פירוש על ברכות 83:15

WAFERS. Rav Yehuda had said in the name of Shmuel that Lachmaniyos are worthy of use for Eruv and a blessing of Hamotzi is made on them if one established his meal on them. Rashi defined Lachmanios as avlayiush referred to as ‘iron crackers’ that is: dough baked between two hot iron plates. This does not seem to be the proper definition for if so a blessing of המוציא would be required even if one were not to establish his meal on them for it is pure bread because in its final state it is dough. Rather, it seems that they are nilush: a pretzel that if a meal were to be established on them they require a המוציא blessing as on Purim However Rabbi Shimshon explained that a המוציא is not to be blessed on them for they are like cereal.

IT IS STATED: REMOVED. It is only forbidden to continue eating once the table has been removed. It seems that it was their custom to remove the table before ברכת המזון. This presents a difficulty on our own custom which is to specifically not remove the bread before the ברכת המזון.
Answer:
Perhaps in those days they would remove the table only from the other participants but not from before the one reciting the benediction for they had small tables and each one ate at his individual table. But, we who customarily eat only at one table, it would be inappropriate to remove the table until after ברכת המזון.

R' ZEIRA. R’ Zeira refused to partake of a stew once the table had been removed. It is a wonder according to those who maintain that once it has been declared “Let us recite the ברכת המזון” it is forbidden to drink without a blessing, why did R’ Zeira not partake of the stew? Let him bless on it and eat!
Answer:
Perhaps this stew contained in it bread which would require washing anew and reciting המוציא and doing so would be too much bother.

[WE ARE] DEPENDENT UPON THE TABLE OF THE EXILARCH. One who forgot to eat אפיקומן at the Pesach seder and announced “Let us recite ברכת המזון!” it is not a mental lapse that is he may still partake of the אפיקומן for we rely on the ‘table of G-d’ that is: just as the participants of the Raish Galussa’s feast relied on the ריש גלותא’s table so too on the seder night we rely on the program that G-d has outlined for us which includes the eating of the אפיקומן. Therefore the announcement of ‘let us recite ברכת המזון was merely an error And if he forgot to eat אפיקומן and recited the ברכת המזון, he need not return and eat it for all the Matzos are made for the sake of Mitzvoh.
And this that was said that the announcement of “let us recite ברכת המזון” forbids any further drinking – including all members of the feast, is only true when it was the host who made the announcement but if a guest announced it, he himself the guest may return and complete his meal together with the host.

[WE ARE] DEPENDENT UPON THE TABLE OF THE EXILARCH. And if it is customary to eat various fruits and they were served one after the other, there are those who say that a blessing must be recited on each one for they do not know if the host will serve them more. But it seems that no blessing is needed, for we rely on the hosts table and this is what is meant by the case brought in our Gemara of the ריש גלותא.

As, e.g., when used for ritual purposes, even though he does not then regard it as a beverage.

Of dessert-bread; see above.

M. : the house of Rab Habiba.

The sibilant syllables of hammosi'...ha'ares.

Until he has said Grace after meals and then pronounce a fresh benediction.

M.: Rabbah.

On this gift, see T. A. III. p. 21.

And so long as he keeps sending food, the meal is not at an end.

The anointing of the hands, not the clearing of the table, is the signal that the meal is finished.

Cf. Lev. i. 4.

See pp. 55 f.

It refers to the "latter waters" — the washing at the end of the meal ; and this is the right signal that the meal is finished.

M.: Rab Ashe.

As another instance of something immediately following on something else.

See fol. 63 b.

Hors d'oeuvre; see T. A. i. p. 472 n. 428. Rashi mentions that it often took the form of poultry or fish; it would then correspond to the gustatio of the Romans; of. T. A. iii. p. 259 n. 284 ; D. C. A. p. 385.

See p. 278.