THE HALAKHA IS: [FOOD ITEMS] THAT COME DUE TO THE MEAL. According to Rashi’s explanation Rav Popo is speaking about one time period, during the meal. And three types of food: a) מחמת הסעודהthose foods generally eaten with bread and they do not require their own b’rochoh because we view the bread as the primary food and the meat, fish and vegetables as secondary to the bread. This follows the rule that when there is a primary and secondary food the b’rochoh is recited on the primary food. b) שלא מחמת הסעודה are such foods such as cereals, cabbage and beets that are not secondary to bread, but are eaten for the same purpose, to satiate. Since they are not secondary to bread they require a b’rochoh before eating them, but not afterward because they are covered by the b’rochoh of הזןthat speaks of Hashem satiating us. c) דברים הרגילים לבא לאחר הסעודהthose foods usually eaten after the meal, such as fruits and the like, even when eaten during the meal they require a b’rochoh befor, becuae they are not secondary to the bread and after because they do not satiate and are not covered by the b’rochoh of הזן. Tosfos will now show us why he disagrees with Rashi and how he ultimately learns that there are two time periods discussed and two categories of food. Tosfos has two questions about Rashi’s explanation of category a). The first: Rashi explains thatcategory a) **is foods that are eaten together with bread,**such as fish, meat or vegetables, and they do not require a b’rochoh because they are secondaryto the bread that is primary. And this is unclear, for if sothat Rav Popo is merely telling us that the b’rochoh for the primary food frees one from reciting a b’rochoh on the secondary food, that is a Mishna (44a), that one recites a b’rochoh on the primary and that exempts himfrom reciting a b’rochoh **on the secondary, and what is he,**Rav Popo, **teaching us?**There certainly is no need to repeat that which is clearly stated in a Mishna. Tosfos second question on Rashi’s explanation of category a): And there is another difficulty, which the Gemara will soon ask; thatthe b’rochoh for wine should also be covered bythe b’rochoh on **bread.**And if Rashi is correct that the issue in category a) is about primary and secondary, what is the Gemara’s question? When one drinks wineeven during a meal it is not as secondary to the bread, and we are discussingaccording to Rashi in category a) only such things which are secondary to bread. And one should not say that according to Rashi’s explanationwhen the Gemara asks that the b’rochoh for wine should be covered by breadit is speaking of when one soaks his bread in wine and in that case the wine is secondary to the bread, for we do not findthat in such a case that one doesin fact **recite a b’rochoh on the wine.**How can the Gemara ask a question based on a fact that is not known? Rather, certainlythe Gemara’s question is about one who is drinkingthe wine and the wine is not secondary to the bread. We see that category a) is not speaking about primary and secondary. Tosfos now turns his critique to Rashi’s explanation of category b). And there is another difficulty with Rashi’s explanation ofcategory which is foods that do not come on account of the meal during the mealand Rashi explained for example cereal, beets and cabbage that are not eaten togetherwith bread, and their purpose is for nutrition and satiation. They require a b’rochoh beforethey are eaten, because they are not secondaryto bread, however they are exemptfrom an after-b’rochoh by the birchas hamozon because they are species that satiate.And this is not clear, for we say in the Mishna (42a)if one recites a b’rochoh on bread he covers theparperes¹ and the Gemara explain that the same is true for cereals.We see that cereals are covered by the b’rochoh for bread, which is a direct contradiction to Rashi’s explanation that cereals require their own b’rochoh when eaten during a meal. Tosfos objection to Rashi’s explanation of category c): And those foods that usually come after the meal, Rashi explained: such as fruit. And even when they are brought during the meal not as a secondary foodto be eaten together with the bread, they require a b’rochoh both beforethey are eaten, because they are not secondary, and afterthey are eaten as well, because the birchas hamozon does not cover them, for they do not satiateand birchas hamozon only covers foods that satiate such as bread or cereals. This ruling is in accordance with Rav Shaishes, who said earlier: when they brought before him figs and pomegranates during the meal that a b’rochoh is required both before and afterthey are eaten. And that is not in accordance with the halochoh for we rule as Rav Nachmon and Rav Hunowho disagree with Rav Shaishes as we explained earlier. After explaining his three reasons for disagreeing with Rashi’s explanation, Tosfos presents his own explanation. For these reasons the R’I explainedthat category a) which is foods that come on account of the meal during the meal, means as follows: they usually come on account of the meal with bread, for it is usual to eat them with bread. For example, meat, fish and all types of cooked dishes, andeven when they were brought during the meal, they do not require a b’rochoh neither before nor afterthey are eaten, even when they are eaten in middle of the meal alone without bread. For since they come because of the bread, the bread covers themwith its b’rochoh. Tosfos present his opinion for category b) which is the same as Rashi’s category c). However, foods that are usually not brought during the meal, such as dates, pomegranates and all other fruits that are not usually eaten together with bread, they require a b’rochoh beforethey are eaten, **since they are not usually eaten together with bread, it,**the bread **does not cover them. And that is in accordance with Rav Nachmon and Rav Huno mentioned earlier who said that they,**fruits in middle of the meal, require a b’rochoh before and not afterthey are eaten. According to Rashi, there is a third category of foods- those which are usually eaten after the meals, such as fruits which is Rashi’s category c) and Tosfos category b). Tosfos has no category c). Rather he explains that what Rashi perceives to be a third category of food, according to Tosfos emendation of the text is a second time period during which the foods of category a) and b) are eaten.

footnotes: ¹ See Mishna on 42a.

In the standard print of our Gemara it appears that what follows is a separate Tosfos. Actually it is a continuation of the previous Tosfos. Our text is “after the meal” and nothing more. And we do not have the textthat Rashi has, those foods that comeafter the meal, in this conclusionof the Rav Popo’s statement. **And the explanation is as follows: if they brought the foods that we mentioned,**categories a) and b), **after the meal, which means after they took away their hands from the bread,²then the bread no longer covers them at all, and it is as if they are ate them without any meal and both foods that usually come on account of the meal,**Tosfos category a), **and foods that are not usually brought on account of the meal,**Tosfos category b), require a b’rochoh before and afterthey are eaten. Forwhen the Gemara discusses foods that are eaten in a different time period, namely after the meal, it refers to allcategories of food **mentioned earlier.**When speaking of foods eaten during the meal, the Rav Popo spoke of categories a) and b), so too, when he speaks of a second time period, after the meal, he is referring to both categories of food and is telling us that both categories require a b’rochoh before and after they are eaten. **And nowadays we do not have this last ruling,**concerning the time period after the meal, for it is not our custom to take away our hands from the bread at all until after birchas hamozon. Rather, at all times that we continue to eat fruits or anything else before birchas hamozon it is our intention to eat the bread at all times. And we rule as Rav Popo does.

footnotes: ² During the times of the Mishna and Gemara after eating the main courses that were eaten with bread, desserts would be served, At that time one usually did not eat bread. It is this period that is referred to as taking away one’s hands from bread.

IF SO, BREAD SHOULD ALSO EXEMPT WINE. The Gemara had mused that according to Ben Zoma’s reasoning that foods served as part of the course of the meal are absolved of a blessing by the blessing made on the bread, let wine, too, be absolved. For certainly the wine was served only because of the meal for he drink’s numerous times – for would it not that he had the meal he would not drink – then let the bread absolve the wine of a blessing and the Gemara had answered; wine is different because it causes its own blessing. Rashi explains that since on many occasions wine is served not out of a necessity to drink (i.e. thirst) but out of formality such askiddush or a wedding ceremony. But Rashba explainsdifferently: that since wineis unique in that it requires the special blessing ofבורא פרי הגפן**, while in its initial state of grapes it was** בורא פרי העץ as opposed to other beverages which areשהכל. Meaning that it is because of this uniqueness that bread will not absolve it. However, Rabbeinu Tam says that other beverages such as waterare absolvedof a blessing by bread for wineitself would be absolved were it notfor the special status wine has that it ‘causes its own blessing’. This is contrary to the ruling by theMachzor Vitri who writes that a blessing is made on water each time it is drunk even in the course of a meal for it is consideredeach drink as a new entity – as if he left and returnedfor a new drink and the only reason the Gemara mused regarding winethat ‘let bread absolve it from a blessing’ (and not water) is because wine satiates but water does not satiatemeaning that wine is worthy of consideration to be absolved by the bread since it has similar characteristics as bread in that it is satiating as is evident from the Braissa brought earlier “one who restricts himself with a vow from any food thatsatiates is nevertheless permitted to drink water or eat salt…” But undoubtedly itwater is not absolved from a blessing by the bread for it does not come under the category of the bread blessingit does not satiate like bread. However R”I and Rabbeinu Tam would say not to bless at all on beverages served during the course of the meal, the reason being that bread absolves anything served as a result of itself. Now wine absolves all beverages for itwine is the optimum beverage so it is the primary drink and all others are secondary to it regarding blessings. Therefore, beverages served because of bread for soaking purposes(soaking refers to those sips we take with food for moisture rather than as a full drink we take for thirst quenching) and consider too that there is no eating without drinking. So drinking in general comes as a direct result of eating. **Therefore bread absolves all drink with the exception of wine for the reason stated here in the Gemara. It is because of this reasoning that it is understandable why on Pesach we bless on lettuce only על אכילת מרור – for this has been perplexing to the world: Why not also the blessing of בורא פרי האדמה?

• and the בורא פרי האדמה which was blessed on the other vegetables** (by Karpas) is useless by the מרור for as is stated there, ‘since there is discussion of the Jewish exodus from Egypt at the seder andHallel recitations’a significant interruption between the blessing on Karpas and the Marror. So surely thereason we don’t bless בורא פרי האדמה on the Marror is that since the Torah instituted this requirementof eating Marror, as it is written ‘on matzos and merrorim shall you eat it’ then the Marror is considered foods which are served as part of the course of the meal and the bread absolves it.