After discussing Kiddush arrangements where a meal continues straight into Pesach, Shabbos, or another Yom-Tov (something some Hasidic Purim meals actually did this year,) our perek moves away temporarily from Pesach matters and focusses on matters relating to Kiddush, Brachos, and Havdala.
The first such sugya opens by discussing the common practise of making Kiddush in Shul on Shabbos.
The question is whether those who did so themselves or through the chazan have fulfilled their obligation of Kiddush already, or whether they have not done so.
Although both Rav and Shmuel agree that one should make Kiddush in Shul and at home, they differ as to why:
Rav holds that they have fulfilled their obligation in shul already and only make Kiddush at home for their families who were not at shul- it could follow that if one eats at home alone after saying or hearing Kiddush in shul, one does not say Kiddush again at home.
In contrast, Shmuel holds that one can only fulfill one’s obligation of Kiddush במקום סעודה (in the place of a meal) and seeing as they did not eat a meal in shul after making Kiddush, they have not fulfilled their obligation of Kiddush.
According to Shmuel, the only reason why Kiddush is said in shul is for the sake of visitors from out of town who used to eat and sleep in the shul- they would fulfill their obligation of Kiddush with the chazan or someone else from the community after-which they would carry on with their meal there!
(according Tosfos, due to the prohibition against eating or sleeping in shul, this would be in a side-room, but this is a discussion in itself -see Ran on the Rif who also suggests this but also suggests that visitors might be permitted to eat in shul because of the public mitzva that the townspeople are keeping by hosting them)
It could follow according to the later view, if there are no visitors in shul, Kiddush should not be said, and this is indeed how Tosfos (ד”ה “ידי קדוש”) and the Tur (O.C. 269) rules.
Of course, it is also possible that Chazal instituted Kiddush in shul and at home for the above-mentioned reasons but that they did applied this across the board, regardless of circumstances, and that even when the reason for the תקנה does not apply, it should still be said (see Ran דפי הריף כ who rules this way and Shulchan Aruch O.C. 269 who accepts the custom to say it regardless but prefers that it be annulled!)
Before looking at some of the details of Shmuel’s requirement that קדוש must be said in the place where a meal will be held thereafter, it is important to note that the Gemara puts Rabbi Yochanan on record as agreeing with Rav that this is not necessary.
Using the usual rules of psak, we usually follow Rabbi Yochanan against Rav and Shmuel, and Rav against Shmuel- how much more so when both Rav and Rabbi Yochanan disagree with Shmuel.
Yet the Gemara proves that later Amoraim such as Rav Huna and Rabbah ruled like Shmuel, and on that basis, the above cited Tosfos rules in accordance with Shmuel, as do the Rif, Rosh, and Rambam(Shabbos 29/8) !
Having established that we follow Shmuel’s requirement that Kiddush has to be במקום סעודה , we now need to identify or define
- The source or reason for this requirement.
- The definition of a סעודה regarding this law- does it need to be a halachik meal with bread, does פת הבאה בכיסנין (snack or “Mezonos” bread such as cake or crackers) count, is any food that requires the bracha of מזונות sufficient, or is even perhaps an additional portion of wine, grape-juice, or even meal, fish, fruit, or other שהכל foods acceptable?
- The definition of מקום as far as this law goes- does it mean the same building, the same house, the same floor, the same room, or even the same corner of the room?
- The scope of this law- does it apply even to Kiddush in the morning, or only to Kiddush at night or vice-versa.
In order to understand the nature of this requirement, and also because of its possible relevance to the other questions, let us beginning by focusing on the first question.
Before attempting to identify the source or reason of the law of קדוש במקום סעודה , it would be appropriate to identify the source of reason for the requirement to say Kiddush altogether.
Whereas the biblical source for the mitzva to say Kiddush on Shabbos is derived from the מצות עשה of “זכור את יום השבת לקדשו” (remember the shabbos day to sanctify it), Chazal understood (Pesachim 106a) that this “sanctification” needs to be done over a cup of wine – זכרהו על היין .
The requirement to make a special declaration about shabbos is also mentioned later in Tanach (Yeshayahu 58) where we are told וקראת לשבת עונג (and you shall call the shabbos a pleasure.)
The Rashbam and Tosfos both understand that the later source is the basis of Shmuel’s rule, based on a דרשה- in the place where you call the shabbos (make Kiddush), you shall have pleasure (a meal)- This דרשה is also brought in the Rif and the Rosh, possibly as part of their גירסא in the Gemara itself, in which case it is possible that the Rashbam also had it in his text but was not convinced it was a דרשה as such.
Rashbam suggests an alternative basis for Shmuel’s law, this time a סברא (reason based on logic)- HE argues that seeing as Kiddush was instituted on wine already, it is logical that it was instituted on the more important wine drunk before a meal, and not just on a casually drunk cup of wine.
It follows that Rav and Rabbi Yochanan would not accept either of these sources, not making such a דרשה from the passuk, and not accepting the above סברא- the reasons for this of course require further analysis, but we will move on for now.
According to the first reason requiring the Kiddush to be made in a place of עונג, it seems likely that any food that is defined as an עונג (likely in addition to the actual cup of wine used for the Kiddush) should suffice, but that food that does not involve עונג would not.
In contrast, according to the second reason, it seems that a meal with halachik importance, namely a bread meal, or at least פת הבאה בכיסנין might be required.
I do not see a major נפקא מינה of these two different explanations regarding the third question about the definition of מקום (though those who study the daf will see that it is the subject of much discussion in the Gemara and the Rishonim) , and the answer to the fourth question would probably relate to whether the above sources and סברא also apply to the day-time Kiddush or only to the night-time Kiddush, a topic I hope to be able to go into another time (see discussion later in the perek on 106a regarding the night and day-time Kiddush themselves.)
Returning to the question of how we define a סעודה as far as קדוש במקום סעודה is concerned , the stories brought to illustrate how Rav Huna and Rabbah ruled like Shmuel could also be pivotal.
In both cases the food eaten is referred to as “מידי” – “something.”
Although a simple reading of this word seems to indicate that eating pretty much anything is sufficient for the purposes of קדוש במקום סעודה, both Tosfos and the Rosh understand that this refers to פת or לחם respectively ( both words for bread), bringing proofs for this assertion from other sugyos, which I wish we had time to analyze here.
This seems to follow the סברא of the Rashbam but seeing as they both seem to see the דרשה as the source for the requirement and not the סברא, it seems like they understand that the word עונג itself implies a proper bread meal וצ”ע.
Either way, it seems that in their food that even Mezonos is not sufficient and a halachik meal with bread has to accompany the Kiddush- it is also possible though that פת הבאה בכיסנין is considered bread for these purposes too, and even if eaten in smaller quantities than that which would make it a halachik meal subject to המוציא , it suffices for our purposes- a thorough analysis of the sugyas brought as proof for the requirement for bread as well as the סוגיא of פת הבאה בכיסנין would be needed to assess this possibility, but this does seem to be common practise. (see Shulchan Aruch O.C. 273/5 and its commentaries for practical rulings on this matter.)
These posts are intended to raise issues and stimulate further research and discussion on contemporary topics related to the daf. They are not intended as psak halacha.