Siman 271

We have learned in a Baraita in Pesachim (106a): "'Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it' (Exodus 20:7) — remember it over wine at its entrance." For "remembrance" is written regarding wine — "its remembrance is like the wine of Lebanon" (Hosea 14:8), "we will remember your love more than wine" (Song of Songs 1:4) (Tosafot). And it appears that kiddush over wine is an asmachta (ibid.), and it is further possible to say that kiddush over wine is a Torah law, but that which requires the one who recites the blessing to taste it — this is rabbinic (ibid.). Our teachers, the Tosafot, were in doubt whether kiddush over wine is a Torah law or rabbinic. The Rambam wrote at the beginning of chapter 29: "It is a positive commandment from the Torah to sanctify the Sabbath day with words, as it is said: 'Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it,' meaning remember it with a remembrance of praise and sanctification. And one must remember it at its entrance and at its departure: at its entrance with the kiddush of the day, and at its departure with havdalah... and it is from the words of the scribes to sanctify over wine and to recite havdalah over wine, etc." Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote explicitly that from the Torah one fulfills the obligation with words alone. According to this, from the Torah we have fulfilled the obligation through prayer, with the blessing of "be pleased with our rest" in which we blessed "Who sanctifies the Sabbath," and the kiddush over the cup is rabbinic. And in the Mechilta it is found: "'Remember etc.' — sanctify it with a blessing," and so it was decided by the great later authorities that this is rabbinic (Magen Avraham subsection 1 and Sha'agat Aryeh siman 60), and so wrote the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol in the positive commandments (29), that from the Torah it is with words alone; see there.

But from the words of Rashi in Berakhot (20b), who wrote: "Kiddush of the day is a time-bound positive commandment, 'Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it'—remember it over wine," thus far his words, it implies explicitly that it is from the Torah. And so wrote the commentator at the beginning of Nazir (4a), that Kiddush over wine is an oath standing from Mount Sinai; see there. And so wrote the Ran in Pesachim there, that Kiddush of the day over the cup is rabbinic, but Kiddush of the night is from the Torah, as it is a complete derivation. And so it is proven from his words in the second chapter of Shabbat, where the Shas says: (Shabbat 23b) that the Hanukkah candle takes precedence over Kiddush of the day because of the publication of the miracle. And the Ran asked: how can we set aside Kiddush of the day, which is from the Torah, for the sake of the Hanukkah candle, which is rabbinic? And he answered that he can recite Kiddush over bread; see there. And if it should enter your mind that from the Torah one fulfills the obligation with mere words in prayer, there is no beginning to his question. (See there in Anshei Shem, and it is not so, and examine it closely). And according to his words, it is not specifically wine, for the same law applies to bread; however, one must recite Kiddush over some thing from the Torah. And in the name of the Ra'avyah they brought that it is specifically over wine that it is from the Torah, for "remember it over wine" is a complete derivation, and so wrote the Or Zarua HaGadol (Siman 25).

In my humble opinion, a proof for this view appears from what we say in Pesachim (117b): "Rav Acha bar Yaakov said: One must mention the Exodus from Egypt in the Kiddush of the day; it is written here: 'Remember the day,' and it is written there: 'In order that you remember the day of your departure from the land of Egypt,'" see there. Now, if it should enter your mind that according to the Torah one fulfills the obligation through prayer—they should have instituted to mention the Exodus from Egypt in the prayer, as this is the essence of Kiddush according to the Torah. And even if we say that mentioning the Exodus from Egypt is merely an asmakhta, nevertheless, how could we abandon the essence of Kiddush according to the Torah? Rather, it is certainly true that even according to the Torah, one does not fulfill the obligation with mere words. And so it is explained in the Yerushalmi Berakhot at the beginning of the chapter "Elu Devarim," where Rabbi Zera says there that it is learned from the words of both: we recite Havdalah without wine, but we do not recite Kiddush without wine, see there; it is not specifically wine, but rather the same law applies to other beverages. And behold, regarding the rabbinic enactment, it is explicitly stated in the Yerushalmi there in the chapter "Ein Omdin" that Havdalah as well is over a cup, and Rabbi Zera himself says there that they instituted it both in prayer and over a cup; rather, he certainly must be speaking regarding the Torah law, that Kiddush even according to the Torah requires some object, therefore they were stringent regarding wine specifically. But Havdalah—it suffices in prayer according to the Torah, therefore they were not stringent regarding it to require wine specifically.

This is the wording of the Bahag (page 12): "We are obligated to sanctify the Sabbath day and the festivals in prayer and over a cup of wine, as it is written: 'Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it'—remember it over wine at its onset; from here the sages found support for the sanctification of the day from the Torah. I only have the Sabbath; from where do we derive the Festival of Matzot? The verse states: 'So that you may remember the day of your departure from the land of Egypt' (Deuteronomy 16:3). From where do we derive the Festival of Shavuot? The verse states: 'And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt' (Deuteronomy 15:15). From where do we derive the Festival of Sukkot? The verse states: 'And you shall remember,' etc. And even though one mentions it in the kiddush, one must mention it in the prayer and in the Grace After Meals. What is the reason? 'Remember' and 'And you shall remember that you were a slave,' etc.—two verses are written, and the festivals are derived from the Sabbath: just as the Sabbath is in prayer and over the cup, so too the festival is in prayer and over the cup." Thus far his words. And he does not count Rosh Hashanah, for it does not require a derivation, as it is explicitly called "a remembrance of the blast" (Leviticus 23:24), and since the derivation is from the language of "remembrance," it is obvious that Rosh Hashanah is similar to the Sabbath in this. And from his wording it implies that it is d'rabbanan, for he says: "From here they found support," etc., and furthermore, he equates the Sabbath to the festival, and kiddush on a festival is certainly d'rabbanan, as the Maggid Mishneh wrote there, law 18. (Magen Avraham, subsection 1) And the kiddush of the day is also d'rabbanan only for the sake of the honor of the day, and therefore they did not establish matters within it, for the essence of the kiddush is at night at the onset of the Sabbath, as the Ra'avad wrote there in chapter 29; see there.

Women are obligated in the kiddush of the day by Torah law, even though it is a time-bound positive commandment, because "remember" [zakhor] is linked to "observe" [shamor]. Since these women are included in "observing," as "observe" is a negative commandment and women are commanded regarding negative commandments, they are also included in "remembering." (Berakhot 20b) Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2: They may fulfill the obligation for men, since they are obligated by the Torah like them. Thus far his words. And even according to those who hold that kiddush over a cup is of rabbinic origin, as by Torah law they fulfill the obligation through prayer—nevertheless, men and women are equal, and whatever the sages ordained, they ordained similar to the Torah law. This is also the case for women, for by Torah law they fulfill the obligation through prayer, and over a cup they are obligated by rabbinic law; if so, they stand on the same level and have the ability to fulfill the obligation for them. And there are those who wish to say that they do not fulfill the obligation for men, as with the Megillah later in siman 689. (Rashal and Bach) But this is not the primary view, for there, since it is in public, it is a slight to the community, as the Tosafot wrote in Sukkah (38a), which is not the case regarding kiddush; and so wrote the commentators on the Shulchan Aruch. (The Taz and the Magen Avraham, subsection 2)

And it appears on the surface that when do they fulfill the obligation for one another? When both of them have prayed or both of them have not prayed, for their obligation is equal. But if one has prayed and the second has not prayed—the one who prayed does not fulfill the obligation for the one who has not prayed, according to the opinion of the poskim that by Torah law one fulfills the obligation through prayer, and if so, one who has prayed, his obligation is only rabbinic, and one who has not prayed, his obligation is by Torah law, and a rabbinic obligation cannot come and fulfill a Torah obligation. However, according to this, we would not find our hands and feet in all families, where the head of the household recites kiddush and fulfills the obligation for his wife, his daughters, and his daughters-in-law, even though they have not prayed. However, the truth is that this is only regarding blessings of enjoyment and the Grace After Meals, but it is not so regarding blessings of the mitzvot, for one can fulfill the obligation for his fellow even if he has already fulfilled his own obligation, based on the reason that "all Israel are guarantors for one another," as it is brought at the end of the third chapter of Rosh Hashanah, and therefore a man and a woman can fulfill the obligation for one another in all cases. And there is one who wishes to say that a woman is not included in the status of guarantor, and it is a strange thing. And the Rosh, who wrote this reasoning at the beginning of the third chapter of Berakhot, it is only regarding a mitzvah that the woman has no connection to, see there, but in that which she is obligated—she is entirely equal to a man. (And so wrote the Gara"a in the margins of the Shulchan Aruch and in his responsa)

It is a simple matter that a katan cannot fulfill the obligation for an adult male or a woman, for he is not within the scope of obligation. And even when he is thirteen years and one day old, if we do not know with certainty that he has produced hairs—he cannot fulfill the obligation for a woman when she has not prayed, because then her obligation is from the Torah, and regarding a Torah matter we do not say the presumption is that he has produced signs, as is written in Choshen Mishpat siman 35 regarding the matter of testimony. (Magen Avraham at the end of subsection 2) However, when she has prayed—her obligation is only rabbinic, and regarding a rabbinic matter we do say this presumption. And even though there are those who hold that kiddush over a cup is a Torah matter as has been written—nevertheless, in this we can rely on those who hold that from the Torah, prayer is sufficient, because even regarding the core of this matter that we do not say this presumption in a Torah matter, there is some room for doubt. (See Tosafot Bava Batra 154a, starting with "And furthermore," and in the Noda BiYehudah Even HaEzer siman 61, and in our work Or LeYasharim siman 8, letter 3)

And know that according to the one who holds above in siman 193 that even in the Holy Tongue one cannot fulfill the obligation for others unless he understands the language, but when he does not understand—he does not fulfill the obligation unless he says it after him word for word, for in such a case even when he does not understand—he fulfills the obligation, if so, these women of ours, most of whom do not know the Holy Tongue, do not fulfill the obligation of kiddush unless they say it word for word after the one reciting kiddush, and the custom is not so. However, in truth, we explained there in section 4 that the primary view is according to the opinion of Rashi, that in the Holy Tongue—even one who does not understand fulfills the obligation through hearing alone, and from the custom there is proof for our words, see there.

It is stated in Pesachim (105a): The honor of the day precedes the honor of the night, such that if one does not have much wine or types of delicacies to suffice for both meals—the honor of the day precedes, for the commandment regarding delight is greater during the day than at night. And I saw that the Maharshal (Yam Shel Shlomo, Gittin chapter 4, siman 51) protests against the world who eat fish on Friday nights and not in the morning, for since the honor of the day precedes—he should have left it for the second meal, and so he used to practice; see there. And in my humble opinion, it seems possible to justify the custom, for this is why Rashi and the Rashbam explained regarding "much wine and types of delicacies" as I have written, and why did they not explain it generally regarding good foods? For "types of delicacies" means fruits, as it is written: "precious fruits" (pri megadim). This is because it is certain that regarding foods that cannot be the same during the day as they are at night, such as hot fish or soup and hot meat, which necessarily when they remain for the next day will be spoiled from their previous taste—for this is like the "disfigurement of form" in consecrated items—it is obvious that we are not required to refrain from eating at night because such is impossible for the next day. And if so, we would not eat wheat bread at night, for the bread is much better at night than during the day, as is known. Rather, it is certain the Torah did not command not to eat at night because there will not be the likes of it the next day, and therefore they explained regarding wine and fruits which will not spoil until the next day—in this, the honor of the day precedes. Therefore, regarding hot fish which the world cherishes more than cold, and this is impossible to have during the day—therefore we eat this at night, and likewise hot and good soup. And in contrast to this, we insulate in the oven for the next day foods that require much shrinkage, and likewise the kugel for the honor of the day, and the holy nation acts properly. (And with this, the Zohar Yitro (page 157) which the Magen Avraham cited in subsection 4 is settled, and this is its wording: "One must arrange the table on the night of Shabbat with bread and with food; Rabbi Yitzchak says even on the day of Shabbat as well." Thus far its words. And it is difficult: what is the meaning of "even," for the honor of the day precedes? But according to what I wrote, this is the explanation: that one must arrange the table at night with bread and with food, even though the bread and the foods of the night are better than those of the day because they are hot. And if so, I would have said that on the day of Shabbat, since it is impossible to have like that of the night, one should not arrange it at all but rather eat something small—it comes to teach us that whatever you are able to prepare, you should prepare.)

And that which the honor of the day takes precedence—this is regarding other matters of the meal's needs. But if he has only one cup of wine—the kiddush of the night takes precedence over that of the day, for the primary kiddush is at night as has been written. Therefore, if his hand cannot reach to prepare wine for kiddush and to prepare the needs of the meal for the honor of the night and for the honor of the day and for the kiddush of the day—it is better that he buy wine for the kiddush of the night than that he prepare the needs of the meal, or than that he buy wine for the kiddush of the day. However, bread takes precedence over everything, so that he should not be hungry and to eat for the fulfillment of the three meals. And it appears that the kiddush of the day also takes precedence over other foods of the day, except for bread. And there is one who says that it is possible that the honor of the day is preferable to the kiddush of the day, for the kiddush is for the sake of the honor. (See Magen Avraham at the end of subsection 3) But the primary [ruling] is as I have written, and so it is explained from the Yerushalmi which Tosafot brought in Pesachim (113a) which says: 'What is the honor of the day—borei peri hagafen' see there. (And so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah, and also the Magen Avraham was in doubt about it, see there)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 1: When he arrives at his home, he should hasten to eat immediately. Thus far his words. And this is in order to recite kiddush so that he remembers the Shabbat at its onset (Magen Avraham, subsection 1), and consequently he should eat immediately, because of the rule that kiddush must be in the place of the meal, and even before it grows dark (Turei Zahav, subsection 1), and he may eat by means of this kiddush (ibid.), and we have already explained this in siman 267; see there. And it is obvious that if he is not yet able to eat—that he may wait several hours into the night (Ma'aseh Rokeach in the responsa). And I saw one who wrote that he should recite kiddush specifically before nightfall, for at the beginning of the night of Shabbat is the constellation of Mars, and at the end of Friday is the constellation of Jupiter—therefore he should recite kiddush during Jupiter (Magen Avraham, ibid.). And in my humble opinion this is astonishing, for Heaven forbid to say that we are under the constellations; on the contrary, I have seen in the ancient writings that the ancient nations would sit on Shabbat in darkness and weep, because the constellations of Shabbat indicate evil. But the Holy One, Blessed be He, commanded us the opposite, to kindle much light and to delight ourselves, to show that we are above the constellations. And the Lord took us to bring us out from the celestial systems, so how can we say such a thing? And this requires great study, and he who trusts in the Lord, kindness shall encompass him. (The Magen Avraham there cited the Yerushalmi at the beginning of Berakhot that it is the way to eat an hour or two into the night, see there; however, see there in the Peirush Charedim that "two" refers to two parts of an hour, and for the reason that the synagogues were in the fields far from the city, and until they arrived time elapsed automatically; and on the contrary, from what he answered there regarding those villages, see there—it implies that it is a mitzvah to eat earlier, and delve into this.)

Once the time for kiddush has arrived, meaning from nightfall, even if he has not yet accepted Shabbat—it is forbidden to eat or drink, even water and even a mere tasting, until he recites kiddush, due to the honor of the Shabbat. For Shabbat establishes itself when its time arrives, even though he has not yet accepted Shabbat, and the obligation of kiddush takes effect upon him, and it is forbidden for him to taste anything until he recites kiddush. However, to rinse his mouth—there is no concern, since he does not intend to taste. (Magen Avraham, subsection 5) And if he accepted Shabbat while it was still day—it is forbidden for him to eat and drink and taste until he recites kiddush, since he accepted Shabbat. And he may recite kiddush and eat and pray Maariv afterward, provided that there is more than half an hour until the time for the recitation of the Shema of Maariv, for if not so, it is forbidden to eat on account of the recitation of the Shema, as I have written in siman 232. And know, that even if he has only one cup of wine and wishes to leave it for Birkat HaMazon—the kiddush takes precedence, even according to the one who holds that Birkat HaMazon requires a cup, even though regarding Havdalah it is not so, as I have written in siman 296. (ibid.) And even if he can recite kiddush over bread—he should not do so, but rather he should recite kiddush over the wine, and recite Birkat HaMazon without a cup.

And it is not only that it is forbidden to begin eating and drinking when the time for kiddush arrives, for this is also the case regarding havdalah, but even if they were reclining to eat while it was still day, for in such a case regarding havdalah, when one began on Shabbat to eat while it was still day—he does not need to stop, even if the meal continued for several hours into the night, but regarding kiddush it is not so, for due to the honor of the Shabbat—he must stop his meal and recite kiddush. However, he does not need to stop entirely by removing the table and reciting birkat hamazon, but rather he spreads a cloth and recites kiddush, meaning just as on every Shabbat when they bring the lechem mishneh before kiddush, and place it on the table and spread a cloth over it and recite kiddush as will be explained, so too they do now, and so the halacha was decided. (Pesachim 100a)

And since he is in the middle of the meal, how should he act regarding the blessing of Borei Peri HaGafen of kiddush and the blessing of HaMotzi: The opinion of the Maor and the SeMag is that he recites kiddush without the blessing of HaGafen, and eats without the blessing of HaMotzi, since he is in the middle of the meal. However, the Rif wrote: He spreads a cloth and recites kiddush, and afterwards blesses HaMotzi, and finishes his meal and recites Birkat HaMazon. It is clear from his words that HaGafen is not required, but HaMotzi is required, and so wrote the BaHaG. And the reason: regarding the blessing of HaMotzi, the kiddush constitutes an interruption, for once the day has become sanctified—eating is forbidden, (Rosh) and since eating is forbidden and he is obligated to perform kiddush— these two matters obligate him in the blessing of HaMotzi. This is not the case for the blessing of HaGafen which is before kiddush, for even though it is forbidden to drink, nevertheless, since he has not yet interrupted with kiddush—he does not need to bless. And this matter is explicit in the Yerushalmi Berakhot (Chapter 1, Halacha 5) that he does not need Borei Peri HaGafen, see there, and it is understood automatically that if he recites kiddush over the bread that he does not need HaMotzi, for this is like the blessing of Borei Peri HaGafen. And the Tur brought an opinion that he must also bless the blessing of HaGafen before kiddush, and the reason is that since it is forbidden to drink—automatically the obligation of a blessing falls upon him, for this is like a complete interruption, but we have not found explicitly anyone who holds this. (See Bach and Taz subsection 5 and it is not compelling) And even if one who holds this is found—we are not concerned for this, since it is against the Yerushalmi, and furthermore, for we see that it is not like a complete interruption, since we do not obligate him to recite Birkat HaMazon, rather that regarding HaMotzi—it is considered an interruption because of the kiddush and the prohibition together as I wrote, and it is like one who changed his mind, meaning like one who finished eating and changed his mind to eat more—who must bless HaMotzi, and here too it is so. Nevertheless, the opinion of the Rambam in chapter 29, law 12 is like the Maor and the SeMag, see there, and for the halacha our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in section 4 like the Rif, because the Rosh ruled so, and regarding the words of the Rambam he was in doubt in his great work, see there, and he wrote the opinion of the Maor and the SeMag in the name of "there are those who say," see there. (And from the words of the Maggid Mishneh there it is clear that he reasons an a fortiori argument from HaGafen to HaMotzi that it is not required, see there and examine carefully) (And the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 8 that also over the wine that is within the meal he does not need to bless, for there is no interruption between the cup of kiddush from its drinking to the drinking of wine that is within the meal, see there. And it is simple that this is dealing with when he drank wine within the meal from while it was still day, for if not so—it is obvious that he blesses over the wine, but when he recites kiddush over the bread—he should not bless)

All this that has been explained applies to one who is in the middle of his meal while it is still day. But if he finished the meal, the Rambam wrote there, and this is his wording: "If he was eating and finished his eating with the onset of Shabbat—he recites Birkat HaMazon first, and afterward recites kiddush over a second cup. And he shall not recite the blessing and kiddush over one cup, because we do not perform two mitzvot with one cup, as the mitzvah of kiddush and the mitzvah of Birkat HaMazon are two mitzvot from the Torah." Thus far his words. And the wording of the Shas (ibid. 102b): "Because we do not perform mitzvot in bundles." See there. And from the wording of the Rambam, it is implied that only regarding two mitzvot from the Torah we do not say this; and according to this, following his view that with words alone one fulfills the obligation of kiddush from the Torah, if he recited kiddush with words—he may perform both over one cup. And certainly regarding the blessings of erusin and nisuin, since both blessings are rabbinic—they may perform them over one cup. But our teachers the Tosafot and the Rosh there did not write so; see there. And it is possible that even the Rambam did not specifically mean "from the Torah," but rather because such is the truth here, that both are from the Torah, he wrote so, and the same law applies to two rabbinic mitzvot, since the reason is so that it should not appear upon him like a burden. (Rashbam ibid., and Rashi and Tosafot in Sotah 8a, but in Sotah it considers there only those from the Torah, and see Berakhot 49a, and it requires further study, and examine it closely.)

And one should not ask, "Do we not require kiddush in the place of a meal?" for it can be said that the meal from before, when he recites kiddush immediately, is considered "in the place of a meal." (Ran, ibid.) And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 6: that one must mention the Sabbath in Birkat HaMazon, even though he recites the blessing before kiddush, see there, and even though they did not eat at night at all. And even though it was explained in siman 188 that we follow the beginning of the meal—it can be said that the Sabbath is different, since it has established itself, it is necessary to mention the Sabbath. Furthermore, since he will recite kiddush immediately, automatically from now the obligations of the Sabbath take effect upon him. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 14, who wrote that this is because of doubt, and the Taz, subsection 8, compares it to one who did not pray on the eve of the Sabbath, who prays two of the Sabbath, see there, and I do not know the comparison. In my humble opinion, it appears as I have written, but it is also written so in the Rosh, and it must be said according to our words because the Sabbath has taken effect upon him, and according to this it is all one, and delve into it.)

And in truth, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who say he does not mention that of Shabbat, for we follow the beginning of the meal, and such is the primary ruling. Thus far his words. And in the Tosefta of Berakhot we learned that he mentions that of Shabbat, and this is when they also ate at night, and not when they finished while it was still day. Therefore, if they indeed also ate after it grew dark—it is obvious that he must mention it. (Magen Avraham, subsection 15). And know, that there is a dispute whether he should taste from the cup of Birkat HaMazon before he recites Kiddush, for there is one who holds that he does not drink from it until after Kiddush, and there is one who holds that he recites the blessing over it and drinks, (ibid. subsection 16) and consequently, he should not recite the blessing over the cup of Kiddush (ibid.).

And all this is according to the approach of the Rambam, that one recites Birkat HaMazon and afterward Kiddush of the day. And even according to this opinion, there are those who hold that one is obligated to eat a little before the Kiddush, so that there will be Kiddush in the place of a meal, and not to rely on the meal that preceded the Kiddush. However, the opinion of the Rosh is entirely not so; rather, even at the conclusion of his meal he does not recite Birkat HaMazon first, but rather spreads a cloth and recites Kiddush and recites HaMotzi and eats a little, and afterward recites Birkat HaMazon, and so one should do if this occurs, to remove oneself from dispute. And know that even according to the opinion of the Rambam, it is only when he has already washed his hands for mayim acharonim, but as long as he has not washed his hands, even if he said "bring [water] and let us bless" — he spreads a cloth and recites Kiddush. And those who disagree hold that even if he washed mayim acharonim — he spreads a cloth and recites Kiddush. However, in such a case it is obvious that he must recite "Borei Peri HaGafen" over the Kiddush, and also wash his hands and recite "Al Netilat Yadayim" and "HaMotzi," (ibid. subsection 18) for after mayim acharonim the preceding meal has already been terminated.

The Rambam wrote in chapter 4 of Berakhot, law 8: "If they were drinking and said, 'Come, let us recite Birkat HaMazon' or 'Come, let us sanctify the Kiddush of the day'—it is forbidden for them to drink until they recite the blessing or sanctify. And if they wished to return and drink before they recited the blessing or sanctified, even though they are not permitted—they must return and first recite the blessing 'borei pri ha-gafen' and afterwards they may drink. But if they said 'Come, let us recite Havdalah'—they do not need to return and recite the blessing." Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 5, transcribed this law regarding Kiddush alone, and from the words of the Rambam it is clear that also regarding 'Come, let us recite Birkat HaMazon'—it is forbidden to drink, but our teacher, the Beit Yosef, did not rule so above in siman 179, for 'Come, let us recite the blessing' does not forbid the drinking, rather that one must recite a blessing, see there, and we have already explained his opinion on this in section 4 there, see there. (And see Taz, subsection 6). And that which is clear from his words, that regarding the Kiddush of the day one must say 'Come, let us sanctify,' but without this it is permitted—this is while it is still day, but once it has become dark, even if they did not say 'Come, let us sanctify'—they are forbidden from drinking, for the Shabbat establishes itself. (And with this they resolve the objection of the Ra'avad there). And even in a case of doubt whether it is dark they must stop, (Magen Avraham, subsection 10). And regarding the law of Havdalah, it will be explained in siman 299 with the help of Heaven. And in this law, when they said 'Come, let us sanctify' and they must sanctify—one does not need to recite the blessing 'borei pri ha-gafen' over the cup of Kiddush, (ibid.). Nevertheless, one should be careful not to come to this, because there are different opinions on this, and in truth, in our days we have not heard of people doing so.

One who forgot to recite kiddush until after the blessing of hamotzi, and remembered before he ate—he should recite kiddush over this bread and afterwards eat, and he should not recite kiddush over the wine, for if so, this blessing of "hamotzi" would be in vain, as afterwards it would not be effective since he interrupted with kiddush. And it is obvious that if he ate the hamotzi—he should interrupt his meal and perform kiddush over the wine. And if he has only bread—he should take a complete lechem mishneh and recite kiddush without the blessing of hamotzi. And likewise, even if he did not yet eat the hamotzi, but he already cut the challot—he should take another complete challah and join it to the second complete one if he cut one, or two other challot if he cut both of them, and perform kiddush. And it appears to me that with two other challot he must also recite hamotzi, for they were not before him at all at the time he recited hamotzi, and also his mind was not upon them. (See Magen Avraham subsection 11 and his intention is as I have written). But regarding havdalah, if it happened thus that he performed hamotzi and forgot to recite havdalah, and remembered before he ate—he must eat a piece of the hamotzi, for behold havdalah is impossible over bread, and his blessing would be in vain. Therefore, it is better to eat a little before havdalah than to cause a blessing in vain, and afterwards he should interrupt and recite havdalah. And there is one who says that even regarding havdalah he should not eat, and he should recite havdalah first and afterwards recite hamotzi a second time and eat, even though the first blessing will be in vain, because it is forbidden to eat before havdalah. (Ibid. subsection 12 in the name of the Ritzba). But our teacher, the Rema, in section 5 ruled as I wrote previously; see there.

Even though it is forbidden to taste before kiddush, nevertheless, if one tasted or even ate—he recites kiddush afterward immediately when he remembers, even during the night, for we maintain (ibid. 107a): "If he tasted—he recites kiddush; if he tasted—he recites havdalah." And it appears to me that even if he did so intentionally—nevertheless, he recites kiddush or havdalah afterward. And one who did not recite kiddush at night, whether inadvertently or intentionally—he recites kiddush the next day and says the kiddush of the night, except for "Vayechulu" which he does not say, for "Vayechulu" is only at the entrance of Shabbat, because at the beginning of the night the Holy One, Blessed be He, finished His work. And perhaps you will ask that if so, how do we say "Vayechulu" when reciting kiddush several hours into the night? This is not a question, for the entire night is one. And it appears that when he recites kiddush the next day—he fulfills his obligation for the kiddush of the day as well, and he does not need to recite kiddush for the day on its own, and one kiddush counts for the night and the day.

There must be a cloth on the table beneath the bread, and another cloth spread over the bread, and such is the custom in all the dispersions of Israel, and they arrange this while it is still day. In the time of the Shas, when they ate on small tables and there was a table before each individual, they would arrange it on a table that stood in another place, and after the kiddush they would bring the table before him, and they did not need to cover the bread. But now that the table is large and stands permanently in the place of eating and the challot must be on the table at the time of kiddush, so that the meal shall be at the time of kiddush, for this is the honor of Shabbat. Therefore, it is necessary to place a cloth over the challot, so that the bread does not see its shame, for one does not recite kiddush over it. According to this, after kiddush, one may remove the cloth. However, the Tur wrote another reason: that this is a remembrance of the manna, which was covered from above and from below. According to this, the cloth must remain until after hamotzi, and such is the custom. There are those who bring the challot after kiddush, and this is sufficient only for the reason that the bread should not see its shame, and it is not proper to do so, and even one who recites kiddush over the bread must do so.

And he recites kiddush over a full cup of wine that is not pagum, and it requires everything that a cup for birkat hamazon requires: that the cup be whole, and it requires rinsing from the outside and washing from the inside, and full, and that the wine not be pagum, as is written in siman 183, and this matter is required both for the kiddush of the morning and for havdalah. The general rule of the matter: everything that is required for the cup of birkat hamazon is also required for these, and likewise for the kiddush of Yom Tov. And the one who recites kiddush receives it with both his hands, and holds it in his right hand alone, and raises it a tefach from the table, and places his eyes upon the cup as is written there, and says 'Vayechulu'. And even though they said it in the beit knesset—he must return and say it over the cup, in order to fulfill this obligation of Vayechulu, to testify regarding the Holy One, Blessed be He, in the act of creation, for his children and the members of his household who have not yet said it, such as those who were not in the beit knesset, and afterwards he recites the blessing 'borei pri hagafen' and kiddush.

Whether one must perform kiddush standing or sitting is not explicitly clarified in the Gemara or in the poskim, and it implies that there is no strict requirement. From the Rambam at the end of the laws of Sukkah, it is explicitly clear that they performed it sitting, as he wrote there that on the first night of Sukkot one must perform the kiddush standing, so as not to sit before the blessing of "to dwell in the Sukkah," and the Ra'avad disagreed with him, saying that even then they perform it sitting; see there. Behold, it is explicitly clear that they would perform it sitting. This is also clear from Tosafot in Berakhot (43a): that regarding any matter of eating or drinking where one must fulfill the obligation of others with his blessing, it must be while sitting, and regarding havdalah they also wrote that it is better to perform it sitting; see there. Learn from this that they would perform it sitting. However, the sages of the Kabbalah wrote to perform it standing, and so was the practice of the Arizal (Pri Etz Chaim page 98b), and he would hold the cup opposite the chest and perform kiddush standing (ibid.), for the blessings of the bride must be while standing, and Shabbat is called "bride," as we say: "Come, O bride; come, O bride" (Siddur Shelah; see there). According to the law, there is no strict requirement, and Tosafot already wrote there that even when performing it standing, if everyone prepares themselves to hear, they fulfill their obligation with his blessing even while standing; see there. Only "Vayechulu," according to all opinions, is proper to perform standing, since it is a testimony. Yet even regarding this, there are those who only stand during "Yom Hashishi Vayechulu Hashamayim," as the initial letters are the Name of Hashem, blessed be He, and they stand in His honor.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 10: "And one says 'Vayechulu' standing, and afterwards says 'Borei Peri HaGafen', and afterwards the Kiddush." Thus far his words. And from the plain sense of his wording, it implies that after Vayechulu one must sit. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote on this, and this is his wording: "And one may stand during the time of the Kiddush, but it is better to sit (because of the words of the Tosafot that we brought). And it is the custom to sit even at the time that one says 'Vayechulu', only when beginning they stand a bit for the honor of the Name, for they begin 'Yom HaShishi (meaning, even though the verse begins with Vayechulu) Vayechulu HaShamayim', and the Name is hinted at in the initial letters. And when beginning, he should place his eyes on the candles, and at the time of the Kiddush on the cup of blessing, and so it appears to me." Thus far his words. And he should place his eyes on the candle and on the cup, and the placing of the eye on the cup is according to the law, as with all cups of blessing, and on the candle it is a hidden matter, for the sake of healing for the eyes. (See Magen Avraham subsection 23). And if he forgot to say 'Vayechulu' before Kiddush—he says it during the meal over the cup. (Ibid. subsection 21). And behold, the words 'Yom HaShishi' are the end of the verse "And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good, and there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day" (Genesis 1:31). Therefore, some have the custom to say this entire verse in a whisper, and they begin from 'Yom HaShishi' in a loud voice. And the reason: so that the beginning should not be in the middle of a verse, and it is correct.

The count of the words of kiddush is found in the books of Kabbalah, that there must be 70 words: 35 in Vayechulu and 35 in the blessing, and with "yom hashishi" it becomes 72, corresponding to the Name of 72 which is a combination of the Name of Hashem, blessed be He. The blessing of "borei peri hagafen" is not in the count, as it is the blessing over the wine, and so it is in the Zohar Vayakhel (page 207b); see there. According to this, it is not necessary to say "ki hu yom" nor "ki vanu vacharta ve'otanu kidashta mikol ha'amim." However, we are accustomed to saying them, and Heaven forbid to change any version. (Magen Avraham subsection 22) And in Rashi (Ketubot 7b) and in Tosafot (Pesachim 104b) "ki hu yom" is mentioned in kiddush; see there. (And see Machatzit HaShekel subsection 22, and in my humble opinion it also appears that according to our version, the beginning of the blessing and the end of the blessing are not counted in the number of words, just like the blessing of "borei peri hagafen," and 11 are missing and here 10 are added, and they are 71 corresponding to the Sanhedrin with Moshe over them, and so it is in the Sanhedrin above, and delve into this.)

Regarding that which we say in kiddush "a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt," and it is explicitly stated so in Pesachim (117b), the Tur labored over this, for behold, Shabbat is a remembrance of the act of Creation. He explained that it refers back to "holy convocations," the first of the holy convocations which are a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt. And in the name of the Rambam he wrote that Shabbat itself is a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt, because through the Exodus from Egypt it was clarified that He, may He be blessed, is the primordial G-d, the Renewer, the Desirer, and the Capable, and this is the very essence of Shabbat; see there. However, the Ibn Ezra wrote according to its plain meaning, that Shabbat itself is a remembrance of the act of Creation, and the resting of the servant on Shabbat is a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt, and this matter is explicit in the latter Decalogue: "so that your manservant and your maidservant may rest like you, and you shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt" etc. (Deuteronomy 5:13-14)

There is one who wrote that for this reason we do not say in the Shabbat prayer: "You have chosen us from all the nations," because regarding the Shabbat they were commanded at Marah, and He had not yet chosen us completely until after the giving of the Torah (Taz, subsection 13, in the name of Orchot Chaim); therefore, some complain about the version "For You have chosen us, etc." I wonder at this reason, for if so, even on Pesach we should not say "You have chosen us," since they were commanded regarding the Pesach in Egypt before Marah. Furthermore, from the time of the Exodus from Egypt we were chosen, as it is written: "And I will take you to Me for a people, etc." (Exodus 6:7). Furthermore, we have already explained at the beginning of siman 242 that regarding Shabbat it is more appropriate to say that He chose us, because all creatures relate to Shabbat, as it is a remembrance of the act of Creation, whereas the festivals have no such relation at all; see there. However, the truth is that on every day it is appropriate to say "You have chosen us," and a clear proof for this is that we say every day in the blessing over the Torah: "Who has chosen us from all the nations, etc." The reason is that on Shabbat there are other introductions in the prayer that pertain to Shabbat alone, such as "You have sanctified" and likewise all the Shabbat prayers as is known. But on Yom Tov we have nothing to introduce other than "You have chosen us," which is a general matter for every day and every time and every hour. And in Kiddush we say "For You have chosen us," and this is a reason for what preceded: for what we said, "and His holy Shabbat with love and favor He gave us as a heritage, a remembrance of the act of Creation." And it is difficult: if so, this should pertain to all creatures; to this we say: "For You have chosen us" — to give the Shabbat only to us, as I wrote in siman 242. And on Yom Tov in Kiddush we say: "For You have chosen us" also regarding what preceded: "and sanctified us with His mitzvot" — for what reason? Because "For You have chosen us." But in truth, on Shabbat this is more appropriate than on all the festivals, as I wrote there. (So it appears to me clear with the help of Heaven.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 11: "If he has only one cup—he recites kiddush with it at night and does not taste from it, so that he does not render it pagum, but rather he pours from it into another cup and tastes the wine of kiddush from the second cup, and the next day he recites kiddush with what remained in the first cup. And if it contained only exactly a revit and it was diminished during the night—he dilutes it the next day to complete it to a revit. And this is specifically when he has another cup for havdalah, for if not—it is better that he leave it for havdalah which is impossible with bread, than that he recite kiddush over it and have no wine for havdalah. And if he has two exact cups after dilution—he shall recite kiddush at night with one and recite havdalah over the second, and he shall not recite kiddush during the day, for the kiddush of the night takes precedence" thus far his words. And there are those who disagree with what he wrote: 'that he should taste from the second cup,' for the tasting must be from a revit, but rather the opposite, that he should taste from the first and afterwards add to it from the second cup. (Magen Avraham subsection 24) And likewise regarding what he wrote that havdalah takes precedence over kiddush—they disagree with him, for kiddush takes precedence. (ibid. subsection 25) And it appears that this is the kiddush of the night, but regarding that of the day—havdalah takes precedence. And it is simple that if he has beer for havdalah—then even the kiddush of the day takes precedence over havdalah, (ibid.) for havdalah is possible over beer but not kiddush, for a person's soul is repulsed in the morning by beer. (ibid.) And so it is explicitly stated in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of the chapter 'Elu Devarim': that one recites havdalah without wine but rather over beer, and one does not recite kiddush without wine, see there. And even though it appears that it is dealing with the kiddush of the night—nevertheless it is a great proof. However, this is certain, that if he has only beer—that one recites kiddush over it if it is chamar medina.

And behold, from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who wrote: "and the next day he sanctifies with what remains in the first cup," we have learned that even though he does not have a full cup, we sanctify over it if it only contains a revit. And that which we require a full cup—that is when it is possible, but when it is not possible, we sanctify even when it is not full. And we also learned from what he wrote: "that he should taste the cup of kiddush from the second cup," it implies that even though we require a melo lugmav or a majority of a revit, nevertheless in a time of pressing need, such as when a revit will not remain for the kiddush of the next day or for havdalah—one fulfills the obligation with a mere tasting. And there is one who explained that here too it deals with a case where there is a melo lugmav more than a revit and he drinks it, (Taz and Magen Avraham) but it is not at all clear, for if so, what kind of language of "tasting" is this? And "tasting" is a mere tasting, like "if he tasted it, he has spoiled it." And that which we say in the Gemara: "the one who recites the blessing must taste"—this also depends: if it is possible, he should drink a melo lugmav, and if it is impossible, only the tasting is indispensable. (And so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah). Furthermore, in the Gemara (Pesachim 105b) it says: "Learn from this that the one who recites the blessing must taste, and learn from this that if he tasted it, he has spoiled it," see there; and just as spoiling occurs with any amount, so too this requirement that he must taste is also thus, for it is the same terminology, and so it implies explicitly in Berakhot (52a). And it is true that from the words of the Tosafot there in Pesachim it appears like the words of the "one who explained," see there; however, from the words of Rashi and Rashbam there, it explicitly does not appear so, and so it is explicit in the Mordekhai there, see there. (For in truth, from where did the Tosafot have reason to say that that which was taught: "he has only one cup" deals with a case where there is another melo lugma more than one cup? And the Mordekhai wrote explicitly: "because it is impossible to be exact, perforce there is a little more," see there, but not a melo lugmav, for from where did he have reason to explain thus and to infer from this? But the Mordekhai wrote there that the rejection of Rav Ashi is for this reason, that he must drink a melo lugmav, and here there is not. Therefore it is not a proof, for the reason is because "he tasted it, he spoiled it," see there. But according to the words of the Tosafot there, Rav Ashi comes to reject so that there is no proof, but in the law he would not disagree, and according to this one must further analyze the law. This, and in a time of pressing need one may rely on the wording of the Beit Yosef, for so it implies from Rashi and Rashbam, and they can fulfill the obligation in a time of pressing need with less than this, and look closely into it). (Dilution is not applicable to our wines).

The Rambam wrote in chapter 29, law 9: "If he desired bread more than wine, or if he did not have wine—he washes his hands first, recites the blessing 'HaMotzi' and sanctifies, and afterwards breaks the bread and eats… and one who intended to sanctify over wine on the nights of Shabbat, and forgot and washed his hands before he sanctified—he sanctifies over the bread, and does not sanctify over the wine after he washed his hands for the meal." Thus far his words. And they wrote the reason, that since he washed his hands—he has revealed his mind that bread is more dear to him, for if not so, he would not have washed his hands beforehand. (Ran and Kesef Mishneh) And I do not understand the reason, for in truth he forgot and washed his hands, and had he remembered—he would not have washed, and if so, why should he not sanctify over the wine, unless we say it is because of the interruption of the kiddush between the washing of the hands and the eating, and this is according to the explanation of Rashbam in the Gemara (Pesachim 106b). Or it could be said the reason is that it appears as if he is washing his hands for fruit, which is of the arrogant (Rashbam ibid.).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 12: "After one has recited kiddush over the cup—he washes his hands and recites the blessing 'al netilat yadayim.' And if he washed his hands before kiddush—he has revealed his mind that the bread is dear to him, and he should not recite kiddush over the wine but rather over the bread." Thus far his words. And behold, according to this wording the reason is understood, for he did not write "and he forgot," and such is the wording of the Rif, see there; and it can be said that in truth his intention was to recite kiddush over the bread, because now the bread is dearer to him than the wine, and if so, the law is thus—that he should recite kiddush over that which is dear to him. But the Rambam, who wrote: that he intended to recite kiddush over the wine and forgot and washed his hands—it is certainly impossible to explain this reason, except as I have written. However, in any event according to this shitah—one should not wash his hands before reciting kiddush over the wine, and if he washed—he should not then recite kiddush over the wine, and this accords with our custom that we recite kiddush over the wine and afterwards wash the hands, and when we recite kiddush over the bread—we wash the hands first. And in such cases it does not constitute an interruption, since it is forbidden to eat until one recites kiddush, and likewise "Vayechulu" does not constitute an interruption between netilat yadayim and Hamotzi, since such is the order of kiddush, and it is no worse than "bring salt, bring relish" which does not constitute an interruption, as I wrote above in siman 167, see there, and all the more so kiddush which completely prevents eating by formal law. And even though it is the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam not to recite kiddush over the bread, as brought in Tosafot and the Rosh there, nevertheless the Rambam and most of our teachers disagree with him, and such is the simple custom in all the dispersions of Israel.

But our teacher, the Rema, wrote: "And some say that ideally one should wash his hands before the kiddush and recite kiddush over the wine, and such is the common custom in these lands, and one should not change except on the night of Pesach" thus far his words, because the Haggadah constitutes a major interruption. However, kiddush is not an interruption, even when one recites kiddush over the wine. And this is built upon the system of Rabbeinu Tam, that one does not recite kiddush over bread, and he is forced to explain there in the Gemara another explanation, that even when one recites kiddush over wine, one washes first, for the reason that there is no kiddush except in the place of a meal, as is explained in Tosafot and the Rosh ibid. see there. And this was in his time, but in our time and several generations before us they did not know of this custom, and in truth even the Tur wondered at this custom, and all the great poskim did not agree to this. (See Beit Yosef and Bach and Taz subsection 14 who did not agree to this) And in truth, why should we set aside the system of the majority of the poskim? Our teacher, the Rema, because such was the custom in his days, because they held the system of Rabbeinu Tam as the primary view, wrote thus; but the generations after him decided the halacha like the majority of the poskim. (See Magen Avraham subsection 27)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: "One must drink from the cup of kiddush a melo lugmav, which is however much he can move to one side of his mouth and it appears as a melo lugmav, and this is the majority of a revi'it. And if the one who recited kiddush did not taste, but one of those reclining tasted a melo lugmav—he has fulfilled the obligation, and the drinking of two people does not combine to a melo lugmav; nevertheless, it is a choice fulfillment of the mitzvah that everyone tastes. And some say that since between all of them they tasted a melo lugmav—they have fulfilled the obligation, for the drinking of everyone combines to the measure. And the Geonim hold that if the one who recited kiddush did not taste—he has not fulfilled the obligation, and it is proper to be concerned for their words. And specifically regarding kiddush, but regarding other matters that require a cup—the Geonim admit that the tasting of another is sufficient." Thus far his words, and the matters require clarification.

And it appears that the matter is so, for behold, it is explicitly proven in Eruvin (40b) regarding the cup of blessing—there is no hindrance if the one reciting the blessing does not drink it but rather another, for it says there regarding Yom Kippur, according to what he thought that one should recite Shehecheyanu over the cup, and it says there: "How should he act? If he recites the blessing over it and drinks it, once he has said the blessing of time, he has accepted Yom Kippur, and it is forbidden; let him give it to a child," etc. And Rashi explained that this which we say, "the one who recites the blessing must taste," is not specifically the one who recites the blessing, for the same law applies to another, as the reason is because it is a disgrace to the cup of blessing if a person does not benefit from it immediately, such that the blessing would be for no purpose, etc. Thus far his words. However, the Geonim said that kiddush is different, since they said in Pesachim (107a): "One who recites kiddush and tasted a cheekful—he has fulfilled his obligation, and if not—he has not fulfilled his obligation," implying that the one who recites kiddush himself must drink and benefit a cheekful. And in truth it is not understood, for behold, they said likewise regarding the cup of blessing: "the one who recites the blessing must taste" (Berakhot 52a), and despite this, another may drink, and if so, here too it is so. And the Rashbam there explained so, and this is his wording: "One who recites kiddush and tasted a cheekful... and that is if not one of all those reclining tasted, but if one of them tasted—they have all fulfilled their obligation, even though they did not taste." Thus far his words, and such is the opinion of most of the poskim. (See Bach who wrote the reason we wrote, and the Taz in subsection 18 wrote the reason is because kiddush is from the Torah, see there, and it is not understood, for even a blessing in vain is like a Torah prohibition, and what is the relevance of one to the other?)

And the reason for the first opinion, that the melo lugmav is not combined from the drinking of two people: their reason is because less than melo lugmav does not provide complete enjoyment, and we require that one of them have complete enjoyment. (Tur) But the Ritva wrote in Eruvin (79b) in the name of the Tosafot, that the drinking of several of those seated combines to a melo lugmav. And the reason is simple, for certainly there is enjoyment even from a small amount of wine, and therefore we recite a berakhah even over any amount, because it is forbidden to enjoy without a berakhah. And it appears in my humble opinion that there is clear proof that they combine for a melo lugmav, for even regarding that which is explicitly written in the Torah as a commandment of eating—nevertheless they combine when many enter into this mitzvah, and that is as it is written regarding the Lechem HaPanim in Parashat Emor: "And they shall eat it in a holy place," and every eating is a kezayit as is known, and nevertheless the Sages of blessed memory said at the beginning of the fourth chapter of Yoma: that each kohen received a portion the size of a bean, which is less than a kezayit according to the commentary of Rashi there, but perforce the eatings of all of them combine; see there. And there is further proof from there that the obligation to taste from the cup is not cast upon all those seated, for they said there that the modest kohanim withdrew their hands and did not eat at all; see there. And it is difficult, for the Torah commanded to eat, but certainly since the Torah commanded the collective of kohanim—the intention is not that each individual is obligated to eat, but rather that it should be eaten among all of them, and they fulfill the obligation through what others eat. And if so, it is a kal vachomer regarding kiddush, which according to most poskim—over the cup is rabbinic, and even if it were from the Torah—it does not have an explicit mitzvah regarding its drinking, as the Lechem HaPanim has regarding its eating.

If one recited kiddush and before tasting he interrupted with speech—he must repeat the blessing "borei peri ha-gafen," but he does not need to repeat the kiddush. However, if he spoke words pertaining to the matters of the kiddush, and even words pertaining to the matters of the meal—it is not considered an interruption, for kiddush is a necessity of the meal, and it is like "mix [fodder] for the ox" in siman 167 or "bring salt and spices" there. (Magen Avraham subsection 31). And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 15: The same law applies if the cup was spilled before he tasted from it—he should bring another cup and recite the blessing "borei peri ha-gafen" over it, and he does not need to repeat the kiddush. Thus far his words. And he explained in his great work, and this is his wording: "For that which we say: if he did not taste—he did not fulfill his obligation, this is to say that he did not fulfill the mitzvah in its ideal form, and there is support for this from what the Tur wrote in the name of the Ba'ag, and so he wrote in Orchot Chaim." Thus far his words. And his intention is that the Tur cited in the name of the Ba'ag: "One who recites kiddush, and before he tastes he speaks—he must repeat the blessing 'borei peri ha-gafen,' and he does not need to repeat the kiddush." Thus far his words. For if it should enter your mind that without drinking it is not called kiddush at all, if so, the kiddush would have been nullified before the drinking because of the interruption of speaking in between, just as the blessing of "borei peri ha-gafen" was nullified. Rather, it is certain that the kiddush is valid even without drinking post facto, and the reason he must recite "borei peri ha-gafen" and drink it is that certainly, whatever is possible to rectify somewhat so that he drinks wine—we rectify. And so here he wrote for this reason that he should bring another cup and recite over it "borei peri ha-gafen," but this is not a matter concerning the kiddush. And from this is a great proof for what we wrote in section 30, that in a time of pressing need one fulfills the obligation of kiddush even without drinking a melo lugmav, see there; and it is an a fortiori argument from this law where he did not drink at all. Furthermore, here, since he wrote: "it was spilled before he tasted," it implies explicitly that if he tasted a little and it was spilled—he needs nothing further.

And I saw one who wrote that without tasting a melo lugmav—one has not fulfilled the obligation at all even post facto, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, retracted in the Shulchan Aruch from what he wrote in his great work, and therefore he wrote here that he should bring another cup and drink, and this cup is exactly like the cup of kiddush, and he fulfills the obligation of kiddush with it. (Magen Avraham, subsection 32). And these are bewildering words, for even in his great book his intention was such, since he brought proof from the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot, and the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot explicitly wrote so, that he must recite the blessing "borei peri ha-gafen" and drink, and here too it is so for the reason we explained. But what is the connection of the other cup to the kiddush? And they have already rejected this matter (Eliyah Rabbah and Tosefet Shabbat); rather, it is certainly the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef—that without tasting, the mitzvah is not as ordained, but he has fulfilled the obligation of kiddush. (And as for what the Magen Avraham questioned, that later he brings in the name of the Orchot Chaim the opposite—this is according to the opinion of the Geonim, see there, and we do not rule accordingly. And as for what the Magen Avraham compares another cup to the cups of the guests—this is nothing but a wonder, for the cups of the guests were present at the time of kiddush, and this has already been refuted. And what the Machatzit HaShekel wrote, that they are pagum, see there—there is no substance to this, for is it so that one who recites kiddush over a cup that is pagum must return and recite kiddush again?)

If one believed that there was wine in the cup and recited kiddush over it, but in truth it was water—he must repeat the kiddush. (Ibid. in the name of the Terumat HaDeshen and Taz subsection 19) And it is not similar to a case where it spilled, for in the case where it spilled, he at least recited kiddush over a cup of wine, but here there was no wine at all but rather water, and one does not recite kiddush over water. And it appears to me specifically regarding water, but if it was whiskey or beer, although he must recite 'shehakol' a second time—nevertheless regarding the matter of kiddush he has fulfilled his obligation, for one may recite kiddush over them if they are hamar medina, as I wrote in siman 272. And even regarding water, if there was more wine on the table that he intended to drink during the meal—he does not require another blessing, as I wrote in siman 206. However, he requires kiddush, for he recited kiddush over water and it is nothing. (Magen Avraham ibid. and as the Machatzit HaShekel wrote) And there is one who says that in such a case even kiddush is not required, (Taz ibid.) and although from the perspective of logic it appears like the first opinion—nevertheless in practice one should not perform another kiddush when the wine was on the table. (And so it appears from the Eliyah Rabbah, see there) And the matter is simple that one who has a small amount of wine should be careful not to drink more than a mouthful, so that wine remains for him for the kiddush of the day or for havdalah (Magen Avraham subsection 30).

There is one who says that if one recited kiddush in the morning over shekhar and the cup was spilled—he does not need to bring another cup, for there are those who say that one fulfills the obligation with bread, as was written in siman 272. (Ibid. end of subsection 32) This is to say that if he recited the blessing over wine and has other wine—he must bring other wine, for against wine we do not rely on the opinion that holds that bread is sufficient; but against shekhar—we do rely. (Eliyah Rabbah subsection 34) And the same law applies at night, except that at night one does not recite kiddush over shekhar, (ibid.) and furthermore, at night it is not relevant to say to bring another and rely on it for the kiddush, for at night there is the blessing of kiddush, and if he brings another cup and recites 'shehakol'—this is not the blessing of kiddush. And that he should perform the entire kiddush—we have already ruled that it is not necessary when it was spilled, as was written in section 37. But the kiddush of the day, which contains only the blessing over the beverage—it is relevant to say that he fulfills the obligation of kiddush. (See the glosses of Rabbi Akiva Eiger, and it must be said that this is his intention) And nevertheless, if he desires to bring another cup of shekhar—he may bring it, and he shall not recite a blessing over it, for the first blessing already exempted it, as it also exempted the beverage within the meal, and consequently it is also exempted from a blessing. (Machatzit HaShekel, not like the Tosefet Shabbat) And also with wine, when he brings another cup—he does not need to recite borei pri hagafen, unless he did not have in mind to drink more wine, as has been explained. And there is one who disagrees, and holds that since the shekhar was spilled—he is obligated to bring another cup (ibid.) and not to rely on the kiddush of bread, for most poskim forbid kiddush in the morning over bread. And know, that shekhar is not specifically intended, for the same law applies to whiskey and honey-water that is called mead.

Those reclining are not permitted to taste from the cup of kiddush before the one who recites kiddush. In what case does this apply: when they are dependent upon the cup of the one who recites kiddush, such as when they do not have their own cups before them, or they have them but they are pagum or completely empty, such that they must pour into them from the cup of the one who recites kiddush. But if they have whole cups that are not pagum - they may drink beforehand. And two who perform kiddush, and each one says the blessing by himself: one should bless and the second should answer amen, and afterward he should bless and not answer amen between the blessing and the drinking, as it would be an interruption. (She'elat Teshuvah in the name of the Panim Me'irot) And it is better that one should bless and intend to fulfill the obligation for the second as well, and the second should intend to fulfill his obligation and answer amen and drink, and why should they have two blessings.

When each of those reclining has a full cup for himself—the one reciting the blessing does not need to pour a small amount from his cup into their cups. But when their cups are pagum—he must pour from his cup into theirs. And if there are among them those that are pagum and those that are not pagum—he pours for the pagum and not for those that are not pagum, and if they have no cups before them at all—they drink a small amount from his cup. And all of this is le-khatchilah, but bediavad it is not a hindrance, and when the one reciting the blessing pours into their cups—he pours before he himself drinks, (Beit Yosef) and if he drank—they shall drink from the remnants of his cup.