Text: And the first Beraisa, which states 'min ha'Minchah and onwards' is the correct one ...

Reason: Because according to it, our Mishnah goes according to everyone.

Text: The text cannot read 'Rebbi Yochanan Amar Rebbi Avahu' ...

Reason: Seeing as Rebbi Avahu was a Talmid of Rebbi Avahu.

Refutation of Text: We cannot read 'de'Sanya', since in the Beraisa they do not argue about the Hafsakah of Pesach.

Corrected Text: The correct text must therefore be 'ke'de'Sanya'.

Explanation: And the Gemara proves that, just as they argue by Hafsakah of Shabbos, so too, do they argue over the Hafsakah of Pesach.

Reinstating Initial Text: 'My Rebbe Rebbi Yechiel however has the text 'de'Sanya' ...

Explanation: And the Gemara learns from Rebbi Yossi's statement 'Ein Mafsikin', which applies even to Erev Pesach, when one is forbidden to begin eating.

Explanation (cont.): Because on Erev Shabbos, Rebbi Yossi permits even to begin eating.

Proof: Furthermore we will later cite a Beraisa (on Daf 102.) concerning 'A group that is reclining, and the day becomes holy ... '. The Tana there cites the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi - and there the Beraisa says S'tam 've'Kidash', with reference to both Shabbos and Yom-Tov.

Clarification: This means by removing the table, as is evident later, which in turn means that one first recites Birchas ha'Mazon.

Source: As we learned in a Beraisa (ibid. Amud Beis) 'Over the first cup one recites Birchas ha'Mazon. And they generally removed the table before Birchas ha'Mazon, as we learned in 'Keitzad Mevorchin' (B'rachos, 42.) 'When the table is removed, it is forbidden to eat.'

Conclusion: Hence the Gemara will shortly require Akiras Shulchan according to Rebbi Yehudah.

Implied Question: According to the texts that read later 'Over the first cup one recites Kidush, and over the second, Birchas ha'Mazon ...

Answer: They would remove the table before Kidush, in order to break, only they would recite Kidush first, since it is forbidden to drink the cup of Birchas ha'Mazon before having made Kidush.

Conclusion: Because removing the table cannot have taken place between Kidush and Birchas ha'Mazon, seeing as the Tana says 'Poreis Mapah u'Mekadesh', and spreading the cloth is instead of removing the table according to Rebbi Yehudah.

Clarification: One then finishes the Se'udah, recites Birchas ha'Mazon, and then makes Kidush - as is evident in the Beraisa that the Gemara cites later (on Daf 102.)

Inference: This implies that it is not necessary to eat a Se'udah for the sake of Shabbos ...

Proof: Because if one would, why should he wait? Why not interrupt immediately?

Question: How can one make Kidush without a Se'udah, bearing in mind that Kidush must be recited in the location of the Se'udah?

Answer: It is considered 'Kidush in the location of the Se'udah', since he made Kidush immediately after the Se'udah, in which case that Se'udah counts as Se'udas Shabbos, as is evident in the Tosefta, where it says in connection with Rebbi Yossi, that one should mention Shabbos in Birchas ha'Mazon.

Question: According to Rebbi Yossi, how does one fulfil the four cups, seeing as one only recites Kidush after Birchas ha'Mazon, and does not eat another meal?

Answer: One fulfils the four cups in a different order than usual: One begins with the the Kos of Birchas ha'Mazon, then the Kos of Kidush followed by the vegetables, then the third Kos for the 'Mah Nishtanah' followed by the Marror, and Hallel on the fourth Kos.

Clarification: Rebbi Yossi is speaking where they began be'Heter, because where they began be'Isur, he concedes 'Mafsikin'.

Clarification (cont.): And when Rebbi Yehudah says Mafsikin, he is speaking where Shabbos has already arrived, as is evident in the episode that the Gemara cites, which states ' ... and the day became sanctified'; but when the time of Minchah arrives, it is not necessary to interrupt.

Halachah, Opinion #1: The Halachah is like Rebbi Yossi, and on Erev Shabbos and Yom-Tov, one is even permitted to begin eating, like him.

Source: Because whenever Rebbi yehudah argues with Rebbi Yossi, the Halachah is like Rebbi Yossi, as is evident in Eruvin (Daf 46y:).

Halachah, Opinion #1 (cont.): On Erev Pesach however, it is forbidden to begin, and if one did, even be'Heter, one must interrupt, because in that point we Pasken like Rebbi Yehudah.

Halachah, Opinion #2: My Rebbi R. Yechiel however, points out that since the Gemara Paskens like Rebbi Yossi regarding Hafsakah in that case, this implies that regarding Lechatchilah, the Halachah is not like him.

Halachah Opinion #3: Moreover, the B'hag writes that on Erev Shabbos one may not begin to eat from Minchah and onwards

Source: Since even Rebbi Yossi only says that one does not need to interruptp, but not that one is allowed to begin.

Conclusion: The explanation must therefore be that we only rule like Rebbi Yossi regarding Hafsakah, but not regarding Lechatchilah.

Text: The text in the Tosefta reads 'He said to him "If so, we will not interrupt" .'

Explanation: Meaning 'Since you objected, we will not interrupt, in case the Talmidim will see'.

Explanation #1: The Rashbam explains that Shmuel holds like Rebbi Yossi, only he comes to be more stringent than him ...

Proof: Otherwise, like whom does Shmuel hold, seeing as the Beraisa which states 'Poreis Mapah u'Mekadesh' is not referring to Hafsakah, only to someone who comes to begin his meal?

Refutation: His Dochek is unnecessary however ...

Explanation #2: Since Shmuel in fact, holds like the Chachamim

Source: For so it says in the Yerushalmi 'Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel "These are the opinions of Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi; whereas the Chachamim hold 'Poreis Mapah u'Mekadesh' ".

Quandry: One needs to examine the question like whom the Halachah is, because even though Rebbi Yochanan said earlier 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Yossi, and in Perek Mi she'Hotzi'uhu (Ibid. 47:) it is implied that the Halachah is like Rebbi Yochanan against Shmuel ...

Quandry (cont.): There is an opinion that holds that Rebbi Yochanan did not say it.

Quandry (cont.): Furthermore, Rav too, later (on Daf 105.) concurs with Shmuel when he says that 'Shabbos fixes itself'.

Refuted Resolution: And even though regarding matters that are mi'de'Rabban, we follow the more lenient opinion ...

Refutation: That is only when the opinions are equal, as the Gemara says in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 7.)

Observation: Rav, who holds later (on Daf 105.) that 'It (The going out of Shabbos) does not fix for Havdalah', and that if one began eating, it is not necessary to interrupt for Havdalah, argues with Shmuel.

Clarification: This refers to Birchas ha'Mazon, as Tosfos explained above (on Amud Alef) ...

Clarification (cont.): Since they used to remove them, seeing as they had small tables and each person would eat on his own table. They would then remove all the tables except for the one before the Mevarech (who was reciting Birchas ha'Mazon.

Nowadays: We however, all eat at one table, and it is not correct to remove it.

Clarification: This refers to the beginning of the meal, as the Rashbam explains.

Clarification: If we have the text 've'Shavin', it refers to Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi, as the Rashbam explains.)

Implied Question: What the Gemara explains in 'Kol Kisvei' (Shabbos, Daf 119:) that if the good angel finds the table laid, he says ... '.

Answer: Is not a Kashya, since it is laid in another location, only is not brought in to the dining-room until after Kidush.

Nowadays: Because our tables are so large however, it is a problem to bring them in after Kidush, in order not to interrupt so much between Kidush and the Se'udah.

Nowadays (cont.): Consequently, we tend to spread a cloth and make Kidush.

Reason #1: The She'iltos explains that this is in order that the meal comes in honor of the Shabbos.

Reason #2: According to others, it is to commemorate the Manna, which did not fall on Shabbos and Yom-Tov, and was covered with dew on top and underneath, with the Manna in between.

Clarification: Even though only the Mekadesh or somebody else drank, as is evident at the end of 'ba'Kol Me'arvin' (Eruvin, Daf 40:).

Initially: Lechatchilah however, everyone should taste the wine.

Halachah: The Halachah is like Shmuel who holds 'Ein Kidush Ela be'Makom Se'udah'.

Implied Question: Even though we normally Pasken like Rav in matters of Isur. Moreover, Rebbi Yochanan later holds like Rav?

Answer: Nevertheless, the Halachah here is like Shmuel, seeing as Rav Huna, Rabah and Abaye too, shortly all hold 'Ein Kidush be'Makom Se'udah'.

Support: And the Megilas S'tarim too, Paskens like this.

Halachah: Someone who recites Kidush with the intention of eating somewhere else, can render Yotzei those who are eating there, since for them it is the location of the Se'udah.

Proof: And os it seems, since probably it was one of the locals who recited Kidush in Shul on behalf of the guests.

Halachah: And there where there are no guests close to the Shul, one should not recite Kidush (in Shul), since it is a B'rachah le'Vatalah - and we Pasken like Shmuel.

Refuted Alternative: Nor can we say that where someone makes Kidush in one place with the specific intention of eating elsewhere Shmuel will concede that he is Yotzei, and that they (Rav and Shmuel) are arguing by S'tam.

Refutation: Since the Gemara asks that 'According to Shmuel, why does one need to make Kidush in Shul'?

Halachah: From one location to another however (such as from the roof to the ground), it would seem that Shmuel does concede that if one recites Kidush on the roof with the intention of eating on the ground it is considered 'Kidush be'Makom Se'udah'.

Proof: And this is evident in the Yerushalmi, where Rebbi Ya'akov in the name of Shmuel says that 'If one recites Kidush on one house having in mind to eat in another location, one must repeat Kidush'.

Yerushalmi: Rebbi Acha in the name of Rebbi Oshaya Amar Rav there rules that somebody who finds his Succah pleasant can recite Kidush on the last night in his house, and then go and eat in Succah'.

Yerushalmi (cont.): 'And they do not argue, comments Rebbi Bun - Rav is speaking where he did not have in mind to eat in the house where he recited Kidush, whereas Shmuel is speaking where he did.

Clarification: When Rebbi Bun says that they do not argue, he is speaking about two locations in the same house.

Clarification (cont.): And when the Yerushalmi explains that 'He recited Kidush in one house and changed his mind to eat in another house' this is La'v Davka.

Conclusion: According to this explanation, the Yerushalmi does not argue with our Gemara.

Halachah: It is written in the name of Natruna'i Ga'on in the Teshuvos that 'One makes Kidush in Shul and places some wine in one's eyes as a cure.

Source: As the Gemara says in B'rachos (Daf 43:) 'Taking large steps detracts one five-hundredth from one's eye-sight'

Source (cont.): And when does it return? At Kidush on Friday night" '.

Alternative: The Avi ha'Ezri writes however, that this cure can be performed during the Kidush that one makes at home.

Clarification: And one is Chayav to recite a B'rachah a 'Borei P'ri ha'Gofen' at home due to the change of location.

. Inference: This implies that if one recited Kidush at home, one does not need to recite a B'rachah over the wine that one drinks during the meal - even though he holds that it is possible to recite Kidush in a different location than that of the mealh, in which case Kidush does not belong to the meal.

Conclusion: And if that is the case, someone who recites Havdalah at one's table is Patur from reciting a B'rachah over wine during the meal - even though all agree that one may recite Havdalah not in the location of the meal.

Refutation: It is possible to refute the current proof however, since it may well be speaking where one is only exempt from the B'rachah if he wants to drink before the meal, but not during the meal.

New Proof: There is a proof however, from 'Keitzad Mevorchin' (B'rachos. 42.) where the Mishnah states that 'If one recited a B'rachah over wine before the meal one is Patur from a Br'achah over wine after the meal' ...

New Proof (cont.): With regard to the wine that they used to drink after the meal before Benching.

Conclusion: Tis implies that it will certainly exempt the wine that one drinks during the meal, which comes only to wash down the food in one's stomach.

Implied Question: And even according to the opinion that holds there that wine during the meal does not exempt wine after the meal ...

Answer #1: That is because wine that comes to wash down the food does not exempt wine that comes to drink.

Answer #1 (cont): But wine that before the meal that comes to drink is more Chashuv and everybody will agree that it exempts the wine during the meal..

Answer #2: Moreover, if one needed to recite a B'rachah during the meal, why does the Mishnah say that 'Wine before the meal exempts wine after the meal', seeing as the latter is Patur anyway on account of the B'rachah during the meal, at least, according to the opinion which holds that it does?

Refuted Suggestion: And it a Dochek to say that is speaks specifically where they did not drink wine during the meal.

Implied Question: And even though the Gemara establishes the Mishnah by Shabbasos, Yom-Tov or after blood-letting, where one tends to fix one's meal over wine ...

Answer: The same will apply to a weekday, if one has the intention to drink wine during the meal ...

Implied Question: And it only mentions Shabbasos and Yom-Tov ...

Answer: because that is when it is customary to fix one's meals over wine.

Proof: Proof of this lies in the fact that if on Yom-Tov one changes one's mind (i.e. after initially deciding not to drink wine), the initial B'rachah doe not exempt him ... , implying that it all depends on one's intention.

Conclusion: Consequently, if one recites a B'rachah before the meal, with the intention of drinking during the meal, one neither needs to recite 'al ha'Gefen' after it, nor does one need to recite 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen'.

Conclusion (cont.): Whereas if he changes his mind, it does not exempt him, and n addition, he is obligated to recite a 'B'rachah Me'ein Shalosh' after it.