Pesachim 101a (קא.) — the Talmud in English

And Shmuel said:

even my obligation of Kiddush was not fulfilled,

as he explains below: Kiddush is only valid in the place of the meal.

And we raised an objection:

But according to Rav, why does

the prayer leader

need to recite Kiddush in his home?

He has already fulfilled his obligation of Kiddush in the synagogue.

And we answer:

In order to enable

his

sons and members of his household

to fulfill their obligation of Kiddush. And we raised an objection:

And according to Shmuel, why does

the prayer leader

need to recite Kiddush in the synagogue,

in the synagogue, since he does not fulfill his obligation of Kiddush through this, because he does not eat there? And we answer: In order

to enable

the

guests to fulfill their obligation.

For with regard to them, the Kiddush is in the place of a meal, because

they eat, drink, and sleep

there,

in the synagogue.

And Shmuel follows his own reasoning, as Shmuel said: Kiddush is only valid in the place of a meal!

And one who recites Kiddush not in the place of a meal has not fulfilled his obligation.

They thought

the members of the academy thought that

this matter

that Kiddush is valid only in the place of a meal applies specifically

when moving from one house to another.

If one recited Kiddush in this house and went to eat in another house, he must recite Kiddush there again.

But when moving from place to place within one house,

for example, if one recited Kiddush in the house and eats in an upper room,

not

did Shmuel say that he must recite Kiddush again; rather, this is considered Kiddush in the place of a meal.

Rav Anan bar Taḥlifa said to them: Many times

many times

I would stand before Shmuel,

I was with him,

and he would descend from the roof to the ground,

he would descend from the upper room to another house after having recited Kiddush,

and then recite Kiddush again

in the house! For this too is considered Kiddush not in the place of a meal.

And Rav Huna also held

that

Kiddush is valid only in the place of a meal!

For Rav Huna recited Kiddush, and his lamp went out,

his lamp went out before the meal,

and they brought his belongings

they carried all his belongings

to the bridal chamber of Rabba, his son,

to the house where the wedding feast of his son Rabba was held,

where there was

there

a lamp. And he recited Kiddush

there a second time,

and tasted something.

This indicates that he held that Kiddush is valid only in the place of a meal,

and therefore he did not fulfill his obligation through the first Kiddush, because he did not eat there.

And Rabba also held: Kiddush is valid only in the place of a meal!

For Abaye said: When I was in the presence of my master,

when I studied with Rabba,

when he would recite Kiddush, he would say to us: Taste something

here in my house,

lest, by the time you go to the lodging place

by the time you reach your lodgings,

your lamp go out,

the lamp there go out,

and you will not recite Kiddush for us in a place where there is food,

you will be unable to recite Kiddush there and eat.

And through the Kiddush here you will not fulfill your obligation —

for Kiddush is valid only in the place of a meal.

Therefore, eat here, so that the Kiddush you heard from me will be in the place of a meal, and you will be able to fulfill your obligation of Kiddush through it.

And we challenge what we said, that Rabba held that Kiddush is valid only in the place of a meal:

Is that so?

For Abaye said: In every matter of my master,

in all of Rabba’s practices,

he would act in accordance with Rav.

In every dispute between Rav and Shmuel, Rabba followed Rav rather than Shmuel, in accordance with the principle that the halakha follows Rav in matters of prohibition.

Except

apart from

these three

halakhot,

in which he acted

in them

in accordance with Shmuel,

although Rav disagreed with Shmuel concerning them. And these are they:

a.

They permit

the ritual fringes

from a garment

of an old garment in order to tie them

to a garment

new [whereas Rav prohibited this because one may not nullify the mitzva of ritual fringes from the first garment].

b.

And they light from a lamp

of Hanukkah that is burning

to a lamp

of another Hanukkah lamp [whereas Rav prohibited this because of contempt for the mitzva of the first lamp; rather, one should light from a lamp that is not a Hanukkah lamp].

c.

And the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon with regard to dragging.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says: A person may drag a bed, a chair, or a bench

along the ground

on Shabbat, provided that he does not intend to make a furrow [which is a derivative of the labor of plowing in a field, or a derivative of the labor of building in a house]. For Rabbi Shimon holds that an unintentional act is permitted [whereas Rav ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who disagreed with Rabbi Shimon and prohibited an unintentional act].

Since Rabba acted in accordance with Rav in every matter, why did he rule in accordance with Shmuel that Kiddush must be in the place of a meal, and not in accordance with Rav, who holds that Kiddush need not be in the place of a meal?

And we answer: Only

And we resolve: Only

with the stringencies of Rav did he act,

only where Rav was stringent did Rabba follow him. But

with the leniencies of Rav,

where Rav was lenient, as in our case, where Rav is lenient and holds that Kiddush need not be in the place of a meal,

he did not act

in accordance with him.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

those people who recite Kiddush in the synagogue

also fulfilled their obligation concerning the wine,

and they need not recite Borei Peri HaGefen over the wine they drink in their homes, because they did not divert their attention from the time they recited the blessing over the wine in the synagogue, since they intended to eat and drink in their homes.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his own reasoning.

For we find that he holds that a change of location alone does not require a new blessing.