Explanation #2 (cont.): And when the Gemara in our Sugya says that 'Changing one's location requires a B'rachah', it means a B'rachah before, and not Benching.

Support: And this is how the Rashbam and Rabeinu Chananel explain the Gemara later (on Daf 103:) 'You are forbidden to drink!' - until you recite a 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen'.

Support (cont.): Even though he (Rav Yeiva Saba) did not know whethere they (the Talmidim of Rav) intended to drink without a B'rachah or not.

Support (concl.): He nevertheless instructed them that not to drink without a B'rachah.

Conclusive Proof #1: And this appears to be correct, since in Perek Kol ha'Basar (Chulin, Daf 107:) the Gemara says that 'The Shamash must recite a B'rachah over each slice of bread, because he is Masi'ach Da'as'; and this does not leave one with the impression that he needs to recite Birchas ha'Mazon each time.

Conclusive Proof #2: Furthermore, later (on Daf 103.) regarding where 'One of them recited a B'rachah over the first and the last cups', where the Gemara brings a proof from 'Hav lan ve'Nivrich' that one is forbidden to drink until one recites a B'rachah.

Conclusive Proof #2 (cont.): Now, that's fine if it is a matter of just reciting 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen'; but it is forbidden to drink until one Benches, from where does the Gemara know that after Benching, he will be required o recite 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen'?

Rejected Refutation: Although one can refute this proof, in that it is indeed evident, because if after Birchas ha'Mazon one does not recite 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen', since 'Hav ve'Nivrich' is not a considered an interruption, why is he forbidden to drink?

Rejection: Nevertheless, it is not implied (that one requires both) seeing as the Gemara (later) did not specifically say 'until you recite Birchas ha'Mazon and 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen'.

Logical Proof: In fact, it makes sense to say that, because, since 'Hav ve'Nivrich' is a Hefsek as if one has already recited Birchas ha'Mazon, it will suffice to recite 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen' like one does after Birchas ha'Mazon.

Implied Question: When the Tosefta in B'rachos states that if a friend calls a Ba'al ha'Bayis who is in the middle of the meal to speak with him, he does not require a B'rachah; but if they went far, then he requires a B'rachah in retrospect; and when he returns, he requires a B'rachah Lechatchilah ...

Answer: The Tana means (not that he needs to Bench when he returns, but) before he goes out ...

Answer (cont.): And it is speaking where his friend called him with the intention of going far, in which case he needs to recite Birchas ha'Mazon in case he returns too late, as Tosfos explained earlier.

Proof: Proof of this is to be found in the third Perek of Yoma, (Daf 30.) "If his friend spoke with him and he went far away, he needs to wash his hands'; this implies that he is also required to make a 'Motzi'.

Conclusion: But it says nothing about Birchas ha'Mazon - and it speaks where he did not know in advance that they would go far.

Halachah: The Halachah however, is not like those B'raisos, but that even a B'rachah Lechatchilah is not needed either, seeing as we Pasken like Rav Chisda - that 'One returns to one's original fixture'.

Conclusion: Whereas those Braisos and the Tosefta go according to Rebbi Yehudah.

Halachah: This implies that someone who forgot to Daven remembers during the meal and promptly Davens, he does not require a B'rachah, even Lechatchilah.

Implied Question: And the proof that R. Yom-Tov brings from Perek Kisuy ha'Dam (Chulin, Daf 87.) where the Gemara says that one (is Chayav to recite a fresh B'rachah, since 'One) cannot drink and recite a B'rachah (Benching) at one and the same time'.

Answer: is not a proof, since it is Davka with regard to Birchas ha'Mazon that we say this, seeing as it is an interruption (from eating) and concludes the meal;

Answer (cont.): Whereas with regard to Tefilah, granted one cannot eat and Daven at the same time, it makes no difference.

Explanation #1: The Rashbam explains that the Gemara declines to bring a proof for Rav Chisda from the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah, because it does not specifically mention wine.)

Reason: And he says this according to his opinion, which has the text 'wine' here.

Explanation #2: One can also say that the Gemara declines to bring a proof from there, because there is an opinion in Sanhedrin (Daf 25.) which holds that 'Ba'meh' comes to explain (and not to argue).

Implied Question: And even though they returned, it brings a prrof for Rav Chisda ...

Answer: Because the reason that changing one's location requires a fresh B'rachah is because one got up from one's seat, in which case he same will apply even if they returned.

Clarification: To interrupt the meal, and over the second one he recites Kidush close to the Shabbos meal.

Text #1: This text conforms with what we learned earlier (on Daf 10:) that, according to Rebbi Yehudah, one interrupts before Kidush by removing the table, since it was customary to remove the table before Bisrchas ha'Mazon.

Text #2 (Problem): Whereas according to the Sefarim that have the text 'One recites Kidush over the first cup', because one is not permitted to taste from the cup of Birchas ha'Mazon before making Kidush, from where do we earlier that, according to Rebbi Yehudah, one interrupts before Kidush by removing the table,?

Implied Question: And when the Tosefta in B'rachos, citing Rebbi Yehudah, states that in a case where guests are reclining by their host when Shabbos enters, and they all moved from their places to go to the Beis-ha'Medrash, if they then poured out a cup of wine, they recite over it Kidush ...

Implied Question (cont.): Without a mention of Birchas ha'Mazon?

Answer: That is because they recited Birchas ha'Mazon before they left their places in order to make a break between the weekday meal and the Shabbos meal. And that was why they left their places to go to the Beis ha'Medrash,

Clarification: The Gemara is querying Rebbi Yossi - because, seeing as both (Birchas ha'Mazon and Kidush) come for the Shabbos meal, as Tosfos explained earlier (on Daf 100.).

Clarification (cont.): One ought to have recited them both over one cup,

Clarification (concl.): The Gemara does not query Rebbi Yehudah however, - because, since Birchas ha'Mazon, according to him, goes on a weekday meal, and Kidush, on the forthcoming (Shabbos) meal, one cannot recite them both on the same cup.

Minhag #1: There are some who for this reason, have the Minhag not to recite the Sheva B'rachos over the cup of Birchas ha'Mazon by a Chupah. They bring a second cup, over which they do not recite 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen' ...

Reason: Seeing as they have already recited it over the cup of Birchas ha'Mazon,

Reason (cont.): Because it is not correct to recite it twice.

Minhag #2: Rabeinu Meshulam however, used to say everything over one cup.

Reason: And it cannot be compared to Birchas ha'Mazon and Kidush, which are two separate issues, as the Gemara will explain shortly, whereas here, they are one and the same - since Birchas ha'Mazon leads to the recital of Birchas Nisu'in.

Birchas Erusin ve'Nisu'in: The Minhag is to recite Birchas Erusin and Nisu'in over two cups ...

Reason #1: This is due to the fact that one ends to recite one without the other, as the Gemara says in Kesuvos (Daf 7 .) 'One recites Birchas Erusin in 'the house of Erusin' and Birchas Chasanim in 'the house of Chasanim'.

Reason #2): Moreover, the Minhag is to read the Kesubah in between, which Is a Hefsek. Indeed, that is why they do it.

Conclusion: That is why two cups are required.

Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked from the Mishnah in Eilu Devarim (B'rachos, Daf 51:) which it will cite shortly, where Beis Shamai say 'Ner, Mazon, Besamim and Havdalah' ...

Answer: And it only asks from the Beraisa in order to be able to answer 'Ein lo Sha'ni', and the Beraisa specifically mentions 'Ein lo Ela Kos Echad'' ...

Conclusion: And it is the way of the Gemara to ask from a source from which it knows it can answer easily.

Question: ha'Rav Nisim asks how one is permitted to eat before Havdalah ...

Source: Bearing in mind the statement later (107.) forbidding eating before Havdalah? And Ameimar even went to bed without eating (rather than eat before Havdalah), as the Gemara says there?

Answer #1: And he answers that it speaks her where was eating during the day, when it turned dark in the middle of his meal.

Implied Question: And even though one breaks the meal for Havdalah according to Shmuel, and certainly according to Rebbi Yehudah, who is even more stringent than Shmuel (and we will shortly establish this Beraisa like Beis Shamai according to Rebbi Yehudah)?

Answer: When it says 'He leaves it for after the meal' does not mean that one is allowed to do eat, only that when he stops his meal to Bench, he should then recite Havdalah.

Question #1: However, the Lashon 'ha'Nichnas le'Beiso' does implies that he did not begin to eat whilst it was still day?

Question #2: Furthermore, Mori R. Yechiel asks that later (on Daf 105:) the Gemara will extrapolate from this Beraisa 'Ta'am Mavdil' (that even if one ate (on Motza'ei Shabbos), one is still obligated to recite Havdalah'. Now according to Rabeinu Nisim, who learns that he ate whilst it was still day, one cannot prove that from there?

Answer #2: One must therefore say - that although without good reason one is not permitted to eat before Havdalah, where however, one only has one cup, it is permitted to do so, in order to recite Birchas ha'Mazon over a cup of wine.

Explanation #1: The Rashbam explains that the Gemara currently thinks that it is speaking about the first day of Pesach, when he has many cups of wine, as we learned in the Mishnah (above, Daf 99:) 'One may not give him less than four cups of wine'.

Question #1: He needs all four cups, each one for what it is designated?

Question #2: Furthermore, the Gemara will shortly ask from 'Yakn'haz' - that maybe it is referring to the eighth day of Succos, which requires Z'man ('Shehechiyanu'), and where he has eaten and drunk all that he had?

Question #3: Moreover, the Gemara ought not to have said 'that he has eaten all that he had', if it is referring to cups of wine?

Explanation #2: One therefore needs to explain that on the first day of Yom-Tov, one normally prepares a lot of food, and so one does on Shemini Atzeres, since it is an independent Yom-Tov ...

Proof: As we learned in Chulin (Daf 83.) 'Four times a year the butcher is obligated to inform his customers that he sold the mother ton be Shechted - and one of them is Shemini Atzeres.

Implied Question: Why does Rav not mention 'Besacmim':

Answer #1: The Rashbam explains that the reason for Besamim is to counter the departure of the Neshamah Yeseirah, and on Yom-Tov too there is a Neshamah Yeseirah.

Question: In that case, why did they not institute Besamim on Motza'ei Yom-Tov, too?

Answer #2: It therefore seems that on Yom-Tov there is no Neshamah Yeseirah, and the reason that Rav omitted mention of Besamim, because Simchas Yom-Tov, coupled with eating and drinking are just as effective as Besamim.

Conclusion: Although there are a number of answers that are not correct, this answer is correct. It is the best answer!

Clarification: First wine!

Question: Why did the Chachamim not institute wine first by Birchas ha'Mazon, like hey did everywhere else?

Refuted Answer: One cannot answer that it is because the wine during the meal exempts it (from a B'rachah) ...

Refutation: Because once one says 'Hav lan ve'Nivrich', one is forbidden to drink.

Answer: Birchas ha'Mazon comes to conclude the meal, and breaks with whatever one ate earlier, as the Gemara will say later (Daf 103:) - that 'When reciting Birchas ha'Mazon, one takes one's mind off drinking, and one must therefore recite a B'rachah over the Kos shel B'rachah.

Answer (cont.): Even though one recited a B'rachah over the first cup, and now the cup is in his hand and he has the intention to drink it afterwards ...

Answer (concl.): It is nevertheless considered a Hefsek.

Conclusion: That is why they instituted to recite 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen' after Birchas ha'Mazon, because even if he were to recite is beforehand, he would be Chayav to recite it again afterwards, anyway.