Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 2, 2021 | 讬状讞 讘讗讚专 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Terri Krivosha in memory of her father Nahum Mayar ben Dovid Baer. Judge Norman Krivosha was a remarkable individual who, in the words of Mary Oliver, did far more than "simply visit this world". Yehi Zichro Baruch.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Pesachim 101

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Joanna Rom “in appreciation of Di Gittel for her leadership and creativity in putting together a wonderful Pesach cookbook with contributions from Daf Yomi students around the world! Yasher koach!”

There was a custom of making kiddush in synagogues 鈥 can one fulfill one鈥檚 obligation for kiddush in this manner? If one wants to drink more wine at home, does one need to make a new blessing of 鈥渂oreh pri hagafen鈥 on the wine at home? There is a dispute between Rav, Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan. Shmuel rules that that one does not fulfill one鈥檚 obligation for kiddush because kiddush needs to be done in the place of a meal. What is considered a “place” – are there two places in the same house considered the same place? What is considered a “meal”? If they do not fulfill their obligation for kiddush, why did they make kiddush in the synagogue? And if so did why did they make kiddush at home also? The gemara brings stories from which you can see that Rabbi Huna and Rabba ruled like Shmuel. Rabbi Yochanan鈥檚 opinion is brought and the gemara raises a question from a braita against his opinion and cannot find a resolution. 聽In the braita is stated that would require one to make a new blessing on the wine. The gemara brings Rav Chisda鈥檚 statement in the name of Rav Huna and his own statement limiting this law and braises difficulties on both these statements.

讗祝 讬讚讬 拽讬讚讜砖 诇讗 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讗 诇专讘 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇拽讚讜砖讬 讘讘讬转讬讛 讻讚讬 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讬 讘讬转讜


Even the obligation of kiddush they have not fulfilled, and they must recite kiddush again at home. The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rav, why should one have to recite kiddush a second time at home if he has already fulfilled his obligation in the synagogue? The Gemara answers: He must repeat kiddush to fulfill the obligations of his children and the members of his household, who did not come to the synagogue.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇拽讚讜砖讬 讘讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讗讜专讞讬诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉 讚讗讻诇讜 讜砖转讜 讜讙谞讜 讘讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗


The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Shmuel, why do I need to recite kiddush in the synagogue at all, if one does not fulfill his obligation with that kiddush? The Gemara answers: The purpose of kiddush in the synagogue is to fulfill the obligations of the guests who eat and drink and sleep in the synagogue. Since these visitors are staying in the synagogue for Shabbat, they must hear kiddush there.


讜讗讝讚讗 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 住注讜讚讛 住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪讘讬转 诇讘讬转 讗讘诇 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐 讘讞讚 讘讬转讗 诇讗


And Shmuel follows his line of reasoning, as Shmuel said: There is no valid kiddush except in the place of one鈥檚 Shabbat meal. If one does not eat a meal in the location in which he recites kiddush, he has not fulfilled the mitzva of kiddush. The students understood from this statement that this halakha applies only when one goes from house to house and eats the Shabbat meal in a different house from the one in which he recited kiddush. But if one went from the place where he recited kiddush to another place in one house, no, there is no problem, and he has fulfilled the mitzva of kiddush.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 注谞谉 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 住讙讬讗讬谉 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜谞讞讬转 诪讗讬讙专讗 诇讗专注讗 讜讛讚专 诪拽讚砖


However, Rav Anan bar Ta岣lifa said to the students: Many times I stood before Shmuel, and he descended from the roof to the ground floor and recited kiddush again. This indicates that Shmuel maintains that even if one recites kiddush and eats the Shabbat meal in a different part of the same house, he must recite kiddush a second time.


讜讗祝 专讘 讛讜谞讗 住讘专 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 住注讜讚讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽讚讬砖 讜讗讬转注拽专讗 诇讬讛 砖专讙讗 讜注讬讬诇讬 诇讬讛 诇诪谞讬讛 诇讘讬 讙谞谞讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讚讛讜讛 砖专讙讗 讜拽讚讬砖 讜讟注讬诐 诪讬讚讬 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 住注讜讚讛


With regard to this halakha, the Gemara notes: And Rav Huna also maintains that there is no kiddush except in the place of one鈥檚 Shabbat meal. The proof of this is that Rav Huna once recited kiddush and his lamp was extinguished. And as it was difficult to eat in the dark, he brought his belongings to the wedding home of his son Rabba, where there was a lamp, and he recited kiddush there and tasted some food. Apparently, Rav Huna maintains that there is no kiddush except in the place of one鈥檚 Shabbat meal.


讜讗祝 专讘讛 住讘专 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 住注讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞讗 讘讬 诪专 讻讬 讛讜讛 诪拽讚砖 讗诪专 诇谉 讟注讬诪讜 诪讬讚讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讚讗讝诇讬转讜 诇讗讜砖驻讬讝讗 诪转注拽专讗 诇讻讜 砖专讙讗 讜诇讗 诪拽讚砖 诇讻讜 讘讘讬转 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘拽讬讚讜砖讗 讚讛讻讗 诇讗 谞驻拽讬转讜 讚讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 住注讜讚讛


The Gemara further comments: And Rabba also maintains that there is no kiddush except in the place of one鈥檚 Shabbat meal, as Abaye said: When I was in the house of my Master, Rabba, when he would recite kiddush he would say to us: Taste some food here, lest by the time you get to your place of lodging your lamp be extinguished, and you will not be able to recite kiddush in the place where you will eat. And with the kiddush you heard here you do not fulfill the mitzva, as there is no kiddush except in the place of one鈥檚 Shabbat meal.


讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚诪专 讛讜讛 注讘讬讚 讻专讘 诇讘专 诪讛谞讬 转诇转 讚注讘讬讚 讻砖诪讜讗诇 诪转讬专讬谉 诪讘讙讚 诇讘讙讚 讜诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪谞专 诇谞专


The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Abaye say: With regard to all the customs of my Master, Rabba, he would act in accordance with the opinion of Rav, except for these three instances, in which he acted in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: Rabba maintained that one may untie ritual fringes [tzitzit] from one garment and tie them to another garment, contrary to Rav鈥檚 opinion that this constitutes a disgrace of the mitzva. He also maintained that on Hanukkah one may light from one lamp to another lamp, despite Rav鈥檚 opinion that this is prohibited as a mundane usage of the lamp of the mitzva.


讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讙专讬专讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讙讜专专 讗讚诐 诪讟讛 讻住讗 讜住驻住诇 讘砖讘转 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讞专讬抓


In addition, Rabba maintained that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: A person may drag a bed, chair, or stool on Shabbat if it is difficult for him to lift them, provided that he does not intend to dig a furrow in the ground. In the event that he does create a furrow, he has not violated a prohibition, as an unintentional act does not constitute a prohibited act of labor on Shabbat. In light of Abaye鈥檚 statement that with the exception of those three rulings Rabba always acted in accordance with Rav, why didn鈥檛 Rabba follow the opinion of Rav with regard to kiddush, as Rav maintains that one fulfills the mitzva of kiddush even if he does not eat his Shabbat meal in the same location?


讻讞讜诪专讬 讚专讘 讛讜讛 注讘讬讚 讻拽讜诇讬 讚专讘 诇讗 讛讜讛 注讘讬讚


The Gemara answers: He would act in accordance with Rav鈥檚 stringencies, but he would not act in accordance with Rav鈥檚 leniencies. In the three cases listed above, Rabba was lenient despite Rav鈥檚 stringent ruling. However, with regard to kiddush, Rabba did not follow Rav鈥檚 lenient opinion.


讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 讬讚讬 讬讬谉 谞诪讬 讬爪讗讜 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谉 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讞讚 砖讬谞讜讬 讬讬谉


And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Not only do those who recite kiddush in the synagogue fulfill the mitzva of kiddush, they fulfill even their obligation to recite a blessing over the wine they will drink during their meal at home. Since they intend to eat the Shabbat meal and drink wine at home, they do not divert their attention from the blessing and need not recite another one. And Rabbi Yo岣nan follows his regular line of reasoning, as Rabbi 岣nin bar Abaye said that Rabbi Pedat said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Both in a case of a change of wine during a meal to a new type,


讜讗讞讚 砖讬谞讜讬 诪拽讜诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 诪讬转讬讘讬 砖讬谞讜讬 诪拽讜诐 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 砖讬谞讜讬 讬讬谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转讬讜讘转讗


and a change of place, i.e., one moves to a different location in the middle of his meal, he need not recite a new blessing. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of a change of place one must recite a new blessing; however, in a case of a change of wine one need not recite another blessing. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan is indeed a conclusive refutation.


讬转讬讘 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜拽讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 砖讬谞讜讬 诪拽讜诐 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讘讬转 诇讘讬转 讗讘诇 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐 诇讗


The Gemara relates: Rav Idi bar Avin sat before Rav 岣sda, and Rav 岣sda sat and said in the name of Rav Huna: That which you said, that after a change of place following kiddush one must recite a new blessing, they only taught this halakha with regard to one who moves from house to house; however, with regard to one who moves from place to place within one house, no, he is not obligated to recite a new blessing.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛讻讬 转谞讬谞讗 诇讬讛 讘诪转谞讬转讗 讚讘讬 专讘 讛讬谞拽 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讘诪转谞讬转讗 讚讘讬 讘专 讛讬谞拽 讻讜讜转讬讱 讜讗诇讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪转谞讬转讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪转谞讬转讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛


Rav Idi bar Avin said to him: This is indeed what we learned in the baraita of the school of Rav Hinak, and some say in the baraita of the school of bar Hinak, in accordance with your ruling. The Gemara asks: But if there is a baraita that states the same halakha, does Rav Huna merely come to teach us a baraita? The Gemara answers: Rav Huna taught the halakha quoted in the baraita because he had not heard the baraita. Rav Huna independently issued the same ruling as that of the baraita.


讜转讜 讬转讬讘 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜拽讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚谞驻砖讬讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 砖讬谞讜讬 诪拽讜诐 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇讗讞专讬讛谉 讘诪拽讜诪谉


And furthermore, Rav 岣sda sat and said in his own name, not in the name of his teachers: That which you said, that after a change of place one must recite a new blessing, we only said so with regard to one who eats items of food that do not require a blessing after them in their original place, e.g., water or fruit. In a case of this kind, exiting one鈥檚 location indicates that he has concluded his meal, and when he begins to eat again, this is considered a new meal that requires a new blessing.


讗讘诇 讚讘专讬诐 讛讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇讗讞专讬讛谉 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇拽讬讘注讗 拽诪讗 讛讚专 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱


However, this is the ruling if one is eating items of food that require a blessing of significance, i.e., Grace after Meals and its abridged version, after them, e.g., one of the seven species: As this blessing must be recited in their original place, i.e., where one ate these foods, he has not completed his meal by exiting that location. Therefore, if he changes location and continues to eat, he need not recite a new blessing. What is the reason for this halakha? He returns to the originally established meal when he continues eating, as he certainly intended to continue that meal. And Rav Sheshet said: Both in this case and that case, whether or not one is eating food that requires a blessing afterward in the place where he ate, if he changes location and continues eating he must recite a new blessing.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 砖讛讬讜 诪住讜讘讬谉 诇砖转讜转 讜注拽专讜 专讙诇讬讛谉 诇爪讗转 诇拽专讗转 讞转谉 讗讜 诇拽专讗转 讻诇讛 讻砖讛谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇诪驻专注 讻砖讛谉 讞讜讝专讬谉 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇讻转讞诇讛


The Gemara raises an objection to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: With regard to members of a group who were reclining to drink, and they uprooted themselves from their place to go and greet a groom or greet a bride, when they exit, these foods do not require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return these foods do not require an introductory blessing.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讛谞讬讞讜 砖诐 讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜 砖诐 诇讗 讝拽谉 讜诇讗 讞讜诇讛 讻砖讛谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇诪驻专注 讻砖讛谉 讞讜讝专讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇讻转讞诇讛


The baraita continues: In what case is this statement said? When they left there an elderly or a sick person who cannot go with them, and he remains in the place of the meal. In this case, the original meal is considered ongoing. However, if they did not leave there an elderly or sick person, when they exit, the foods that they have already eaten require a blessing; when they return, the foods that they will eat require an introductory blessing.


诪讚拽转谞讬 注拽专讜 专讙诇讬讛谉 诪讻诇诇 讚讘讚讘专讬诐 讛讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇讗讞专讬讛谉 讘诪拽讜诪谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讟注诪讗 讚讛谞讬讞讜 砖诐 讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇讛 讛讜讗 讚讻砖讛谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇诪驻专注 讜讻砖讛谉 讞讜讝专讬谉 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇讻转讞诇讛


The Gemara infers from the baraita: From the fact that it is taught in the baraita: Uprooted themselves, this proves by inference that we are dealing with items of food that require a blessing after them in their original place. The word uprooted indicates that in the normal course of events, a blessing would have been required for this meal in its place, and for some reason the people left the meal early. And the reason is that they left there an elderly or sick person. That is why when they exit, these foods do not require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return, these foods do not require an introductory blessing.


讗讘诇 诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜 砖诐 讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇讛 讻砖讛谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇诪驻专注 讜讻砖讛谉 讞讜讝专讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇讻转讞诇讛 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗


However, if they did not leave there an elderly or sick person, when they exit, the foods they have already eaten require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return, these foods require an introductory blessing before resuming eating. This is difficult according to the opinion of Rav 岣sda, who maintains that even if one did not return to his original location at all but resumed eating elsewhere, he need not recite a new blessing.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said:

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Terri Krivosha in memory of her father Nahum Mayar ben Dovid Baer. Judge Norman Krivosha was a remarkable individual who, in the words of Mary Oliver, did far more than "simply visit this world". Yehi Zichro Baruch.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 95-101- Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will be completing the 9th chapter of Pesachim and discussing the differences between Pesach and Pesach Sheni,...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 101: Eat Where You Kiddush

Kiddush! Why we make kiddush at home, after hearing it in shul, and why we make kiddush in shul, despite...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Eruvin 101-105 and Pesachim 2-3 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will be finishing Tractate Eruvin. After an introduction to Tractate Pesachim we will learn the first two...

Pesachim 101

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 101

讗祝 讬讚讬 拽讬讚讜砖 诇讗 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讗 诇专讘 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇拽讚讜砖讬 讘讘讬转讬讛 讻讚讬 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讬 讘讬转讜


Even the obligation of kiddush they have not fulfilled, and they must recite kiddush again at home. The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rav, why should one have to recite kiddush a second time at home if he has already fulfilled his obligation in the synagogue? The Gemara answers: He must repeat kiddush to fulfill the obligations of his children and the members of his household, who did not come to the synagogue.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇拽讚讜砖讬 讘讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讗讜专讞讬诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉 讚讗讻诇讜 讜砖转讜 讜讙谞讜 讘讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗


The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Shmuel, why do I need to recite kiddush in the synagogue at all, if one does not fulfill his obligation with that kiddush? The Gemara answers: The purpose of kiddush in the synagogue is to fulfill the obligations of the guests who eat and drink and sleep in the synagogue. Since these visitors are staying in the synagogue for Shabbat, they must hear kiddush there.


讜讗讝讚讗 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 住注讜讚讛 住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪讘讬转 诇讘讬转 讗讘诇 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐 讘讞讚 讘讬转讗 诇讗


And Shmuel follows his line of reasoning, as Shmuel said: There is no valid kiddush except in the place of one鈥檚 Shabbat meal. If one does not eat a meal in the location in which he recites kiddush, he has not fulfilled the mitzva of kiddush. The students understood from this statement that this halakha applies only when one goes from house to house and eats the Shabbat meal in a different house from the one in which he recited kiddush. But if one went from the place where he recited kiddush to another place in one house, no, there is no problem, and he has fulfilled the mitzva of kiddush.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 注谞谉 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 住讙讬讗讬谉 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜谞讞讬转 诪讗讬讙专讗 诇讗专注讗 讜讛讚专 诪拽讚砖


However, Rav Anan bar Ta岣lifa said to the students: Many times I stood before Shmuel, and he descended from the roof to the ground floor and recited kiddush again. This indicates that Shmuel maintains that even if one recites kiddush and eats the Shabbat meal in a different part of the same house, he must recite kiddush a second time.


讜讗祝 专讘 讛讜谞讗 住讘专 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 住注讜讚讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽讚讬砖 讜讗讬转注拽专讗 诇讬讛 砖专讙讗 讜注讬讬诇讬 诇讬讛 诇诪谞讬讛 诇讘讬 讙谞谞讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讚讛讜讛 砖专讙讗 讜拽讚讬砖 讜讟注讬诐 诪讬讚讬 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 住注讜讚讛


With regard to this halakha, the Gemara notes: And Rav Huna also maintains that there is no kiddush except in the place of one鈥檚 Shabbat meal. The proof of this is that Rav Huna once recited kiddush and his lamp was extinguished. And as it was difficult to eat in the dark, he brought his belongings to the wedding home of his son Rabba, where there was a lamp, and he recited kiddush there and tasted some food. Apparently, Rav Huna maintains that there is no kiddush except in the place of one鈥檚 Shabbat meal.


讜讗祝 专讘讛 住讘专 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 住注讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞讗 讘讬 诪专 讻讬 讛讜讛 诪拽讚砖 讗诪专 诇谉 讟注讬诪讜 诪讬讚讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讚讗讝诇讬转讜 诇讗讜砖驻讬讝讗 诪转注拽专讗 诇讻讜 砖专讙讗 讜诇讗 诪拽讚砖 诇讻讜 讘讘讬转 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘拽讬讚讜砖讗 讚讛讻讗 诇讗 谞驻拽讬转讜 讚讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 住注讜讚讛


The Gemara further comments: And Rabba also maintains that there is no kiddush except in the place of one鈥檚 Shabbat meal, as Abaye said: When I was in the house of my Master, Rabba, when he would recite kiddush he would say to us: Taste some food here, lest by the time you get to your place of lodging your lamp be extinguished, and you will not be able to recite kiddush in the place where you will eat. And with the kiddush you heard here you do not fulfill the mitzva, as there is no kiddush except in the place of one鈥檚 Shabbat meal.


讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚诪专 讛讜讛 注讘讬讚 讻专讘 诇讘专 诪讛谞讬 转诇转 讚注讘讬讚 讻砖诪讜讗诇 诪转讬专讬谉 诪讘讙讚 诇讘讙讚 讜诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪谞专 诇谞专


The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Abaye say: With regard to all the customs of my Master, Rabba, he would act in accordance with the opinion of Rav, except for these three instances, in which he acted in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: Rabba maintained that one may untie ritual fringes [tzitzit] from one garment and tie them to another garment, contrary to Rav鈥檚 opinion that this constitutes a disgrace of the mitzva. He also maintained that on Hanukkah one may light from one lamp to another lamp, despite Rav鈥檚 opinion that this is prohibited as a mundane usage of the lamp of the mitzva.


讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讙专讬专讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讙讜专专 讗讚诐 诪讟讛 讻住讗 讜住驻住诇 讘砖讘转 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讞专讬抓


In addition, Rabba maintained that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: A person may drag a bed, chair, or stool on Shabbat if it is difficult for him to lift them, provided that he does not intend to dig a furrow in the ground. In the event that he does create a furrow, he has not violated a prohibition, as an unintentional act does not constitute a prohibited act of labor on Shabbat. In light of Abaye鈥檚 statement that with the exception of those three rulings Rabba always acted in accordance with Rav, why didn鈥檛 Rabba follow the opinion of Rav with regard to kiddush, as Rav maintains that one fulfills the mitzva of kiddush even if he does not eat his Shabbat meal in the same location?


讻讞讜诪专讬 讚专讘 讛讜讛 注讘讬讚 讻拽讜诇讬 讚专讘 诇讗 讛讜讛 注讘讬讚


The Gemara answers: He would act in accordance with Rav鈥檚 stringencies, but he would not act in accordance with Rav鈥檚 leniencies. In the three cases listed above, Rabba was lenient despite Rav鈥檚 stringent ruling. However, with regard to kiddush, Rabba did not follow Rav鈥檚 lenient opinion.


讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 讬讚讬 讬讬谉 谞诪讬 讬爪讗讜 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谉 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讞讚 砖讬谞讜讬 讬讬谉


And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Not only do those who recite kiddush in the synagogue fulfill the mitzva of kiddush, they fulfill even their obligation to recite a blessing over the wine they will drink during their meal at home. Since they intend to eat the Shabbat meal and drink wine at home, they do not divert their attention from the blessing and need not recite another one. And Rabbi Yo岣nan follows his regular line of reasoning, as Rabbi 岣nin bar Abaye said that Rabbi Pedat said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Both in a case of a change of wine during a meal to a new type,


讜讗讞讚 砖讬谞讜讬 诪拽讜诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 诪讬转讬讘讬 砖讬谞讜讬 诪拽讜诐 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 砖讬谞讜讬 讬讬谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转讬讜讘转讗


and a change of place, i.e., one moves to a different location in the middle of his meal, he need not recite a new blessing. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of a change of place one must recite a new blessing; however, in a case of a change of wine one need not recite another blessing. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan is indeed a conclusive refutation.


讬转讬讘 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜拽讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 砖讬谞讜讬 诪拽讜诐 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讘讬转 诇讘讬转 讗讘诇 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐 诇讗


The Gemara relates: Rav Idi bar Avin sat before Rav 岣sda, and Rav 岣sda sat and said in the name of Rav Huna: That which you said, that after a change of place following kiddush one must recite a new blessing, they only taught this halakha with regard to one who moves from house to house; however, with regard to one who moves from place to place within one house, no, he is not obligated to recite a new blessing.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛讻讬 转谞讬谞讗 诇讬讛 讘诪转谞讬转讗 讚讘讬 专讘 讛讬谞拽 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讘诪转谞讬转讗 讚讘讬 讘专 讛讬谞拽 讻讜讜转讬讱 讜讗诇讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪转谞讬转讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪转谞讬转讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛


Rav Idi bar Avin said to him: This is indeed what we learned in the baraita of the school of Rav Hinak, and some say in the baraita of the school of bar Hinak, in accordance with your ruling. The Gemara asks: But if there is a baraita that states the same halakha, does Rav Huna merely come to teach us a baraita? The Gemara answers: Rav Huna taught the halakha quoted in the baraita because he had not heard the baraita. Rav Huna independently issued the same ruling as that of the baraita.


讜转讜 讬转讬讘 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜拽讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚谞驻砖讬讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 砖讬谞讜讬 诪拽讜诐 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇讗讞专讬讛谉 讘诪拽讜诪谉


And furthermore, Rav 岣sda sat and said in his own name, not in the name of his teachers: That which you said, that after a change of place one must recite a new blessing, we only said so with regard to one who eats items of food that do not require a blessing after them in their original place, e.g., water or fruit. In a case of this kind, exiting one鈥檚 location indicates that he has concluded his meal, and when he begins to eat again, this is considered a new meal that requires a new blessing.


讗讘诇 讚讘专讬诐 讛讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇讗讞专讬讛谉 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇拽讬讘注讗 拽诪讗 讛讚专 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱


However, this is the ruling if one is eating items of food that require a blessing of significance, i.e., Grace after Meals and its abridged version, after them, e.g., one of the seven species: As this blessing must be recited in their original place, i.e., where one ate these foods, he has not completed his meal by exiting that location. Therefore, if he changes location and continues to eat, he need not recite a new blessing. What is the reason for this halakha? He returns to the originally established meal when he continues eating, as he certainly intended to continue that meal. And Rav Sheshet said: Both in this case and that case, whether or not one is eating food that requires a blessing afterward in the place where he ate, if he changes location and continues eating he must recite a new blessing.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 砖讛讬讜 诪住讜讘讬谉 诇砖转讜转 讜注拽专讜 专讙诇讬讛谉 诇爪讗转 诇拽专讗转 讞转谉 讗讜 诇拽专讗转 讻诇讛 讻砖讛谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇诪驻专注 讻砖讛谉 讞讜讝专讬谉 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇讻转讞诇讛


The Gemara raises an objection to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: With regard to members of a group who were reclining to drink, and they uprooted themselves from their place to go and greet a groom or greet a bride, when they exit, these foods do not require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return these foods do not require an introductory blessing.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讛谞讬讞讜 砖诐 讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜 砖诐 诇讗 讝拽谉 讜诇讗 讞讜诇讛 讻砖讛谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇诪驻专注 讻砖讛谉 讞讜讝专讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇讻转讞诇讛


The baraita continues: In what case is this statement said? When they left there an elderly or a sick person who cannot go with them, and he remains in the place of the meal. In this case, the original meal is considered ongoing. However, if they did not leave there an elderly or sick person, when they exit, the foods that they have already eaten require a blessing; when they return, the foods that they will eat require an introductory blessing.


诪讚拽转谞讬 注拽专讜 专讙诇讬讛谉 诪讻诇诇 讚讘讚讘专讬诐 讛讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇讗讞专讬讛谉 讘诪拽讜诪谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讟注诪讗 讚讛谞讬讞讜 砖诐 讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇讛 讛讜讗 讚讻砖讛谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇诪驻专注 讜讻砖讛谉 讞讜讝专讬谉 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇讻转讞诇讛


The Gemara infers from the baraita: From the fact that it is taught in the baraita: Uprooted themselves, this proves by inference that we are dealing with items of food that require a blessing after them in their original place. The word uprooted indicates that in the normal course of events, a blessing would have been required for this meal in its place, and for some reason the people left the meal early. And the reason is that they left there an elderly or sick person. That is why when they exit, these foods do not require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return, these foods do not require an introductory blessing.


讗讘诇 诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜 砖诐 讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇讛 讻砖讛谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇诪驻专注 讜讻砖讛谉 讞讜讝专讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇讻转讞诇讛 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗


However, if they did not leave there an elderly or sick person, when they exit, the foods they have already eaten require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return, these foods require an introductory blessing before resuming eating. This is difficult according to the opinion of Rav 岣sda, who maintains that even if one did not return to his original location at all but resumed eating elsewhere, he need not recite a new blessing.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said:

Scroll To Top