Previous daf

1)

(a) When the one disciple of Bar Kapara recited a Berachah over the young fowl, his friend laughed at him.

(b) According to one explanation, Bar Kapara was angry with the disciple who laughed. If the one disciple simply loved fowl's meat, giving it precedence regarding the Berachah, that is no reason for his friend to laugh at him.
According to the other explanation, he was angry with the disciple who made the Berachah without first consulting him (it is almost like issuing a ruling a ruling in the presence of one's Rebbe).

(c) The Gemara at first thought that the Talmid who recited the Berachah maintained that the Berachah over cooked vegetables is 'She'hakol'. Consequently, priority had to be given to the meat which he preferred. Whereas his friend maintained that the Berachah over cooked vegetables is 'Adamah', which gives them more Chashivus than the birds (because 'Adamah' is more Chashuv than 'Shehakol'). As a result, he should have recited the Berachah over the vegetables.

(d) Alternatively, the Gemara suggests, they could both agree that the appropriate Berachah over cooked vegetables is 'She'hakol', and nevertheless, the second Talmid laughed at the first, because, in his opinion, cooked cabbage take precedence over meat. Why is that? Because it sustains (See Sugya above, 35b), whereas fowl does not.

(a) Rav Huna maintained that cutting-up turnip very finely changes the format of the turnip.

(b) Rav Yehudah would recite 'Adamah', because the turnip was, in fact, improved, due the fact that cutting it up finely actually made it sweeter.

(c) Rav Kahana thought that the Berachah over cooked beetroot was Adamah, because the small amount of flour added was Bateil to the beetroot. Whereas the excess flour added to the turnip prevented the flour from becoming Bateil, since it is evident that the flour is added for taste.

(d) He retracted however, on the grounds that the extra flour is not meant for taste, but rather to bind the food. Consequently, it is still secondary to the turnip.

(a) Cooked spinach is good for the heart, the eyes and the stomach only if it is so well cooked, that one can hear the pot going 'Tuch', 'Tuch', 'Tuch'.

(b) If mint is normally cooked for taste, then recites over its juice is 'Adamah', whereas if it is to remove the scum, then the Berachah will be 'Shehakol'.

(c) The Mishnah in Uktzin says 'ha'Sheves, *mi'she'Nasnah Ta'am bi'Kedeirah*, Ein Bah Mishum Terumah, ve'Einah Me'Tam'ah Tum'as Ochlin'. So we see that mint is added to a dish in order to add taste.

(a) 'Pas Tzenumah bi'Ke'arah' is pieces of dry bread that one places into a dish to soak Rav Chiya bar Ashi teaches us that, although it is not whole, one nevertheless recites ha'Motzi over it (See Tosfos, who explain that it speaks when he also has a loaf of bread in front of him, and the Chidush is that if he prefers it, it has a Din of Chaviv).

(b) 'Tzarich she'Tichlah Berachah Im ha'Pas' implies that he concludes the Berachah as he finishes reciting the Berachah, in which case there is no difference between it and the pieces of bread in the dish, so how does Rav Chiya bar Ashi's Din then clash with Rebbi Chiya?
Therefore we have to explain that one first recites the Berachah and then cuts the bread, in order that the bread should remain whole during the recital of the Berachah. In that case, it clashes with Rav Chiya bar Ashi, who permits a Motzi even when the bread is already in small pieces?

5)

(a) What Rav Huna means is that, assuming that the pieces are *the same size* as the whole breads, he *may* nevertheless recite the Berachah over the pieces. And if the pieces *are larger*, then he is *obligated* to recite a Berachah over them.
(See Tosfos, who disagree with Rashi. According to them, it is only if the pieces are larger, that Rav Huna permits one to recite over the pieces, should he so wish).

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, one always recites the Berachah over a whole bread, rather than a broken piece.

(c) Provided, that is, that they are both wheat bread or barley bread. But if one has whole barley breads and broken pieces of wheat bread, then the wheat bread takes precedence.)

(a) The Gemara compares a whole onion vis-a-vis a larger half onion, to a broken wheat-loaf vis-a vis a whole barley-loaf.
In both cases, the latter is Chashuv (because it is larger) in contrast to the former. Consequently, the Gemara thought that Rav Huna (who gives priority to the more Chashuv, will hold like Rebbi Yehudah, whilst Rebbi Yochanan, who goes after what is whole, rather than Chashuv, holds like the Rabbanan.

(b) The Gemara however, concludes that, both Tena'im in fact, agree with Rav Huna, that Chashuv has priority. Consequently, had a Kohen been available, the Rabbanan would agree that one should gives him the larger half, rather than the smaller whole.
But the Beraisa speaks when there is no Kohen, in which case the Rabbanan maintain that it is better to put aside a small whole onion, rather than a larger half (because it will last longer).

(c) A G-d-fearing or peace-loving person would place the piece underneath the whole one and recite the Berachah over the two together. He would then either break them both simultaneously, or the whole one first.

(d) On Pesach, one is obligated to recite the Berachos over the two Matzos - the whole one and the broken one, because of the Pasuk 'Lechem Oni', which suggests that at least one of the two breads should be broken.

(a) On Shabbos, one requires two Challos, because the Torah refers to the Man on Shabbos as 'Lechem Mishneh'.

(b) It is not necessary to cut both Challos.

(c) One is supposed to cut off from the Challah as much as one needs for the entire Shabbos meal. Nor is this considered greedy, since he does not do this during the rest of the week, so everybody will understand that he is doing it in honor of Shabbos.

(d) When Rav Ami and Asi came across a loaf that had been used for Eiruvei Chatzeiros, they would recite Birchas ha'Motzi over it, because, they explained, since one has used them to perform one Mitzvah, why not use them for another one.