Al Peiroseha/Gafnah/Michyasa-The Nussach of Meiyn Shalosh when eating seven species fruits/Mezonos/wine from Eretz Yisrael or within Eretz Yisrael:
In the Diaspora, one who eats fruits of the seven Minim [i.e. dates, figs, pomegranates, olives, grapes] concludes the blessing with the words “Al Ha’aretz Veal Hapeiros.” However, in Eretz Yisrael, one concludes the blessing with the words “Al Ha’aretz Veal Peiroseha.” Furthermore, even in the Diaspora, upon eating fruits grown in Eretz Yisrael and exported to the Diaspora, one concludes the blessing with the words “Al Ha’aretz Veal Peiroseha.” [Likewise, even in Eretz Yisrael, upon eating fruits grown in the Diaspora and imported to Eretz Yisrael, one concludes the blessing with the regular words “Al Ha’aretz Veal Hapeiros.”]
Summary [includes Q&A below]:
When eating fruits [known for certain to have] grown in Eretz Yisrael [including the Golan Heights, but excluding Ashkelon/Aza region, and region south of Beir Sheba], one concludes the blessing of Meiyn Shalosh with the words “Al Peiroseha,” [in contrast to Al Hapeiros]. This applies irrelevant of where one is geographically located, and hence applies even in the Diaspora. [Likewise, by wine of Eretz Yisrael one is to conclude Al Peri Gafnah. However, by Mezonos of Eretz Yisrael, we conclude with the regular Nussach, unless one knows for certain that the grains were grown in Eretz Yisrael, in which case the Sephardi custom is to conclude “Al Michyasa.” When changing the words in the conclusion one is to also change the words in the concluding sentence and say “Venodeh Lecha Al Ha’aretz Veal Peiroseha/Peri Gafnah. Baruch Ata Hashem Al Ha’aretz Veal Peiroseha/Peri Gafnah.”
Does one likewise say “Al Peiroseha” in the sentence recited prior to the end blessing?
Yes. Thus, one is to say “Venodeh Lecha Al Ha’aretz Veal Peiroseha. Baruch Ata Hashem Al Ha’aretz Veal Peiroseha.” However, some Poskim write that the Ashkenazi custom is not to recite any change of Nussach by the conclusion.
Does one conclude “Al Pri Gafnah” or “Al Hamichyasa” when drinking wine or eating Mezonos of Eretz Yisrael?
Some Poskim rule that after eating Mezonos products of Eretz Yisrael, one is to conclude “Al Ha’aretz Veal Michyasa.” [Likewise, in the sentence prior to the conclusion one recites “Venodeh Lecha Al Ha’aretz Veal Michyasa.] Likewise, upon drinking wine of Eretz Yisrael one is to conclude with the words “Al Ha’aretz Veal Peri Gafnah.” [Likewise, in the sentence prior to the conclusion one recites “Venodeh Lecha Al Ha’aretz Veal Peri Gafna.] However, some Poskim rule that one is to only change the concluding Nussach by fruits of Eretz Yisrael, and not by its wine or Mezonos products. This can be inferred from the ruling of Admur above which omits this inclusion. Nonetheless, the Rebbe expressed doubt as to the accuracy of attributing this conclusion to Admur, and concludes that one is to verify with Zikneiy Anash of Eretz Yisrael as to whether they have received a tradition regarding this. Practically, the widespread custom in Eretz Yisrael is by wine to conclude with Peri Gafnah, although by Mezonos, only Sephardim conclude with Al Michyasa, while Ashkenazim conclude with Al Hamichyah.
Wine made from grapes of the Diaspora: Wine that was made in Eretz Yisrael from grapes that grew in the Diaspora receives the concluding words of Al Hagefen.
Mezonos made from grains of the Diaspora: Mezonos that was made in Eretz Yisrael from grains that grew in the Diaspora receive the concluding words of Al Hamichya. [Accordingly, the Mezonos products of Israel are not to receive the concluding words of “Al Michyasa” even according to those accustomed to say it [i.e. Sephardim], as the overwhelming majority of its grain is imported from the Diaspora, unless one knows for certain that the grain was grown in Eretz Yisrael.]
If one does not know the origin of the fruits, what is he to conclude?
If in the Diaspora one is unsure of the origin of the fruits, then he is to recite “Al Hapeiros.” Likewise, in Eretz Yisrael, if one is unaware of the origin of the fruits, he is to recite Al Hapeiros.
What parts of Israel are considered “Eretz Yisrael” in the above regard of concluding “Al Peiroseha” [Gush Katif; Arava; Golan; Eilat]?
Fruits which grew in areas that were not conquered by Olei Bavel: Some Poskim rule that only fruits which grew in areas conquered and eternally sanctified by Olei Bavel are considered Eretz Yisrael in this regard, and hence fruits which grew in areas of Olei Mitzrayim are to have “Al Hapeiros” recited at their conclusion. [In general, the exact locations conquered by Olei Mitzrayim, but not Olei Bavel, are obscure, although in general the following areas are under question to not have been conquered by Olei Bavel: From North of Akko; From south of Ashkelon and below dead sea and Beir Sheva, including Gush Katif, Netivot, Ofikim, Tifrach; Beit Shean, Beit Gubrin; Ramleh]
Fruits which grew in Golan and east of Jordon river: Some Poskim conclude that fruits which grew in the Golan and other areas to the east of the Jordon [land of Shevet Reuvein, Gad and half of Menashe] are to have Al Peiroseha recited by its conclusion.
Fruits which grew in Eilat region: Fruits grown in the Eilat region are not considered part of Eretz Yisrael, and receive the conclusion of Al Hapeiros.
If one concluded “Al Peiroseha” on fruits of the Diaspora, does he fulfil his obligation?
If one concluded “Al HaPeiros” on fruits of Eretz Yisrael does one fulfill his obligation?
If one ate both fruits of the Diaspora and of Eretz Yisrael, how is he to conclude?
Ate a Kezayis of both Eretz Yisrael and Diaspora fruits: Some Poskim suggest that in such a case he is to conclude “Baruch Ata Hashem Al Ha’aretz Veal Peiroseha Vial Hapeiros.” Other Poskim rule that he is to simply recite “Al Peiroseha.”
Ate less than a Kezayis of Eretz Yisrael fruit: If one ate less than a Kezayis of
Does one recite Peiroseha on fruits that were grown by a gentile in Eretz Yisrael?
 Admur Seder Birchas Hanehnin 1:12 [omitted from Luach and from Admur in Siddur]; Michaber 208:10; Brachos 44a; Ketzos Hashulchan 60:2; Ben Ish Chaiy Maasei 1:1; See Igros Kodesh 15:439, printed in Shulchan Menachem 1:338; Piskeiy Teshuvos 208:15
The reason this ruling of Admur is omitted in his Siddur: Some suggest that the reason Admur omitted the above Nussach from his Siddur is because his Siddur mainly focuses on the customs of the Diaspora, and omits laws relevant to Eretz Yisrael [as is seen regarding the Musaf for Yom Tov prayer],and hence no negation or retraction from the above ruling can be derived from the omission. [See Igros Kodesh 15:439 for a similar point regarding that no inference can be made from Admur’s omission here of Al Michyasa and Peri Gafna; Rav Avarahm Elyashvili in Seder footnote 96]
 Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Bach 208 that so rules Rabbeinu Yona; Ritva Brachos ibid; Rashba Brachos ibid in name of Rabbeinu Chananel
 Elya Raba 208:18; M”B 208:52; Ketzos Hashulchan 60:2
 Ben Ish Chaiy Maasei 1:1; Kaf Hachaim 208:58 that so is custom; Hosafos of Ketzos Hashulchan Hosafos to chapter 60 [unlike implication of 60 footnote 5; In Igros Kodesh 15:439, brought in Shaar Halacha Uminhag 1 p. 213, the Rebbe writes that from the Ketzos Hashulchan 60 it is implied that it is not said, however the Rebbe says that he later contradicts himself later on. It is evident from the letter that the Rebbe holds like the opinion that it is to be said.]
 Aruch Hashulchan 208:6; Implication of original ruling in Ketzos Hashulchan 60 footnote 5, as rules Rebbe ibid; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid; Shulchan Aruch Hakatzar 2 66:1
 Birkeiy Yosef 208:10; Kaftor Vaferach 10 [p. 36]; Halachos Ketanos 2:55 “Don’t change from Minhag Harishonim”; Ben Ish Chaiy Maasei 1:1; Kaf Hachaim 208:58 that so is custom
 Kaf Hachaim 208:58
 Admas Kodesh 1:3; Sidei Ha’aretz 3:6; Implication of Birkeiy Yosef 208:12, brought in Shaareiy Teshuvah 208; Ben Ish Chaiy Maasei 1:1; Kaf Hachaim 208:58; Sefer Eretz Yisrael Tukichinsky 3:1; Mishneh Halachos 6:46; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid that so is custom in Eretz Yisrael
 Kaf Hachaim 208:58
 See Halachos Ketanos ibid who negates saying Peri Gafnah; Ketzos Hashulchan 60 footnote 5; Kinyan Torah 4:21 in name of Satmar Rebbe that one says Al Peri Hagafen, as a change of Nussach is not mentioned in Rishonim or Shulchan Aruch; Kuntrus Dinei Eretz Yisrael on Kitzur SHU”A 51:8 that so writes the Adart on the Sefer Peas Hashulchan that the custom is not to say it; Implication of Or Sameiach Rambam 8:14
 Ketzos Hashulchan 60 footnote 5 based on fact that Admur omits this ruling from Seder ibid and only changes the Nussach by fruits
 Igros Kodesh 15:439, printed in Shulchan Menachem 1:338
 The reason: As it is uncommon for Admur to record rulings that are not found in previous Poskim, especially of those that are not common in his hometown of Russia, and hence why swerve from a widespread custom due to a proof which contains doubt. [Rebbe ibid]
 Ben Ish Chaiy Maasei 1:1; Kaf Hachaim 208:58; Yabia Omer 7:30; Siddur Ish Matzliach of Rav Meir Mazuz p. 439; Nussach of Sephardi Siddurim
 Emek Sheila Sheilasa 51; Har Tzevi 1:108; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid; Birur Halacha [Zilber] 7:208 p. 80; Ashkenazi Siddurim; Shulchan Menachem 1:338 footnote 10 that Rav Avraham Lieder, who was the original writer of the letter to the Rebbe regarding this matter, to whom the Rebbe answered to verify the custom with Ziknei Anash of Eretz Yisrael, replied that after verification he discovered as written above, that we conclude Al Peri Gafnah, but not Michyasa; Shulchan Aruch Hakatzar 2 66:1; Conclusion of Rav Y.S. Ginzberg in Hiskashrus; However, see Yabia Omer 7:30 and Sefer Eretz Yisrael ibid that even Ashkenazim are to conclude Al Michyasa. Likewise, so concludes Sefer “Biur Seder Birchas Hanehnin” 1:12 p. 33
 Peri Ha’aretz 3:3; Birkeiy Yosef 208:12; Shaareiy Teshuvah 208:14; Kaf Hachaim 208:60
 So rule regarding grapes and the same would apply regarding grain: Peri Ha’aretz 3:3; Birkeiy Yosef 208:12; Shaareiy Teshuvah 208:14; Kaf Hachaim 208:60
 Siddur Ish Matzliach of Rav Meir Mazuz p. 439; Hiskashrus
 M”A 208:16; Elya Raba 208:18; Olas Tamid 208:8; Bach 208; Perisha 208:15; M”B 208:54; Kaf Hachaim 208:61; Ketzos Hashulchan 60 footnote 5
 Elya Raba 208:18; M”B 208:54; Kaf Hachaim 208:62 that so rule Achronim and that so is custom; Ketzos Hashulchan 60 footnote 5
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that in Eretz Yisrael one recites Al Peiroseha in a case of doubt. [Olas Tamid 208:8]
 Admas Kodesh 1:3 in name of Maharash Garmizan; Peri Ha’aretz 3:3; Birkeiy Yosef 208:11; Kaf Hachaim 208:59; Piskeiy Teshuvos 208 footnote 114
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that one may recite Al Peiroseha even in such a case. [Opinion in Admas Kodesh 1:3]
 Divrei Yosef 11; Piskeiy Teshuvos 208 footnote 114
 Ketzos Hashulchan 60 footnote 5, although concludes that from M”A 208:17 it is implied that one is Yotzei Bedieved
 Devar Yehoshua 2:29; Piskeiy Teshuvos 208:15
 Ketzos Hashulchan 60 footnote 5
 Ketzos Hashulchan 60 footnote 5
 Devar Yehoshua 2:29 based on Rabbeinu Yona Brachos 32a; Orchos Rabbeinu 1:88; Piskeiy Teshuvos 208:15
 As this matter has nothing to do with the laws of Shemita or Terumos and Maasros which are affected when a gentile grows the fruit versus a Jew, and so is implied from Setimas Kol Haposkim