Reason: Due to the principle 'Ein Kidush Ela be'Makom Se'udah' ...

Source: Which we learn from the Pasuk "Vekarasa le'Shabbos Oneg", which in turn implies that In the location that one recites Kidush, there one should enjoy Shabbos (i.e. eat the Shabbos meal).

Clarification: According to Rav, one recites Kidush in Shul in order to render Yotzei those who do not have a family, so that they should need to recite Kidush at home.

Question: The Gemara in Perek B'enei ha'Ir (Megilah, Daf 28.) specifically prohibits eating and drinking in a Shul?

Refuted Answer: Even though eating and drinking of a Mitzvah is permitted, as the Yerushalmi states with regard to eating there when performing Kidush ha'Chodesh.

Refuted Answer (con.): And also nowadays one tends to drink there the cup of Havdalah and of B'ris Milah ...

Refutation: Nevertheless, if it is not of a Mitzvah, it is forbidden, as well as sleeping there, it is forbidden?

Refutation (cont.): And the prohibition extends to the Shuls of Bavel, since the Gemara there cites Ravina and Rav Ada bar Ahavah, who would not have entered a Shul because of the rain, if not for the fact that 'Learning Torah requires clarity of mind'.

Query: And when the Gemara says there that the Shuls of Bavel are made on condition ...

Answer to Query: It is referring to after they are destroyed, when they lose their Kedushah.

Answer: When the Gemara says 'be'Bei Kenishta', it does not mean Davka inside the Shul, but rather in the rooms adjoining it, and it is from there that they heard Kidush.

Conclusion: And this goes well , with what Tosfos explained on the previous Amud (DH 'Y'dei Kidush ... ') that 'from one location to another in the same house, where one intends to eat there, one is Yotzei Kidush'.

Clarification: This refers to from a room to a house or from a house to the attic, like from the roof to the ground.

Clarification (cont.): But from one corner to the other, there is Kidush.

Proof: Just as it is not called a change of location shortly, and later with regard to 'Shinuy Makom', where it confines change of location to 'from one house to another'.

Conclusion: But two locations (rooms) in one house has the same Din as one house to another.

Alternative Text: There are some however, who have the text here 'From one corner to another'.

Clarification: This refers to eating bread, as the Gemara explains in the third Perek of Shevu'os (Daf 22:), 'Like people say, 'Let us taste something' and then they go and eat and drink.

Suggested Halachah: If cake will suffice to make up the three Shabbos meals like it does by Succah (See Succah 27.) ...

Qualification: It is specifically by Se'udah Shelishis, but not by the two Se'udos of Friday night and Shabbos morning, which constitute the main Kavod Shabbos.

Implied Question: And the reason that he was not fussy about them eating the Shabbos meal without a lamp, as Rashi explains ...

Answer #1: Was because they could eat the three Shabbos meals in the day-time.

Answer #2: Or because they would be able to eat it later, where there was a lamp but and no wine.

Implied Question: Even though Shmuel holds in Perek ha'Techeiles (Menachos, Daf 41.) that 'Clothes that are lying in a drawer are Chayav Tzitzis'?

Answer: He will concede in the event that one does not have sufficient Tzitzis for all one's garments, that one removes the Tzitzis from the garments that one has put away and attaches them to one that he is wearing ...

Reason: So that the Mitzvah should be on him (rather than in the drawer).

Question: Why does the Gemara not attribute this to the fact that Rebbi Yochanan holds like Rebbi Shimon ...

Question (cont.): Since the Gemara asks in many places (Shabbos, Daf 81:) 'Did Rebbi Yochanan not say that the Halachah is like a S'tam Mishnah, and we learned (a S'tam Mishnah which states that 'A Nazir may comb and separate his hair' ...

Question (concl.): From which we can learn that he holds 'Davar she'Ein Niskaven, Mutar'?

Answer: Perhaps Rebbi Yochanan does not hold like Rebbi Shimon in the case of 'Gereirah', since it is close to making a groove, and is similar to 'P'sik Reisha'.

Clarification: It speaks where they drank in Shul.

Clarification (Cont.): Because even though they werfe Yotzei Kidush with hearing alone, as Tosfos explained earlier, regarding wine they cannot be exempt unless they actually drank

Reason: Since otherwise, it will be a Hefsek (between Kidush and drinking).

Proof: Like we say in 'Keitzad Mevorchin (B'rachos, Daf 40.) in connection with 'ha'Motzi' - that if one interrupts (before eating), one is obligated to repeat the B'rachah.

Clarification: One is however obligated to recite 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv, as the Gemara says in 'ha'Ro'eh' (Ibid., Daf 59:).

Explanation #1: The Rashbam explains that this is specifically where the second wine is better than the first one. And this is also the opinion of the B'hag.

Yerushalmi #1: And this is also implied in the Yerushalmi at the end of 'Keitzad Mevorchin', which, citing Abba bar Rav Huna that 'Someone who drinks new wine and old wine, requires a B'rachah, a change of wine does not, and a change of location does. The Yerushalmi concludes that Hesech ha'da'as (where one has taken one's mind off drinking) is equivalent to a change of location.

Yerushalmi #t (cont.): This implies that new wine followed by old wine requires a B'rachah because old wine is better than new wine; whereas a S'tam change from one wine to another does not require a B'rachah, since one does not know that the second wine is better than the first.

Yerushalmi #2: The case that follows however, clashes with what we just said ...

Yerushalmi #2 (cont.): Because the Yerushalmi then rules one one needs to recite a B'rachah over every barrel. And in answer to the question 'Which B'rachah'? Rebbi Yitzchak in the name of Rebbi answers 'Baruch ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv' ...

Conclusion: Implying that one recites it in all cases, even from good wine to inferior wine.

Refutation: One can refute this however, by establishing it where one does not recognize the second wine, but that, if one knows that it is inferior, one does not recite the B'rachah.

Explanation #2: It seems though that one recites a B'rachah even where (one knows that) the second wine is inferior ...

Reason: Seeing as one recites the B'rachah due to the various brands of wine ...

Qualification: Provided, that is, that the quality of the latter wine is not excessively bad, to the extent that one can only drink it in casew of emergency.

Halachah #1: One recites 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv' irrespective of whether it is in the course of a meal or not.

Halachah #2: A single person is not required to recite it, as is evident in 'ha'Ro'eh' (Ibid.).

Halachah #3: It is only over wine that one recites 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv'' ...

Reason: Because they (the Romans) used to fertilize their vineyards with the blood of Yisrael.

Conclusion: So they instituted 'ha'Tov' - because the bodies did not decompose; 've'ha'Meitiv' - that they were (after many years) given permission ot bury them.

Explanation #1: Such as water and fruit, the Rashbam explains, which do not require an important B'rachah Acharonah (i.e. 'Me'ein Shalosh').

Explanation #1 (cont): And for that reason they do not require a Br'achah in their place.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Consequently, rising from one's place is considered the end of the meal, and when one subsequently continues to eat, it is another meal, which requires a new B'rachah.

Conclusion: But things that require a B'rachah Acharonah in their place , such as wine and the seven species, one returns to one's initial fixture.

Consequently: And the Mishnah in B'rachos (Daf 51.) which requires someone who forgot and did not recite a B'rachah Acharonah, Lechatchilah needs to recite it in one's place, is referring to the seven species.

Clarification: And in the Beraisa which the Gemara will cite shortly, we do not have the text 'to drink wine ...

Reason: Since the Gemara extrapolates that it speaks about things that require a B'rachah Acharonah in their place from the fact that is says 'Akru' (they uprooted ... ) and not from the fact that it mentions wine, which is one of the seven species.

Clarification: The Beraisa which the Gemara cites in support of Rav Chisda does have the text 'wine'.

Question #1: If wine is included among the things that require a B'rachah Acharonah in its place, then why is Rebbi Yochanan's opinion refuted?

Question #1 (cont.): Seeing as Rebbi Yochanan is speaking about wine, since the Gemara is referring to Rebbi Yochanan's statement 'Af Y'dei Tain Nami Yatza', on which it continues that Rebbi Yochanan follows his own reasoning where he said that 'Shinuy Makom does not require a new B'rachah'.

Question #1 (concl.): Whereas the Beraisa is talking about things that do not require a B'rachah Acharonah in their place?

Question #2: Moreover, it will turn out that Rav Chisda argues with Rav and Shmuel, who said above 'Y'dei Yayin Lo Yatz'u'. Whereas it implies that he only argues with Rav Sheishes?

Question #3: Furthermore, the Yerushalmi at the end of 'Keitzad Mevorchin' states that 'Someone who is standing on the east of a fig-tree and he then moves to the west requires a fresh B'rachah'.

Question #3 (concl.): So we see that also with regard to the seven species, a change of location requires a fresh B'rachah?

Refuted Answer: And it is a Dochek to say that it goes like Rav Sheishes, since the Halachah is not like him.

Explanation #2: The Halachah therefore is that wine and the seven species are not included among the things that require a B'rachah Achronah in their place; only bread is, and that incorporates all kinds of bread over which one recites 'ha'Motzi'.

Alternatively: Or perhaps all kinds of cake that are made from the five species of grain are included, too.

Clarification: According to this explanation too, the text in the Beraisa that that the Gemara will cite shortly does not read 'to drink wine' ...

Clarification (cont.): Nor does the Beraisa that the Gemara cites in support of Rav Chisda.

Reason: Since, seeing as it states 'Akru', it can only be talking about the five species of grain.

Halachah: The Halachah regarding all things except for bread and different kinds of cake made from the five species of grain is that they do not require a B'rachah Achronah in their place, and that a change of location does not require a fresh B'rachah.

Clarification: A change of location means even in the same house, such as from the roof to the ground, or from a (side) room to the house.

Clarification (cont.): but not from one corner to another.

Halachah: According to all the above explanations, someone who changes his location in the middle of a meal is permitted to drink wine or water without a fresh B'rachah.

Reason: Because since he is in the middle of a meal, he returns to his initial fixture.

Explanation #1: This implies that wherever there is Hesech ha'Da'as (one takes one's mind completely off the meal), it will not suffice to merely to recite Birchas ha'Motzi, but one also needs to Bench ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): In that case, when the Gemara says later (on Daf 103:) 'When the BaLabos announces 'Come let us Bench!', one is forbidden to drink, it means - until one has recited Birchas ha'Mazon.

Support: And this is also implied in 'Keitzad Mevorchin' (B'rachos, Daf 42.) where, Rabah and Rebbi Zeira were eating, when, after the tables were removed from in front of them, another course was served, which Rabah ate but Rebbi Zeira did not.

Support (cont.): Rebbi Zeira queried Rabah from the ruling that, once the table has been removed, it is forbidden to eat?

Support (concl.): Now, if it would not be necessary to Bench, why did Rebbi Zeira not eat (with a B'rachah)?

Refutation: Perhaps the course that they brought in consisted of bread, and it would have been a Tircha (trouble) to go and wash his hands and to recite a 'Motzi'.

Explanation #2: And when the Gemara here says 'that they require a B'rachah retroactively, that is because due to the concern that they will delay their return until they are hungry again, at which point they will no longer be able to recite Birchas ha'Mazon, as the Gemara states in 'Eilu Devarim' (Ibid, Daf 51:).

Explanation #2 (cont.): But, in the event that they did leave without having recited Birchas ha'Mazon, upon their return, they are only obligated to recite Birchas ha'Motzi.

Proof: If one was always obligated to Bench retroactively, then why does the Beraisa see fit to inform us that 'when they return, they must recite a B'rachah Lechatchilah ...

Proof (cont.): Is this not obvious, since they are always Chayav to Bench.

Clarification: And that which the Gemara says that changing one's location requires