Siman 269

In the time of the Shas, they would recite kiddush in the beit knesset. And even though there is no kiddush except in the place of a meal, nevertheless, in their time there were rooms adjacent to the beit knesset, and guests were commonly found there, and for them it was the place of a meal. (Pesachim 100a) And if so, in a place where there are no guests adjacent to the beit knesset—the kiddush is of no benefit at all, and therefore the Tur cried out against our custom of reciting kiddush in all batei knesset, for it is a blessing in vain, since there are no guests among us; see there. And so wrote our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot in Pesachim, (100b s.v. 'yadei') and this is their wording: "And where there are no guests adjacent to the beit knesset—one should not recite kiddush, for it is a blessing in vain, as we hold like Shmuel that there is no kiddush except in the place of a meal." Thus far their words. And so wrote the Rosh; see there.

However, there are some of our teachers who wrote that it is a fixed enactment, and it is impossible to nullify it even when there are no guests, just as with the blessing "Me'ein Sheva" where the enactment was because of harmful spirits, which nowadays is not relevant as I wrote in the previous siman, and nevertheless it was not nullified, and so too here it is so. (Ran ibid.) And so we found regarding the Rambam, who responded to those who asked him: if in a place where everyone is proficient in prayer if the repetition of the Shliach Tzibbur is required, and he responded in this wording: "Since the Sages, of blessed memory, enacted to have the Shliach Tzibbur descend… just as they enacted kiddush in the beit knesset because of guests, and all batei knesset became obligated even though there are no guests there etc." Thus far his words. (In the final part of the Tashbetz in Chut HaMeshulash siman 31) And I saw one who wrote that there was never a fixed enactment in this, but rather they conducted themselves so on their own, and it is not comparable to the enactment of the repetition of the Shliach Tzibbur and the blessing Me'ein Sheva. (Bach) And in my humble opinion, it appears explicitly from the wording of the Gemara there: "And Shmuel, why do I need to recite kiddush in the beit knesset," implying that it was a fixed enactment, for if not so, it should have challenged: why do we allow them to recite kiddush in the beit knesset, as it challenges so in Rosh Hashanah. (15b) And so wrote the Rashba in the Responsa (siman 37 and 323) and this is his wording: "For originally they enacted to recite kiddush in the beit knesset, and the essence of the enactment was because of guests, and they enacted to recite kiddush whether there are guests or whether there are no guests, similar to the blessing Me'ein Sheva etc." Thus far his words. And he further wrote there that this is an old dispute between the fathers of the world, for Rav Hai Gaon and Rabbi Yitzchak ibn Ghiyyat are among those who forbid when there are no guests, and Rav Natronai is among those who permit and with him a band of prophets, and the ruling has already spread like them. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Maggid Mishneh in chapter 29, law 8, on what the Rambam wrote: And why do they recite kiddush in the beit knesset, because of the guests etc. Thus far his words, and he wrote: "Nevertheless and now… and even though guests do not eat, because since it was enacted — the enactment has not moved from its place." Thus far his words.

The Rosh, in the name of our teacher Yonah, wrote that kiddush in the place of the meal is only rabbinic, but according to the Torah, one has fulfilled the obligation even not in the place of the meal; and since there are people who do not know how to recite kiddush, it is better that they hear it in the synagogue and fulfill their obligation according to the Torah in any event, see there. And this is not satisfactory to most of the poskim who hold that kiddush over wine is only rabbinic, and according to the Torah one fulfills the obligation through prayer, as was written in siman 271. And if so, even for these people there is no benefit, for according to the Torah they have already fulfilled the obligation through prayer, and rabbinically there is no benefit, unless we say that the benefit is for those who also did not pray, and nowadays this is not common. Or perhaps our teacher Yonah holds that kiddush over wine is a Torah matter, and in siman 271 this will be explained with the help of Heaven.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: "It is the custom to recite kiddush in the beit knesset, but the one who recites kiddush should not taste from the wine of the kiddush; rather, he gives it to a minor to taste, for there is no kiddush except in the place of a meal, and originally it was only instituted for the sake of guests... and now... the institution has not been abolished... but it is better to establish the practice not to recite kiddush in the beit knesset, and such is the custom of Eretz Yisrael." Thus far his words. In Ashkenaz they practiced reciting kiddush, and such is the custom in our country in all the batei knesset and batei midrash. However, those who pray Nusach Sefard do not practice reciting kiddush. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that it is the custom to stand at the time they recite kiddush in the beit knesset. Thus far his words. That is to say, even though in the home one recites kiddush while seated, as was written in siman 271, that the custom is to recite kiddush while seated—nevertheless, in the beit knesset one recites kiddush while standing, and the reason is out of respect for the congregation. This refers to the shatz who recites kiddush, and not to the entire congregation, and so wrote the Levush. There is one who explained that the entire congregation must stand (Eliyah Rabbah), and they wrote that it is a segulah for fatigue of the knees, but in our days we have not seen this custom. And also what the Tur wrote in the name of the Gaon: that it is a segulah to put the wine into the eyes, see there. This too we have not seen as a custom regarding kiddush, only regarding havdalah. (And in Berakhot 43b, it equates kiddush to havdalah in this matter.)

And that which he wrote: "that he gives it to a minor to taste"—this is not like feeding a forbidden item directly to a minor, which some maintain later in siman 343, that even a rabbinic prohibition is forbidden to give directly. For in this, there is no prohibition at all for a minor, as we do not forbid feeding a minor without kiddush, for in this one is not obligated to train him so that his heart does not grow weak, just as it is with fasts where we do not train them at all. (See Magen Avraham) And there is one who wrote that we give to a minor who has not reached the age of chinuch, (Bach) and such is the custom now to give to many minors a little bit at a time, and they are minors who have not reached the age of chinuch. However, in the name of the Rashba they wrote to give specifically to minors who have reached the age of chinuch for the reason we have written. And if there is no minor in the beit knesset, an adult should drink the entire cup, and rely on the opinion in siman 273 in the name of the Geonim, that in such circumstances it is called "in the place of a meal," and he may eat in another place; see there. Or the one who recites kiddush should drink the entire cup and intend to fulfill his obligation with this kiddush, and in his home he shall recite kiddush for the sake of the members of his household. And it is customary to purchase this mitzvah of wine for kiddush and havdalah with money, (Magen Avraham) and they consider this a great mitzvah, and in the "Mi Shebeirach" on Shabbat after the reading of the Torah they established a blessing for one who gives wine for kiddush and havdalah, as written in the prayer books.