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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 3, 2021 | 讬状讟 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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.

Pesachim 102

Today’s daf is dedicated for the refuah shleima of Yehudit bat Eli Simcha Nachma and Benyomin Zev ben Chaya Miriam.

The gemara brings a braita to raise a difficulty on Rav Chisda who said that one does not need to make a new blessing if one moved locations while one was eating a serious meal (items that require one to make the blessing after eating in the place where one ate). In the braita it stipulates that it is only on the condition that it leaves people at the original meal. The gemara explains that the braita is Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 position and Rav Chisdo holds like the rabbis who disagree with him. After bringing a braita that highlights this debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis, the gemara suggests bringing this source to raise a difficulty on Rabbi Yochanan who says that a change of place does not necessitate a new blessing, but they resolve the difficulty. The gemara returns to the matter of a meal that began on Friday and lasts into Shabbat, should one stop and make kiddush or finish the meal? Rabbi Yehuda says to stop and Rabbi Yossi says none can finish the meal. Rabbi Yossi says to bring two cups of wine 鈥 one for birkhat hamazon on the first meal and the second for kiddush. Why not say both about one cup? Because mitzvot cannot be performed 鈥渋n bundles鈥 (chavilot chavilot)鈥 joined together. The gemara raises a difficulty on this from other places where we see that you can combine blessings and they distinguish between the different cases in order to answer the difficulty.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 注拽讬专讜转

Who is the tanna that taught that even in cases of uprooting oneself from a meal that requires a blessing of significance afterward, one nevertheless is required to recite a new blessing before resuming his meal?

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讞讘专讬诐 砖讛讬讜 诪住讜讘讬谉 讜注拽专讜 专讙诇讬讛诐 诇讬诇讱 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讗讜 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 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 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谞讬讞讜 砖诐 诪拽爪转 讞讘专讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜 砖诐 诪拽爪转 讞讘专讬诐 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

It is Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to friends who were reclining and eating a meal and uprooted themselves to go to the synagogue or to the study hall, 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 before resuming eating. Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement said? When they left some of the friends there, at the meal. However, if they did not leave some of the friends there, when they exit, these foods require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return, these foods require an introductory blessing. According to Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, the baraita that served as the basis of the Gemara鈥檚 objection to the explanation of Rav 岣sda actually represents the minority opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas Rav 岣sda holds in accordance with the majority opinion of the Rabbis.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 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 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 讗讘诇 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 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 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 诇讻转讞讬诇讛

The Gemara infers from the above baraita: The reason for this halakha is that it is only with regard to items of food that require a blessing after them in their place, that when the people eating them exit, these foods do not require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return, these foods do not require an introductory blessing. However, if they ate items of food that do not require a blessing that must be recited specifically in their place, even according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda, when these people exit, these foods require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return these foods require an introductory blessing.

诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讜转讘讬谞讬讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 谞讬诪讗 诪讛讗 谞诪讬 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who holds that a change of location never obligates one to recite a new blessing? The Gemara expresses surprise at this proposition: But didn鈥檛 we already refute Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion once? Why is it necessary to refute his ruling yet again? The Gemara admits that this is true but adds: Nevertheless, let us say that this baraita is also a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇讗讞专讬讛诐 讘诪拽讜诪谉 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讘专讱 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 注拽专讜 专讙诇讬讛谉 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara responds that Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling cannot be definitively refuted from this baraita, as Rabbi Yo岣nan could have said to you: The same is true that even with regard to items of food that do not require a blessing afterward in their place, the people who ate them are also not required to recite a new blessing. And with regard to that which the baraita teaches: They uprooted themselves, from which it was inferred that the people were eating foods that require a blessing afterward in the place of eating, this phrase serves to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 stringent opinion.

讚讗驻讬诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇讗讞专讬讛谉 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讟注诪讗 讚讛谞讬讞讜 诪拽爪转 讞讘专讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜 诪拽爪转 讞讘专讬诐 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

The Gemara explains the previous statement: According to Rabbi Yehuda, even if they were eating items of food that require a blessing after them in their place, and they will definitely return to the meal, the reason that these foods do not require a new blessing is that they left some of their friends at the meal. However, if they did not leave some of their friends, when they exit, these foods require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return, these foods require an introductory blessing. Nevertheless, it is possible that the Rabbis are lenient and do not obligate them to recite a new blessing, even if they are eating food that does not require a blessing afterward in the place in which they ate.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讞讘专讬诐 砖讛讬讜 诪住讜讘讬谉 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 讜注拽专讜 专讙诇讬讛谉 讜讞讝专讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讘专讱

The Gemara points out that it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda: With regard to friends who were reclining to drink wine together and uprooted themselves from their place and subsequently returned to their original location, they need not recite a new blessing. Wine is considered an important beverage that requires a concluding blessing in the place where it was consumed. This baraita explicitly supports the opinion of Rav 岣sda, who rules with regard to items of this kind that if one left the place where he was drinking and later returned, no new blessing is necessary.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 砖讛讬讜 诪住讜讘讬谉 讜拽讚砖 注诇讬讛谉 讛讬讜诐 诪讘讬讗讬谉 诇讜 讻讜住 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜讗讜诪专 注诇讬讜 拽讚讜砖转 讛讬讜诐 讜砖谞讬 讗讜诪专 注诇讬讜 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜讻诇 讜讛讜诇讱 注讚 砖转讞砖讱

The Gemara returns to the subject of interrupting one鈥檚 meal to recite kiddush. The Sages taught: With regard to members of a group who were reclining and eating a meal, and the day of Shabbat was sanctified, they bring one of the diners a cup of wine and he recites over it the sanctification of the day, i.e., kiddush, and a second cup over which he recites Grace after Meals; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: One may continue eating the rest of his meal, even until dark.

讙诪专讜 讻讜住 专讗砖讜谉 诪讘专讱 注诇讬讜 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讜讛砖谞讬 讗讜诪专 注诇讬讜 拽讚讜砖转 讛讬讜诐 讗诪讗讬 讜谞讬诪专讬谞讛讜 诇转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讞讚讗 讻住讗

Rabbi Yosei maintains that once they have finished their meal, they bring out two cups; over the first cup one recites the Grace after Meals, and over the second cup he recites the sanctification of the day. The Gemara asks: Why do they need two cups? And let them say both of them, Grace after Meals and kiddush, over one cup.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 注诇 讻讜住 讗讞讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪爪讜转 讞讘讬诇讜转 讞讘讬诇讜转

Rav Huna said that Rav Sheshet said: One does not recite two sanctifications, i.e., for two mitzvot such as Grace after Meals and kiddush, over one cup. What is the reason for this halakha? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Because one does not perform mitzvot in bundles. If someone performs multiple mitzvot all in one go, he gives the impression that they are a burdensome obligation that he wants to complete as fast as possible.

讜诇讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转讜 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛讬讬谉 讜注诇 讛诪讗讜专 讜注诇 讛讘砖诪讬诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讗讜诪专 讛讘讚诇讛 注诇 讛讻讜住 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讻讜住 讗讞讚 诪谞讬讞讜 诇讗讞专 讛诪讝讜谉 讜诪砖诇砖诇谉 讻讜诇谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讗谞讬

And does one not perform multiple mitzvot together? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who enters his home at the conclusion of Shabbat recites the blessing over the wine, and then over the light, and then over the spices, and thereafter he recites havdala over the cup of wine. And if he has only one cup of wine, he leaves it for after he eats his food, and uses it for Grace after Meals, and arranges all of the other blessings together thereafter. This baraita indicates that one may use the same cup both for Grace after Meals and havdala. The Gemara answers: We cannot prove anything from here, as a case where one does not have an additional cup is different. One who has two cups of wine is required to recite Grace after Meals over one of the cups and havdala over the other one.

讜讛讗 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬拽谞讛

The Gemara continues its line of questioning: But there is the case of a Festival that occurs after Shabbat, when presumably one has enough wine. And nevertheless, Rav said that the proper order of the blessings is according to the Hebrew acronym yod, kuf, nun, heh: The blessing over the wine [yayin], kiddush, the blessing over the candle [ner], and havdala. This ruling shows that one recites kiddush and havdala over the same cup of wine.

讗诪专讬 诪讚诇讗 讗诪专 讝诪谉 诪讻诇诇 讚讘砖讘讬注讬 砖诇 驻住讞 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讻诇 诪讗讬 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛

They say in answer to this question: From the fact that Rav did not say that one recites the blessing for time, Who has given us life [shehe岣yanu], sustained us, and brought us to this time, this proves by inference that we are dealing with the seventh day of Passover, which is the only Festival day on which one does not recite the blessing for time. If so, it is possible that whatever wine this person had, he has already consumed over the course of the Festival, and he does not have enough wine left for two separate cups.

讜讛讗 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讬拽讝谞讛 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讬拽谞讛讝

The Gemara asks: But there is the case of the first Festival night that occurs after Shabbat, when one has wine, and nevertheless Abaye said that the order of the blessings in this instance follows the Hebrew acronym yod, kuf, zayin, nun, heh: The blessing over wine [yayin]; kiddush; the blessing for time [zeman]; the blessing over the candle [ner]; and havdala. And Rava said that the order of the blessings is in accordance with the acronym yod, kuf, nun, heh, zayin: Wine [yayin]; kiddush; candle [ner]; havdala; and the blessing for time [zeman]. Although Abaye and Rava dispute the correct order of the blessings, they agree that one recites multiple blessings over a single cup of wine.

讗诇讗 讛讘讚诇讛 讜拽讬讚讜砖 讞讚讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讜拽讬讚讜砖 转专讬 诪讬诇讬 谞讬谞讛讜:

Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation in favor of the following: Havdala and kiddush are one matter, as they both mark and draw attention to the sanctity of certain days. By contrast, Grace after Meals and kiddush are two entirely different matters. Therefore, one who recites both of them over the same cup of wine is combining two unrelated mitzvot, apparently so that he can be done with them as quickly as possible. Consequently, this practice is prohibited.

讙讜驻讗 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 专讘 讗诪专 讬拽谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讬谞讛拽

After raising the issue of the proper order of the blessings for kiddush on a Festival that occurs right after Shabbat, the Gemara addresses the matter itself. With regard to a Festival that occurs after Shabbat, Rav said that the proper order of the blessings follows the acronym yod, kuf, nun, heh: Wine [yayin], kiddush, candle [ner], and havdala; and Shmuel said the proper order is yod, nun, heh, kuf: Wine [yayin], candle [ner], havdala, and kiddush.

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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.

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 102-108 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will discuss aspect of sanctifying Shabbat (Kiddush) and the means in which we depart from Shabbat (Havdalah),...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 102: When Meals End (or Don’t)

R. Yochanan's opinion that one doesn't need to make a new bracha over food in a new locale. That is,...
winepress

A Bottle of Red, A Bottle of White

We have finally begun the long awaited tenth chapter of Pesachim. After learning about all the ways one could licitly...
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 102

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 102

诪讗谉 转谞讗 注拽讬专讜转

Who is the tanna that taught that even in cases of uprooting oneself from a meal that requires a blessing of significance afterward, one nevertheless is required to recite a new blessing before resuming his meal?

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讞讘专讬诐 砖讛讬讜 诪住讜讘讬谉 讜注拽专讜 专讙诇讬讛诐 诇讬诇讱 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讗讜 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 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 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谞讬讞讜 砖诐 诪拽爪转 讞讘专讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜 砖诐 诪拽爪转 讞讘专讬诐 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

It is Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to friends who were reclining and eating a meal and uprooted themselves to go to the synagogue or to the study hall, 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 before resuming eating. Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement said? When they left some of the friends there, at the meal. However, if they did not leave some of the friends there, when they exit, these foods require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return, these foods require an introductory blessing. According to Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, the baraita that served as the basis of the Gemara鈥檚 objection to the explanation of Rav 岣sda actually represents the minority opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas Rav 岣sda holds in accordance with the majority opinion of the Rabbis.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 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 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 讗讘诇 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 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 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 诇讻转讞讬诇讛

The Gemara infers from the above baraita: The reason for this halakha is that it is only with regard to items of food that require a blessing after them in their place, that when the people eating them exit, these foods do not require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return, these foods do not require an introductory blessing. However, if they ate items of food that do not require a blessing that must be recited specifically in their place, even according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda, when these people exit, these foods require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return these foods require an introductory blessing.

诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讜转讘讬谞讬讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 谞讬诪讗 诪讛讗 谞诪讬 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who holds that a change of location never obligates one to recite a new blessing? The Gemara expresses surprise at this proposition: But didn鈥檛 we already refute Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion once? Why is it necessary to refute his ruling yet again? The Gemara admits that this is true but adds: Nevertheless, let us say that this baraita is also a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇讗讞专讬讛诐 讘诪拽讜诪谉 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讘专讱 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 注拽专讜 专讙诇讬讛谉 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara responds that Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling cannot be definitively refuted from this baraita, as Rabbi Yo岣nan could have said to you: The same is true that even with regard to items of food that do not require a blessing afterward in their place, the people who ate them are also not required to recite a new blessing. And with regard to that which the baraita teaches: They uprooted themselves, from which it was inferred that the people were eating foods that require a blessing afterward in the place of eating, this phrase serves to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 stringent opinion.

讚讗驻讬诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讟注讜谞讬谉 讘专讻讛 诇讗讞专讬讛谉 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讟注诪讗 讚讛谞讬讞讜 诪拽爪转 讞讘专讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜 诪拽爪转 讞讘专讬诐 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

The Gemara explains the previous statement: According to Rabbi Yehuda, even if they were eating items of food that require a blessing after them in their place, and they will definitely return to the meal, the reason that these foods do not require a new blessing is that they left some of their friends at the meal. However, if they did not leave some of their friends, when they exit, these foods require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return, these foods require an introductory blessing. Nevertheless, it is possible that the Rabbis are lenient and do not obligate them to recite a new blessing, even if they are eating food that does not require a blessing afterward in the place in which they ate.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讞讘专讬诐 砖讛讬讜 诪住讜讘讬谉 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 讜注拽专讜 专讙诇讬讛谉 讜讞讝专讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讘专讱

The Gemara points out that it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda: With regard to friends who were reclining to drink wine together and uprooted themselves from their place and subsequently returned to their original location, they need not recite a new blessing. Wine is considered an important beverage that requires a concluding blessing in the place where it was consumed. This baraita explicitly supports the opinion of Rav 岣sda, who rules with regard to items of this kind that if one left the place where he was drinking and later returned, no new blessing is necessary.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 砖讛讬讜 诪住讜讘讬谉 讜拽讚砖 注诇讬讛谉 讛讬讜诐 诪讘讬讗讬谉 诇讜 讻讜住 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜讗讜诪专 注诇讬讜 拽讚讜砖转 讛讬讜诐 讜砖谞讬 讗讜诪专 注诇讬讜 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜讻诇 讜讛讜诇讱 注讚 砖转讞砖讱

The Gemara returns to the subject of interrupting one鈥檚 meal to recite kiddush. The Sages taught: With regard to members of a group who were reclining and eating a meal, and the day of Shabbat was sanctified, they bring one of the diners a cup of wine and he recites over it the sanctification of the day, i.e., kiddush, and a second cup over which he recites Grace after Meals; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: One may continue eating the rest of his meal, even until dark.

讙诪专讜 讻讜住 专讗砖讜谉 诪讘专讱 注诇讬讜 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讜讛砖谞讬 讗讜诪专 注诇讬讜 拽讚讜砖转 讛讬讜诐 讗诪讗讬 讜谞讬诪专讬谞讛讜 诇转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讞讚讗 讻住讗

Rabbi Yosei maintains that once they have finished their meal, they bring out two cups; over the first cup one recites the Grace after Meals, and over the second cup he recites the sanctification of the day. The Gemara asks: Why do they need two cups? And let them say both of them, Grace after Meals and kiddush, over one cup.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 注诇 讻讜住 讗讞讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪爪讜转 讞讘讬诇讜转 讞讘讬诇讜转

Rav Huna said that Rav Sheshet said: One does not recite two sanctifications, i.e., for two mitzvot such as Grace after Meals and kiddush, over one cup. What is the reason for this halakha? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Because one does not perform mitzvot in bundles. If someone performs multiple mitzvot all in one go, he gives the impression that they are a burdensome obligation that he wants to complete as fast as possible.

讜诇讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转讜 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诪讘专讱 注诇 讛讬讬谉 讜注诇 讛诪讗讜专 讜注诇 讛讘砖诪讬诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讗讜诪专 讛讘讚诇讛 注诇 讛讻讜住 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讻讜住 讗讞讚 诪谞讬讞讜 诇讗讞专 讛诪讝讜谉 讜诪砖诇砖诇谉 讻讜诇谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讗谞讬

And does one not perform multiple mitzvot together? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who enters his home at the conclusion of Shabbat recites the blessing over the wine, and then over the light, and then over the spices, and thereafter he recites havdala over the cup of wine. And if he has only one cup of wine, he leaves it for after he eats his food, and uses it for Grace after Meals, and arranges all of the other blessings together thereafter. This baraita indicates that one may use the same cup both for Grace after Meals and havdala. The Gemara answers: We cannot prove anything from here, as a case where one does not have an additional cup is different. One who has two cups of wine is required to recite Grace after Meals over one of the cups and havdala over the other one.

讜讛讗 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬拽谞讛

The Gemara continues its line of questioning: But there is the case of a Festival that occurs after Shabbat, when presumably one has enough wine. And nevertheless, Rav said that the proper order of the blessings is according to the Hebrew acronym yod, kuf, nun, heh: The blessing over the wine [yayin], kiddush, the blessing over the candle [ner], and havdala. This ruling shows that one recites kiddush and havdala over the same cup of wine.

讗诪专讬 诪讚诇讗 讗诪专 讝诪谉 诪讻诇诇 讚讘砖讘讬注讬 砖诇 驻住讞 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讻诇 诪讗讬 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛

They say in answer to this question: From the fact that Rav did not say that one recites the blessing for time, Who has given us life [shehe岣yanu], sustained us, and brought us to this time, this proves by inference that we are dealing with the seventh day of Passover, which is the only Festival day on which one does not recite the blessing for time. If so, it is possible that whatever wine this person had, he has already consumed over the course of the Festival, and he does not have enough wine left for two separate cups.

讜讛讗 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讬拽讝谞讛 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讬拽谞讛讝

The Gemara asks: But there is the case of the first Festival night that occurs after Shabbat, when one has wine, and nevertheless Abaye said that the order of the blessings in this instance follows the Hebrew acronym yod, kuf, zayin, nun, heh: The blessing over wine [yayin]; kiddush; the blessing for time [zeman]; the blessing over the candle [ner]; and havdala. And Rava said that the order of the blessings is in accordance with the acronym yod, kuf, nun, heh, zayin: Wine [yayin]; kiddush; candle [ner]; havdala; and the blessing for time [zeman]. Although Abaye and Rava dispute the correct order of the blessings, they agree that one recites multiple blessings over a single cup of wine.

讗诇讗 讛讘讚诇讛 讜拽讬讚讜砖 讞讚讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讜拽讬讚讜砖 转专讬 诪讬诇讬 谞讬谞讛讜:

Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation in favor of the following: Havdala and kiddush are one matter, as they both mark and draw attention to the sanctity of certain days. By contrast, Grace after Meals and kiddush are two entirely different matters. Therefore, one who recites both of them over the same cup of wine is combining two unrelated mitzvot, apparently so that he can be done with them as quickly as possible. Consequently, this practice is prohibited.

讙讜驻讗 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 专讘 讗诪专 讬拽谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讬谞讛拽

After raising the issue of the proper order of the blessings for kiddush on a Festival that occurs right after Shabbat, the Gemara addresses the matter itself. With regard to a Festival that occurs after Shabbat, Rav said that the proper order of the blessings follows the acronym yod, kuf, nun, heh: Wine [yayin], kiddush, candle [ner], and havdala; and Shmuel said the proper order is yod, nun, heh, kuf: Wine [yayin], candle [ner], havdala, and kiddush.

Scroll To Top