Kiddush (3)

*************************************************************

This shiur is dedicated in honor of the upcoming wedding of Yehuda Metzger and Chana Toledano – may they be zocheh to build a bayit ne'eman beYisrael!

*************************************************************

 

Based on a shiur by Rav Yosef Zvi Rimon

Translated by David Silverberg

 

 

     How much wine must one drink in order to fulfill the obligation of kiddush?  In this section we will address this issue as it pertains to the mitzva of kiddush as well as cups of wine associated with other mitzvot.

 

     The Gemara writes in Masekhet Pesachim (107a) that after reciting kiddush one must drink the quantity of "melo lugmav" – "the fill of his cheeks."  If one did not drink this amount of wine, he has not fulfilled his obligation.  This appears to be the amount required also for other mitzvot involving drinking wine.  What is the precise amount of "melo lugmav"?  Tosefot explain this phrase to mean the amount of wine that can be contained in one side of a person's mouth.  The easiest way to determine this quantity would be to fill one's mouth completely with wine, expel it all into a measuring cup, and then divide the amount shown by two.  This will determine how much half of the person's mouth could contain.  Needless to say, the amount of "melo lugmav" according to this view will change from one person to the next.

 

     It is commonly assumed that for the average person "melo lugmav" amounts to "rov revi'it" – the majority of a revi'it.  Now a revi'it, according to Rav Chayim Naeh, equals 86 cc, and thus an average "melo lugmav" would equal 44 cc.  In light of this information, let us discuss the halakhot of each instance of a "kos mitzva" (cup of wine required for a mitzva).

 

     Havdala and birkat ha-mazon: Strictly speaking, one must drink the amount of "melo lugmav" from the cup used for havdala and birkat ha-mazon, just like all other kosot mitzva.  Here, however, a problem arises with regard to the berakha.  The Rishonim disagree as to what amount of beverage requires one to recite a berakha acharona.  The Rambam (Hilkhot Berakhot 3:12) maintains that one must recite a berakha acharona after drinking a revi'it, whereas Tosefot (Berakhot 39) hold that drinking even a "melo lugmav" requires one to recite a berakha acharona.  Others claim that the determining amount is a ke-zayit.  The Rosh writes in Masekhet Berakhot (7:24) that given this dispute, one should make a point to never drink an amount in between a ke-zayit and a revi'it.  The Shulchan Arukh (190:3) codifies this halakha, and one must therefore ensure to drink at least a revi'it of the cup used for birkat ha-mazon or havdala.

 

     Kiddush: The aforementioned concern regarding the berakha acharona does not arise with respect to kiddush, since in any event we do not recite a berakha acharona over kiddush, as it is covered by the birkat ha-mazon recited after the meal.  We might add that the Sha'ar Ha-tziyun writes (271:66) that the size of the cup used for kiddush is of no consequence, so long as it contains a revi'it.  Similarly, there is no concept of drinking "rov kos" (the majority of the cup) when it comes to kiddush, as one need not drink more than "melo lugmav" to fulfill the obligation of kiddush.  Not only is there no requirement or mitzva at all to drink more than "melo lugmav" of the kiddush cup, there may even be a distinct Halakhic advantage to drinking less than a revi'it.  A major controversy surrounds the question of whether or not birkat ha-mazon covers wine drunk prior to the meal, thereby absolving one from the obligation to recite a berakha acharona.  Although we generally follow the lenient position, as mentioned earlier, and we do not recite a berakha acharona after kiddush, it is nevertheless preferable to add another contributing factor, by drinking less than a revi'it of wine, which, according to some views, does not require a berakha acharona.

 

     The four cups at the seder: The fundamental question that arises regarding the four cups at the seder is whether the obligation involves the cups, or the wine.  Practically, it is recommended that one drink the entire cup for each of the four cups of wine.  If one cannot drink the entire cup, he should drink at least the majority of the cup.  Be-di'avad, one fulfills the obligation so long as he drank "melo lugmav."  This is the halakha as codified by the Shulchan Arukh and concluded upon by the Mishna Berura.  Therefore, one should preferably not use at the seder a cup considerably larger than a revi'it.

 

     The cup of wine under the chupa, and at a berit: The Gemara never mentions any requirement to drink a cup of wine under the chupa or at a berit.  The Taz (Y.D. 265:10) writes that the requirement to drink "melo lugmav" applies only to cups of wine involving a clear-cut obligation discussed in the Talmud.  With regard to other cups of wine, even a small sip suffices.  This position is adopted as normative Halakha by the Arukh Ha-shulchan and Rav Ovadya Yosef (in Yabia Omer).

 

     The cup for sheva berakhot at the meal: The halakhot regarding drinking the cup of birkat ha-mazon require drinking a proper amount, and thus the one leading birkat ha-mazon should drink a revi'it.  

 

     Who must drink the wine from the kiddush cup?  The Geonim maintained that the one who recited kiddush must personally drink the wine, and if he does not, then even the listeners have not fulfilled their obligation.  By contrast, the Rashbam (Pesachim, 107) writes that even if somebody else at the table drinks the required amount, everyone has fulfilled the mitzva, even those who do not drink.  This is the prevalent view among the Rishonim.  The Shulchan Arukh (271:14) cites both views, and appears to conclude – as does the Mishna Berura – that although the Halakha follows the prevalent view, the one reciting kiddush should preferably drink the required amount of wine. Even if somebody else drinks the required amount, the one who recited kiddush should nevertheless at least taste a bit of the wine.  It should be noted that this entire discussion pertains only to the mitzva of kiddush, whose basic obligation originates from the Torah.  Regarding all other instances of mitzva-related cups of wine, even on the level of le-khatechila somebody else may drink the required amount.

 

     Is it necessary for a single individual to drink the entire amount, or may several people together drink this amount?  The Rosh (Pesachim 10:18) writes that one person must drink the required amount, because drinking less than "melo lugmav" is not considered a "shetiya shel hana'a" ("drinking of enjoyment").  By contrast, the Ritva (Eruvin 72b) writes that according to Tosefot, even if several people combine to drink the revi'it, the kiddush is valid.  The Mishna Berura (273:73) rules that although one person should preferably drink the required amount, if, be-di'avad, several people combined to drink that amount, they have nevertheless fulfilled their obligation.

 

     Strictly speaking, once the person who recited kiddush drinks "melo lugmav," the others need not drink any wine at all.  Nevertheless, the Acharonim write that they should drink some wine as an expression of love for the mitzva.  The Darkhei Moshe writes in this regard that although their drinking is not required for the fulfillment of the mitzva, they nevertheless should be given wine in a cup that is not "pagum" (meaning, from which nobody had drunk).  This can be accomplished in three ways.  First, the person who recited kiddush can taste from the cup and then give it to the others.  We may consider them all as a single individual, since the kiddush was recited over this cup, and hence the cup never becomes "pagum."  Alternatively, if the cup contains a lot of wine, the person who recited kiddush may pour some wine into a different cup before he drinks, ensuring that a revi'it remains in the cup.  He should drink and then distribute the wine in the other cup to the others.  Since he had not drunk from the wine before distributing it to the others, they do not drink from a "kos pagum."  Finally, the person who recited kiddush can drink from his cup and then add wine from the bottle before distributing the wine to the others.  Refilling the cup after he drinks renders it no longer "pagum."

 

 

     The Gemara in Pesachim (100b) records a debate between Rav and Shemuel as to whether or not kiddush must be recited in the place where one eats his meal.  Rav maintains that kiddush does not require "makom se'uda," whereas Shemuel indeed imposes this condition.  Generally, Halakha follows the position of Rav over Shemuel when it comes to ritual laws (as opposed to monetary law, where Halakha generally accepts Shemuel's rulings).  Nevertheless, the Rishonim accept Shemuel's position in this instance, in light of the reports mentioned later in the Gemara of several Amoraim who followed Shemuel's view.  The Rif, Rambam, Tosefot and other Rishonim thus rule in favor of Shemuel.

 

     Does this halakha apply even be-di'avad?  Meaning, must one repeat kiddush if he recited it in a place other than the place where he eats his meal?  Rav Hai Gaon and the Rashba (responsa, 323) write that be-di'avad one fulfills his obligation even if he does not recite kiddush "be-makom se'uda."  The Rosh, however, maintains that, as the Gemara's formulation implies, one does not fulfill his obligation if he does not recite kiddush in the place where he eats.  This debate likely hinges on the fundamental nature of the halakha requiring "makom se'uda."  Conceivably, one may understand this requirement as intended either to enhance the mitzva of kiddush, or to enhance the Shabbat meal.  If Chazal required one to recite kiddush at the location of the meal in order to lend a certain quality to the meal, then failure to meet this requirement will have no effect on the mitzva of kiddush.  If one recited kiddush elsewhere, the kiddush remains intact, and he merely loses the desired spiritual dimension of his meal.  If, however, we perceive this requirement as geared towards enhancing the recitation of kiddush, then Chazal quite possibly disqualify a kiddush that was not recited in the framework of a Shabbat meal.

 

     What precisely does "makom se'uda" mean?  The Gemara (Pesachim 101a) discusses this issue, but we have various different versions of the text, which yield different conclusions.  According to one version, the Gemara initially maintains that kiddush and the meal must take place in the same house, but ultimately concludes that they must take place in the same room.  This version of the text is followed by Rashi, Tosefot, Rashbam and several other Rishonim.  By contrast, the Rif, Rabbenu Chananel, Ran and other Rishonim had a different version of the text, by which the Gemara initially allowed reciting kiddush and eating the meal in different locations within the same room, and ultimately requires the same location even within the room.  According to this second view, one must conduct his meal in the precise location where he recited kiddush.

 

     The Shulchan Arukh (273:1) follows the first, lenient position, but the Magen Avraham and Mishna Berura write that one should preferably endeavor to satisfy the more stringent view and conduct his meal in the same location where he recited kiddush.

 

     Yet another view among the Rishonim maintains that one may change locations provided that he can still see his original place.  The Tur cites this position in the name of Rav Sar Shalom, and the Mishna Berura (273:7) allows relying on this position when an urgent need arises ("she'at ha-dechak").

 

     May a person change locations if he explicitly stipulates that he intends to move after kiddush?  The Yerushalmi (Berakhot, end of chapter 6) comments that if one wishes to remain in his sukka after Sukkot, he may do so, but in order to avoid violating bal tosif (the prohibition against adding onto mitzvot), he must recite kiddush elsewhere and then eat his meal in the sukka.  This would seem to indicate that a person may recite kiddush and move elsewhere for the meal, if he had planned to do so from the outset.  Does the Talmud Bavli agree with this halakha?

 

     The Ran and Rashba maintain that the Bavli does not accept this leniency of the Yerushalmi, and Halakha follows the position of the Bavli.  The Rosh, by contrast, held that the Bavli agrees with this ruling of the Yerushalmi, only the Yerushalmi refers specifically to moving from one room to the next within the same house, which one may do if he stipulates to this effect before kiddush.

 

     The Shulchan Arukh (273:1) follows the lenient position of the Rosh, but the Bei'ur Halakha (s.v. ve-khein ikar) writes that optimally one should follow the stringent view of the Rashba and Ran.  He adds, however, that one may rely on the Rosh's ruling if there exists another factor that warrants leniency.  Thus, for example, one may stipulate before kiddush that he will move to a different location within view of his initial location.

 

     The Bei'ur Halakha (s.v. le'altar) addresses a situation of one who leaves and then returns to the same location in between kiddush and his meal.  Ultimately, the Bei'ur Halakha concludes that given the uncertainty surrounding this question, the person does not repeat kiddush.  In light of this discussion, a problem arises every Shabbat when everyone leaves the table after kiddush to wash their hands in the kitchen.  In truth, however, this is permissible for several reasons.  Firstly, we all know before kiddush that we will leave the table to wash our hands afterwards, and, as we saw, one may stipulate ahead of time that he will change rooms within the same house.  Furthermore, the washing area is often within view of the table.  Finally, the Arukh Ha-shulchan maintains that a brief departure from the table to a different room or the street is certainly allowed.

 

     Until now we have spoken of the requirement for kiddush and the meal to occur at the same place.  A different question arises concerning time: must kiddush be recited immediately preceding the meal, or may one begin his meal some time after kiddush?  The Maharil writes (in a responsum) that indeed the meal must begin soon after kiddush.  The Rama codifies this ruling and applies it even be-di'avad: if one delayed before beginning the meal after kiddush, he has not fulfilled the mitzva of kiddush.  The Mishna Berura rules accordingly.

 

The question then arises as to how soon after kiddush one must begin his meal.  Several Acharonim address this issue and arrive at different conclusions.  One view claims that one must begin the meal within the time needed to walk twenty-nine cubits, but the more logical position appears to be that of the Arukh Ha-shulchan (273:4), who claims that no specific time period can be assigned to this halakha.  Rather, Halakha forbids delaying the meal after kiddush, and thus once a person recites kiddush, his primary goal must be to begin his meal.  In any event, the Mishna Berura rules that if a person delayed because he was tending to the needs of the meal, then he has nevertheless fulfilled the obligation of "kiddush be-makom se'uda," even if the delay was lengthy.

 

When a person recites kiddush both for himself and for others listening to his kiddush, who bears the obligation of "kiddush be-makom se'uda"?  Meaning, who must now eat in order to render the kiddush as having occurred in the context of a meal?  The Shulchan Arukh (273:4) and Peri Megadim (Mishbetzot Zahav, 273:1) write that anyone who wishes to fulfill the obligation must personally eat after kiddush.  Therefore, even if the person who recited kiddush eats, the others must also eat in order to fulfill the obligation.  By the same token, one who hears kiddush from another fulfills his obligation if he eats after kiddush, even if the individual who recited kiddush does not.

 

What qualifies as a "meal" for purposes of this halakha?  What must one eat in order to satisfy the requirement of "be-makom se'uda"?  Tosefot (Pesachim 101a) write that this meal requires bread, and thus one does not fulfill the obligation of kiddush unless he conducts a meal with bread in that location.  The Vilna Gaon follows this position.  The Geonim, however, felt that drinking wine also qualifies as a "meal" with respect to the "kiddush be-makom se'uda" requirement.  The Shulchan Arukh notes that this view would require drinking a revi'it of wine in order to render the drinking a "meal."  The Bach (269) claims that this means drinking a revi'it beyond the amount one must drink anyway as required by the mitzva of kiddush.  The Rama, however, rules (273:5) that when a berit takes place on Shabbat, the mohel may drink the wine at the berit, so long as he drinks the proper amount – a revi'it.  The Mishna Berura (273:27) understands this to mean that drinking only a revi'it suffices to fulfill the requirement of "kiddush be-makom se'uda."  But then the Mishna Berura proceeds to bring the stringent view of the Bach, perhaps suggesting that he recommends drinking the larger amount, but feels that be-di'avad one fulfills the obligation by drinking only a single revi'it.  In any event, later Acharonim point out that this entire discussion relates only to the person reciting kiddush; those who fulfill their obligation by listening to kiddush may certainly drink a single revi'it of wine, according to all views.

 

The Magen Avraham (273:11) claims that if the Geonim allowed fulfilling one's obligation by drinking wine, then they would allow eating baked goods (not necessarily bread), as well.

 

     As for the final halakha, the Sha'ar Ha-tziyun questions whether one may rely on the Geonim's position with regard to the evening kiddush, whose essential obligation is Biblical in origin.  When it comes to the morning kiddush, however, which is entirely mi-de-rabbanan (instituted by Chazal), one may follow the lenient position should the need arise.  Although, as we mentioned, the Vilna Gaon requires eating bread after the morning kiddush, it emerges from the Mishna Berura that strictly speaking, one fulfills his obligation by eating other baked foods, as well.  One can overcome these issues also by reciting kiddush again before conducting his meal, as implied in Iggerot Moshe (O.C. 4:63), since in any event, as we will soon see, some Rishonim permit eating before reciting kiddush on Shabbat morning.  One can therefore recite kiddush and eat baked foods, and then repeat kiddush before conducting his meal.

 

     We also find some discussion of the possibility of eating other foods, other than baked goods, to satisfy the requirement of "be-makom se'uda."  The Shiltei Gibborim cites from the Riaz that one may indeed fulfill this requirement by eating "minei targima" (other types of foods).  The Mishna Berura (273:26) allows relying on this opinion in extenuating circumstances, and several contemporary authorities enlist this view as a basis for justifying "kiddushim" conducted after services on Shabbat morning that do not include baked foods.

 

 

     The Rambam writes (Hilkhot Shabbat 29:10): "There is a mitzva to recite a berakha over wine on Shabbat day before conducting the second [Shabbat] meal… It is forbidden for a person to taste anything before he recites kiddush."  The Ra'avad disagrees:

 

 

The Ra'avad claims that since a person already recited kiddush at nighttime, when Shabbat began, the daytime kiddush is of lesser significance, and one may therefore eat before reciting the daytime kiddush.  Indeed, other Rishonim express similar sentiments concerning the secondary role of the daytime kiddush and therefore ruled leniently with regard to eating beforehand.  Nevertheless, the Shulchan Arukh rules stringently, and forbids eating before the daytime kiddush.  However, the Magen Avraham writes that one who does not have anything with which to recite kiddush may eat in the meantime, and he does not have to wait as he must before the nighttime kiddush.

 

     May women eat before hearing kiddush on Shabbat morning?  Theoretically, as far as the laws of kiddush are concerned, one may eat before shacharit on Shabbat morning, because the obligation of kiddush takes effect only after shacharit.  Since the obligation has yet to take effect, the prohibition against eating before kiddush does not yet apply.  However, a different prohibition forbids eating in the morning before reciting shacharit.  Therefore, if a woman wishes to eat on Shabbat morning, she must recite the tefila in which women are obligated and must then recite kiddush before eating.  However, the Minchat Yitzchak (4:28) rules leniently in this regard and allows women to eat before reciting kiddush, given the fact that some Rishonim absolve women from the obligation of the daytime kiddush, and, as we saw, the Ra'avad permits even men to eat before kiddush on Shabbat day.  A particularly novel approach to this issue is taken by Rav Moshe Feinstein, who claims that a woman may eat before kiddush because until her husband returns from services, her obligation of kiddush does not take effect.

 

 

     The Gemara in Masekhet Pesachim (106b) records that Rav would at times recite kiddush over bread, and at other times, over wine.  Most Rishonim conclude on the basis of this account that one may recite kiddush over bread.  Rabbenu Tam, however, understood the Gemara differently, to mean that Rav would wash his hands before kiddush, and then immediately after kiddush recite the berakha over bread.  But one may not, according to Rabbenu Tam's reading, recite kiddush over bread.

 

     The Shulchan Arukh (272:9) rules that if one does not have wine, he may recite the nighttime kiddush over bread.  The Rama, however, rules that if wine is accessible somewhere in the town, one should not use bread for kiddush.  The Mishna Berura (272:32) explains that the Shulchan Arukh advocates following Rabbenu Tam's view le-khatechila, but when a problem arises, such as if one does not have wine or cannot drink wine, he may recite kiddush over bread.  Generally we do not face such problems, but in unique circumstances, such as during army service, when one does not have access to wine, he may recite kiddush over bread.

 

     What is the proper procedure when reciting kiddush over bread?  One washes his hands, recites the paragraph of "va-yekhulu," uncovers the bread, recites ha-motzi, covers the challot once again (commemorating the manna, which was covered by a layer of dew), and then continues with the berakha of kiddush.  He then breaks the bread and immediately eats a ke-zayit of bread within the required time frame.

 

     May a person recite kiddush over bread on Shabbat morning?  The Ra'avad draws no distinction between the morning and evening kiddush in this regard, but the Rosh and Maggid Mishneh maintain that one may not recite kiddush over bread on Shabbat day.  In their view, kiddush may be recited over bread only at nighttime, when kiddush entails a specific berakha of kiddush ("asher kideshanu be-mitzvotav ve-ratza vanu… "), and thus one's recitation of kiddush over bread is clearly recognizable as kiddush.  On Shabbat day, however, the recitation of kiddush includes only the berakha over the wine, and does not feature a special berakha of kiddush.  Therefore, when one recites kiddush over bread it will not be clearly evident that he performs kiddush through his berakha of ha-motzi.  The Shulchan Arukh (272:9) adopts the stringent position, that one may not recite kiddush over bread on Shabbat morning.  However, as we saw, on Shabbat morning someone who does not have wine may eat while he waits for wine to arrive for kiddush (as opposed to Shabbat eve, when one must refrain from eating until he has access to wine).  Therefore, if someone does not have wine on Shabbat morning, in which case he may eat anyway, he might as well have in mind to fulfill the mitzva of kiddush while reciting the berakha over the bread.

 

 

     We will discuss this topic at length in our forthcoming shiur on havdala.  In this context, we will briefly mention the ramifications of this issue with respect to kiddush.

 

     The Gemara tells in Masekhet Pesachim (107a) that Ravin would recite havdala over "sheikhar" – other intoxicating beverages, such as beer or liquor.  Later, however, the Gemara brings Rav Chisda's view, that just as one may not recite kiddush over sheikhar, so may one not use it for havdala.  This formulation strongly implies that one may not use sheikhar for kiddush according to all views, and the debate surrounds its use for havdala.  This is indeed the prevalent view among the Rishonim, including the Rambam, Rif, Rabbenu Chananel and others, that one may not use sheikhar for kiddush.

 

     The Rosh, however, disagrees, and argues that since ultimately we do permit the use of sheikhar for havdala, we do not accept Rav Chisda's position at all, including his assumption concerning kiddush.  Therefore, even kiddush may be recited over sheikhar.  The Shulchan Arukh (272:9) rules that sheikhar may not be used for the nighttime kiddush.  For the daytime kiddush, however, though preferably one should recite kiddush on wine, if wine is unavailable he should prefer sheikhar over bread.  Rav Ovadya Yosef writes in Yabia Omer that under extenuating circumstances, one may use sheikhar for the nighttime kiddush, as well.

 

     In summary, then, for the nighttime kiddush one may use either wine or bread, and during the day one should use preferably wine, and otherwise, sheikhar.  In our shiur on havdala we will discuss precisely which beverages are included under the term "sheikhar."

 

     What should one do if he has a small amount of wine for Shabbat, which will not suffice for both the evening and daytime kiddush?  At first glance, we would think that he should recite the nighttime kiddush over bread and save the wine for the morning.  The Shulchan Arukh, however, rules (271:3) that "the honor of the nighttime takes precedence over the honor of the daytime," since the essential obligation of kiddush at nighttime constitutes a Torah obligation.

 

 

     The Gemara in Masekhet Pesachim (106b) discusses the possibility of washing one's hands before kiddush and initially forbids to wash one's hands for bread before reciting kiddush.  In conclusion, however, the Gemara allows doing so.  The reasoning behind the initial ruling likely involves the problem of hefsek, meaning, the recitation of kiddush disrupts the continuity required in between washing and the berakha of ha-motzi.  Tosefot suggest an additional reason, that one who washes his hands before kiddush gives the appearance of washing specifically for kiddush, rather than for the bread, and one may not wash one's hands for dry fruits (as he would then appear arrogant).  The Ba'al Ha-maor writes that one perhaps appears as denigrating the kiddush by washing his hands beforehand.

 

     In any event, the Gemara concludes, as we mentioned, that one may wash his hands before kiddush.  The Rishonim debate the meaning of this conclusion.  The Rosh explains that one should preferably recite kiddush and then wash his hands, but it is nevertheless permissible to wash one's hands before kiddush.  The Rambam, by contrast, maintains that in truth, one may not wash his hands before kiddush.  In his view, the Gemara permits washing hands before kiddush only if one will recite kiddush over bread.  A much different approach is taken by the Mordekhai, who holds that one should preferably wash his hands before kiddush.

 

     The Shulchan Arukh (271:12) follows the position of the Rambam, that one must wash his hands after, and not before, kiddush.  The Rama, however, argues, and rules in accordance with the Mordekhai's view, that one in fact should wash his hands before kiddush.  The Mishna Berura (271:82) observes that several Acharonim accepted the Mechaber's ruling, and he implies that common practice was to wash hands after kiddush.  In any event, if a person did wash his hands before kiddush, he should recite kiddush and then "ha-motzi."

 

     If a person comes as a guest to a family with the custom of washing hands before kiddush, he is allowed to change his practice and wash with them, as this is, after all, the position of the Rama.  Furthermore, the Magen Avraham claims that the problem with washing before kiddush involves only the person reciting kiddush, as his recitation constitutes an interruption in between washing and ha-motzi.  As far as the others are concerned, washing before kiddush poses no problem whatsoever.

 

     In conclusion, we should note that if someone recited kiddush and spoke in between the recitation and drinking, he has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation be-di'avad, provided that the interruption was brief.  A lengthy interruption, however, undermines the kiddush and the person must recite it again.