פירוש על ברכות 84:14

ALTHOUGH THEY ONLY BRING THE INCENSE AFTER THE MEAL. It seems that the Halacha goes according to the students of Rav for Rav Shaishes rules like them and the rule is the Halacha is like R’ Nachman in monetary issues and like R’ Shaishes in prohibitive law. And even though it was established that in disputes between Rav and Shmuel we rule like Rav in Prohibitive Law, this case is exceptional because all of Rav’s students dispute his ruling (as stated here), probably because they learned it this way from him. However this ruling doesn’t apply to us anyhow, for we do not remove our hand from the bread.
Regarding the question of whether wine served in middle of the meal absolves wine served after the meal: It seems that the wine from before the meal absolves wine served in the course of the meal - even though we rule here that wine of the middle does not absolve wine served after the meal. This is different because this the middle of the meal is for soaking that is: it is a different nature of drinking and this after the meal is for drinking. But wine of drinking certainly absolves wine of soaking for instance wine served at the onset (drinking) would absolve wine served in middle (soaking).
This that our Gemara refers to Sabbath and Holidays wasn’t meant exclusively (Sabbath and Holidays) for even if one would happen to establish a feast with wine during the weekdays, and one were to bring wine to be served in middle of the meal, there too the wine of before would certainly absolve the wine of the middle since it was his intention to drink wine in the course of the meal. And so too, wine of kiddush absolves wine served in the course of the meal and havdalah as well, if one brought wine to the table, it would absolve any wine drunk throughout the course of a meal afterward.
And ‘Sabbath and Holidays’ mentioned, was not meant exclusively (Sabbath and Holidays) only it was intended to exclude cases where the notion of additional wine was abandoned (once it was abandoned and then revisited, then a new blessing is required).
And even if you would argue that it was meant exclusively on Sabbath and Holidays, nevertheless it must be said that it is regarding wine served in middle of a meal that absolves wine served after the meal - that is after they had already removed their hands from the bread (they finished eating) because it is usual to establish a serving of wine after the completion of a meal regularly only on Sabbath or Holiday but not other days.
But in terms of absolving wine that is served in middle of a meal which is customary on all days, certainly the wine served at the onset of the meal absolves it on all days – even though one is for drinking and one is for soaking. For the Gemara’s concern was only whether wine for soaking which is not distinguished can absolve wine for drinking which is distinguished but wine for drinking which is more distinguished which is served at the onset of the meal undoubtedly absolves wine for soaking.
And this is also indicated in Arvei Pesachim when discussing kiddush made in the Bais Haknesses where R’ Yochanan states that even the obligation of blessing the wine was fulfilled [by the congregation merely by hearing the kiddush recited by the chazzan] and they do not have to repeat the blessing at home in middle of the meal even though the kiddush they heard was not made at the location of the feasting still, R’ Yochanan maintains that since the kiddush obligation was fulfilled, then the wine obligation was also fulfilled.
And although R’ Yochanan’s statement was refuted there, that was only an issue of change of venue (the refutation) and as such it would seem that the ruling would be no different by havdallahfor no difference exists between havdalah and Kiddush.
Now this is contrary to those who dispute and say that it is exclusively by kiddush that wine in middle of the meal is absolved, because the rule is that kiddush may be made only at the venue of the feast, but wine of havdallah does not absolve even if havdallah was made after washing for meal. For here it is the same discussion where we rule that wine of the onset of the meal absolves wine of the middle also where he has washed to eat.

In the first sentence of the Mishnah, about the benediction over wine.

I.e. he knows beforehand he will linger at the table and drink several cups.

M.: Rab Mari.

To drink an additional cup of wine, it not being his usual practice. For that reason he repeated the benediction.

And not before the meal, as stated in the Mishnah.

The wine during the meal is chiefly used for dipping into it.

M. omits "not."

Hence it seems to follow that although a benediction is said over wine brought during the meal, a further benediction is required for the wine brought after the meal. This contradicts Rab Nahman and the others who say "he is exempt. "

In the last clause of the quoted Mishnah.

One can say Grace for all ; to recline makes the meal more formal and unites the diners into one party.

Some edd. omit these words.

If such words were spoken, then whether they sit or recline, they form a party and one can say Grace for all.

According to Neubauer, p. 341 n., Danak is a contraction of deAnak "the river of Anak" near Sura. This is supported by the reading of M.: בנהר אנק.