Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe, O.C. 4:63) sees these two reasons as presenting two possible approaches to this requirement of kiddush b'makom se'udah. The main question is does the wine need a meal to accompany it, or does the Shabbat meal require that kiddush be made before it? As a point of clarification, a main question that comes out of this split is in a case where one makes kiddush in synagogue and then eats a little bit afterwards - does he then have to make kiddush again upon returning home for his meal, or has he already fulfilled his obligation? The answer to that question will occupy part of this Chabura. First, however, a return to Rav Feinstein. He claims that according to the verse, the main aspect is the meal. The kiddush must be made in the place where the meal is. Conversely, according to the logical reason, the kiddush is the main aspect. Wine is the main part of the meal, and thus it becomes important that the meal go wherever the wine is, namely wherever kiddush is made.

The first aspect that we will deal with is the question of how far one may stray from the location in which he made kiddush in order to eat his meal. Must a person eat in the exact spot where he made kiddush? Can he move to a different room? Can he move to a different house? The gemara quotes Rav Anan bar Tachlifa as saying that he saw Shmuel make kiddush in the top floor of his house, then descend to the bottom floor to eat his meal. The Mishna Berura (O.C. 273:8) states the reason for this as being that as long as a person is under one roof, he may move around freely, and Rav Feinstein cites a view that claims that a person who makes kiddush in his house can eat anywhere within that house, as, being the homeowner, he has the right to eat his meal wherever in the house he pleases, and thus has the entire house in mind when he says kiddush.. The Tur (O.C. 283) cites Rav Sar-Shalom who limits this and states that one may move to a different room to eat his meal only if he can see that second room while he is making kiddush, a view that may be supported by that of the Magid Mishna (Hil. Shabbat, 29:8), who claims that one may not switch rooms at all. The Tur himself holds that a person may move around within his house, but may not eat in a different house other than the one in which he made kiddush.

A case in the middle is presented by the Yerushalmi in Succah. There it states that a person whose succah is pleasing to him may make kiddush in his house on the night of Shmini Atzeret and then go eat in the succah (making kiddush there would create the problem that it would appear that the person was adding on an eighth day to the commandment of succah, a violation of "bal tosif" - adding on to commandments). Is this considered to be a separate room or a separate house? The Ran. implies that even if a person has in mind to move locations he still has to make kiddush again in the new location, unlike the ruling of the Yerushalmi which connects the kiddush to the meal. How does the Ran explain the Yerushalmi? He states that while some people think that moving to the succah is considered to be like moving to another room, he himself thinks that the Yerushalmi is, in fact, arguing on our case in Pesachim. As this is somewhat difficult to say, the Aruch HaShulchan offers two possible answers. One is his own view, that the fact that a succah is a temporary structure basically makes it into another room of the house, lacking any real importance of its own. He also cites the Ramo who claims that since the walls of the succah are made only for the purpose of the mitzvah, and not to be used, they do not form a real barrier (mechitza) as far as we are concerned, and the succah and the house can thus be seen as one (the opinion that claims that even moving from room to room is a problem sees the walls and beams of the house as real barriers and thus they separate between the rooms in such a way that the rooms are seen as distinct areas).

The next stage of the development of this halacha that must be analyzed is the case of a person who makes kiddush for others with the intent of eating elsewhere, and the similar case of one who has already made kiddush and now is asked to make it for others. Tosafot in Pesachim 100b (s.v. yedei kiddush) state that a person may make kiddush for others even if he is not eating with them. Since it is the place where they will be eating, he fulfills the requirement of makom se'udah (kiddush as the main aspect). However, that person should not drink from the cup, as he may not eat before his own kiddush on his meal. The Bach points out that he may only not drink if he drinks less than a revi'it (appx. 3.3 ozs.) of wine. However, if he drinks that amount, it is as if he has had a meal there (whether or not wine is considered to be a meal will be discussed later on).

The next question is what about that person? Does he have to make kiddush a second time when he returns home? Can he even do so? Since he has already made kiddush perhaps he has already fulfilled his obligation and thus cannot do so for others? The Rosh claims that a person who makes kiddush for others with the intent of returning home for his own meal does not have to make kiddush again, a view supported by the Megillat Setarim quoted by the Ran. With regard to the second question, the Rosh states that he may still make kiddush for the members of his household, since the gemara in Berachot 29a states that a person may make a blessing for others even if he himself has already fulfilled his obligation. The Mordechai adds that even though we say that a person who has no obligation in a commandment may not do that commandment for others, that only applies when he has no obligation at all. However, In our case the person who has already made kiddush still has a general obligation to make kiddush, even though he has fulfilled his obligation for this particular kiddush. To deal with the second case, the Tur rules in the name of the Geonim that a person who has already made kiddush for his family may only make it again for those who do not know how to say kiddush themselves (the Bach proves this from Berachot 29a).

These laws flow naturally into the case of making kiddush in synagogue on Friday night ("kiddushes" held during the day will be dealt with later on). In the good old days, there was an excellent reason to make kiddush in a synagogue. They were used not only for prayers, but also as lodging for guests. Thus, a synagogue was a place of eating, and kiddush could be made there without any real problem. But what about nowadays, when such is not the case? Can we still make kiddush in a synagogue? Tosafot, Shiltei HaGibborim, and Rav Hai Gaon all hold that unless there are guests present, the kiddush constitutes a bracha l'vatala (a worthless blessing and needless mention of God's name). Rav Ovadiah Yoseif (Yabia Omer O.C. 1:15) quotes the Shut (responsa) HaRashba who makes a very important point with regard to our discussion. He points out that the real essence of kiddush from the Torah is to say it when Shabbat enters. The aspect of requiring a place of eating was added later on by the Rabbis. This point allows us some breathing room in terms of making kiddush in a synagogue even when there are no guests eating there. The Rashba himself says that we continue this practice today since it has become part of the prayers, even though the initial reason no longer applies. The Ran offers a toned-down version of this idea, saying that since it is already a custom, we invoke the idea of "minhag avoteinu b'yadeinu" - the custom of our fathers is in our hands, and we do not simply throw it away. In addition, a few other reasons are given. Rabbeinu Yona claims that the kiddush works for those people who do not know how to make kiddush themselves. The Derisha (O.C. 283:4) claims that since kiddush is best made on wine, the kiddush made in the synagogue is for those people who do not have wine of their own. Finally, a reason brought down in several places from Rav Natronai Gaon is that wine from kiddush has healing powers, and thus it may be made in a synagogue even without a meal.

We now move to discussing the relatively common case of a "kiddush" made in a synagogue, at which people make kiddush, eat what amounts to a snack, then return home for their meal. Do they have to make kiddush again? Returning to Rav Feinstein's distinction, if the kiddush if the main part, then a person should not have to make kiddush again as long as he eats enough to constitute a meal in the eyes of halacha. Conversely, if the meal if the main focus of our law, then he should always have to make kiddush again, regardless of how much he eats the first time. As there is almost complete agreement on this, I will begin with the devil's advocate. The Derisha finds it illogical that a person can make kiddush, eat a little bit, and then not make kiddush again. If kiddush is a function of "oneg," there is certainly no "oneg" when one is still hungry, and thus how can one not be required to say kiddush when they finally sit down to their real meal? He suggests as a solution the view of the Rashbam, who states that both parts are part of one big meal. Thus, a person has to eat something "important" when he makes kiddush so that there will be some form of a meal at that point (Rashbam holds that kiddush without food does not count at all), and then he may return home to eat without re-making kiddush. The Riaz states that all eating done on Shabbat is considered to be important, and thus one fulfills his obligation of kiddush even by eating only a small amount when he actually makes kiddush. However, he adds that such a person should make a blessing on wine by his actual meal, as that is the main part of a Shabbat meal.

How much does one have to eat when he says kiddush at a "kiddush" to fulfill his minimal requirement of a meal? The Rokeiach says that a person must eat at least a k'zayit (portion the size of an olive), and thus does not have to say kiddush again. Is any food fine for this, or do we need food that one would actually make a meal out of? The Tur states that either bread or wine (a revi'it) will fulfill the requirement. The Bach agrees to this, saying that as long as what is eaten requires one to make a bracha acharona (afterblessing) of "me-eyn shalosh" (made on non-bread grain products, as well as on fruits from the seven species of Israel and wine) a meal is considered to have occurred. The Beit Yoseif agrees as well, adding in that the wine drunk must be a different cup from that on which kiddush was made so that it is noticeable that it is being used as a "meal." Rav Akiva Eiger notes that wine may only be used according to the view that the expanded bracha acharona of "me-eyn shalosh" is made on all of the seven species of Israel, which includes grapes and thus wine. However, according to the view that this blessing is only made on grain products, the food eaten in this situation must be something made out of one of the five grains (barley, rye, oats, wheat, spelt). The Magen Avraham (O.C. 283:11) also allows any product of the five grains. The Sha'arei Teshuva quotes the Shut Ginat Veradim, who frowns upon the practice of making kiddush in the synagogue and then eating cake to fulfill the requirement of a meal. However, he then cites the Birchei Yoseif that such is the custom and there is nothing wrong with it. Finally, the Mishna Berura (O.C. 283:25) claims that Rav Akiva Eiger's personal view is that wine should not be used unless there is absolutely nothing else available.

Back to Chabura-Net's Home Page