands well before eating.

Source: As the Gemara says in Sotah (4:) 'Someone who eats without drying his hands ... '.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas one is not so careful to dry one's hands carefully whilst drinking.

Implied Question: Why does the Gemara not include this with the other cases of 'Teikef' in the sixth Perek (Daf 42.)?

Answer: Since it is mentioned specifically in a Beraisa here, it does not bother to mention it there.

Text: There are some texts that read 'This is what Beis Hillel said to Beis Shamai: Even according to you, that you prohibit using a table that is a Sheini because of those who eat T'rumah, this is better, since there is no such thing min ha'Torah as Netilas Yadayim for Chulin. Therefore it is preferable for the hands to become Tamei and not the food'.

Refutation: This is not correct however, since Beis Shamai forbid using a table that is a Sheini.

Refutation of Answer: And to answer like Rashi - that one might come to use it by chance is a Dochek.

Alternative Text: It therefore appears like the Sefarim that read 'What does "Davar Acher" mean? This is what Beis Hillel are saying to Beis Shamai ... .

Alternative Text (cont.): And if you ask what is the difference between food, that we are concerned about Tum'ah and the hands, that we are not ... ?

Conclusion: According to this explanation, 'Davar Acher' does not have the same connotations as the earlier one, which does not require the first reason given there; whereas this one is merely coming to explain Beis Hillel's reason and to clarify their words.

Clarification: It does however, result in poverty ...

Source: As the Gemara says in the eighth Perek of Chulin (Daf 105:)

Question: It implies that in the case of the obligation to return to one's place and Bensch' (later on Daf 53:) the Halachah is also like Beis Shamai, seeing as the Amora'im followed his opinion?

Answer: The Gemara does not reckon that case, seeing as Beis Hillel themselves concur with Beis Shamai on principle, only they did not bother one to do so.

Question: We tend to do this even Lechatchilah, whereas in Perek ha'Dar (Eruvin 62:) the Gemara says that wherever we find the term 'Nahagu', we do not rule like that Lechatchilah, though if one did so Bedi'eved, it is not necessary to retract?

Answer: There is a Machlokes Amora'im there: One says 'Halachah', which means that one may even rule accordingly Lechatchilah. In that case, the opinion that holds 'Nahagu' holds Bedi'eved.

Answer (cont.): Whereas here (where there is no other opinion), it may well be that 'Nahagu' here means even Lechatchilah, since only 'Nahagu' is mentioned.

Question: Seeing as they do not argue over 'Bara', why do Beis Hillel 'Borei'?

Answer: Because they prefer the Lashon used by the Torah.