Pesachim 101

אף ידי קידוש לא יצאו אלא לרב למה ליה לקדושי בביתיה כדי להוציא בניו ובני ביתו

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.

ושמואל למה לי לקדושי בבי כנישתא לאפוקי אורחים ידי חובתן דאכלו ושתו וגנו בבי כנישתא

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.

ואזדא שמואל לטעמיה דאמר שמואל אין קידוש אלא במקום סעודה סבור מינה הני מילי מבית לבית אבל ממקום למקום בחד ביתא לא

And Shmuel follows his line of reasoning, as Shmuel said: There is no valid kiddush except in the place of one’s 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.

אמר להו רב ענן בר תחליפא זימנין סגיאין הוה קאימנא קמיה דשמואל ונחית מאיגרא לארעא והדר מקדש

However, Rav Anan bar Taḥalifa 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.

ואף רב הונא סבר אין קידוש אלא במקום סעודה דרב הונא קדיש ואיתעקרא ליה שרגא ועיילי ליה למניה לבי גנניה דרבה בריה דהוה שרגא וקדיש וטעים מידי אלמא קסבר אין קידוש אלא במקום סעודה

With regard to this halakha, the Gemara notes: And Rav Huna also maintains that there is no kiddush except in the place of one’s 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’s Shabbat meal.

ואף רבה סבר אין קידוש אלא במקום סעודה דאמר אביי כי הוינא בי מר כי הוה מקדש אמר לן טעימו מידי דילמא אדאזליתו לאושפיזא מתעקרא לכו שרגא ולא מקדש לכו בבית אכילה ובקידושא דהכא לא נפקיתו דאין קידוש אלא במקום סעודה

The Gemara further comments: And Rabba also maintains that there is no kiddush except in the place of one’s 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’s Shabbat meal.

איני והאמר אביי כל מילי דמר הוה עביד כרב לבר מהני תלת דעביד כשמואל מתירין מבגד לבגד ומדליקין מנר לנר

The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Is that so? But didn’t 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’s 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’s opinion that this is prohibited as a mundane usage of the lamp of the mitzva.

והלכה כרבי שמעון בגרירה דתניא רבי שמעון אומר גורר אדם מטה כסא וספסל בשבת ובלבד שלא יתכוין לעשות חריץ

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’s statement that with the exception of those three rulings Rabba always acted in accordance with Rav, why didn’t 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?

כחומרי דרב הוה עביד כקולי דרב לא הוה עביד

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

ורבי יוחנן אמר אף ידי יין נמי יצאו ואזדא רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר רבי חנין בר אביי אמר רבי פדת אמר רבי יוחנן אחד שינוי יין

And Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan follows his regular line of reasoning, as Rabbi Ḥanin bar Abaye said that Rabbi Pedat said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Both in a case of a change of wine during a meal to a new type,

ואחד שינוי מקום אין צריך לברך מיתיבי שינוי מקום צריך לברך שינוי יין אין צריך לברך תיובתא דרבי יוחנן תיובתא

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 Yoḥanan is indeed a conclusive refutation.

יתיב רב אידי בר אבין קמיה דרב חסדא ויתיב רב חסדא וקאמר משמיה דרב הונא הא דאמרת שינוי מקום צריך לברך לא שנו אלא מבית לבית אבל ממקום למקום לא

The Gemara relates: Rav Idi bar Avin sat before Rav Ḥisda, and Rav Ḥisda 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.

אמר ליה רב אידי בר אבין הכי תנינא ליה במתניתא דבי רב הינק ואמרי ליה במתניתא דבי בר הינק כוותיך ואלא רב הונא מתניתא קא משמע לן רב הונא מתניתא לא שמיע ליה

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.

ותו יתיב רב חסדא וקאמר משמיה דנפשיה הא דאמרת שינוי מקום צריך לברך לא אמרן אלא בדברים שאין טעונין ברכה לאחריהן במקומן

And furthermore, Rav Ḥisda 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’s 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.

אבל דברים הטעונין ברכה לאחריהן במקומן אין צריך לברך מאי טעמא לקיבעא קמא הדר ורב ששת אמר אחד זה ואחד זה צריך לברך

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.

מיתיבי בני חבורה שהיו מסובין לשתות ועקרו רגליהן לצאת לקראת חתן או לקראת כלה כשהן יוצאין אין טעונין ברכה למפרע כשהן חוזרין אין טעונין ברכה לכתחלה

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Ḥisda’s 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.

במה דברים אמורים שהניחו שם זקן או חולה אבל לא הניחו שם לא זקן ולא חולה כשהן יוצאין טעונין ברכה למפרע כשהן חוזרין טעונין ברכה לכתחלה

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.

מדקתני עקרו רגליהן מכלל דבדברים הטעונין ברכה לאחריהן במקומן עסקינן וטעמא דהניחו שם זקן או חולה הוא דכשהן יוצאין אין טעונין ברכה למפרע וכשהן חוזרין אין טעונין ברכה לכתחלה

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.

אבל לא הניחו שם זקן או חולה כשהן יוצאין טעונין ברכה למפרע וכשהן חוזרין טעונין ברכה לכתחלה קשיא לרב חסדא

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 Ḥisda, 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.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: