Siman 272

We say in Bava Batra (97a): "One only recites the kiddush of the day over wine that is fit to be poured as a libation upon the altar." And they explained in the Gemara there: that things which are valid post facto for libations, even though initially one should not bring them—nevertheless for kiddush they are valid even initially. And these are they: wine from its press, which has not yet settled properly—one should not bring it for libations, but if he brought it, it is valid; and for kiddush it is even initially valid, "for Rava said: A person may squeeze a cluster of grapes and recite the kiddush of the day over it" (Bava Batra 97b). And so too wine from its press—one may recite kiddush over it, and nevertheless it is more of a mitzvah with aged wine. And so too one does not bring for libations from the mouth of the barrel at the top, because there is a bit of film there, nor from the bottom of the barrel, because of the dregs, but rather from the middle; and if he brought it—it is valid. And for kiddush—it is permitted even initially from its mouth and from its bottom, and nevertheless if there is a white film upon it—one does not recite kiddush over it. And there are those who forbid in any case if it only has film in it, and one must strain it to remove the film initially, and for libations even with straining—it is forbidden initially.

Wine that is black or very white, or sweet and very weak, or from a cellar—meaning that among them were found barrels that are turning sour, whose smell is vinegar but whose taste is wine—or wine made from raisins: all of these are forbidden for libations ab initio, but post facto they are valid; and for kiddush, they are valid even ab initio. Nevertheless, it is a mitzvah to select good wine to recite kiddush over it. The Ramban, of blessed memory, disqualifies white wine for kiddush even post facto, and the "white" mentioned in the Gemara there is not literally white, but rather leaning toward whiteness, and therefore the Gemara there calls it "birak," see there, meaning a flash of whiteness. However, one may recite havdalah over it, for havdalah does not require wine as good as kiddush. The custom of the world is not like the Ramban; rather, they recite kiddush over white wine. (Beit Yosef)

And wine that is disqualified post facto for libations as well—there is some that is valid for kiddush and some that is disqualified. How so: wine that is beginning to sour, whose smell is vinegar and whose taste is wine—it is disqualified for libations, and that which was explained that wine from a cellar is valid—this is because in a cellar the majority also has the smell of wine, but where it is known that its smell is vinegar—it is disqualified for libations. But for kiddush—it is valid, as we hold: "its smell is vinegar and its taste is wine—one recites over it 'borei peri hagafen'," and it is valid for kiddush. But the opposite, when its smell is wine and its taste is vinegar, meaning anything that people refrain from drinking due to its sourness—even post facto it is disqualified for kiddush and for havdalah, and one also does not recite 'borei peri hagafen' over it, (Taz subsection 3) and see above siman 204. And this is not included in the rule that one only recites kiddush over wine that is fit for the altar in the case of its smell being vinegar and its taste being wine, for its disqualification for the altar is not because it is not wine, but rather because regarding sacrifices it is written "a pleasing aroma," and we require that its smell be like its taste. But kiddush, which is for taste alone—what do we care about its smell.

And similarly, diluted wine, even though it is disqualified for libations—it is valid for kiddush even ab initio, for its disqualification for libations is because it is written "shekhar"—something that intoxicates, and we expound in the Sifrei: "And its libation shall be a fourth of a hin—you shall pour it raw and not diluted," but for kiddush it is obvious that diluted is preferable to raw, as it is not so fit for drinking. Nevertheless, also over raw wine, even though it is very strong, such that it can receive three parts water—one may recite kiddush over it. Nevertheless, it is better to dilute it, so that it will be fit for drinking comfortably, provided that it is diluted properly, so that he does not add too much water. And all this was with their wines, but our wines are better without dilution, as they are not so strong, and that which is fit for dilution—one may dilute it. And it is obvious that our raisin wine is not fit for dilution at all, and with dilution one would recite the blessing "shehakol" and one does not recite kiddush over it, for even with a little dilution it becomes like water, as is known.

Wine whose smell is bad is invalid for libations, and it is also invalid for kiddush, even if its smell and its taste are wine. And what is "its smell is bad"? That it stinks (Rashi ibid.), for since its invalidity is due to repulsiveness, and regarding this the prophet said: "Offer it now to your governor; will he be pleased with you?", it follows that for any matter of mitzvah it is invalid, also for kiddush and havdalah and for the cup of Birkat HaMazon. And similarly, uncovered wine is invalid for libations, for there is a concern that perhaps a snake drank from it, and it is repulsive and a danger. And it follows that for kiddush it is also invalid for the reason that has been explained, even nowadays when we are not meticulous regarding uncovering, and in truth our wines stand in covered bottles, and if it stood for a short time uncovered there is no concern (Magen Avraham subsection 1), and also the governors and the deputies are not meticulous in this (ibid.). But when it stood all night uncovered, or even many hours, one does not recite kiddush over it and one does not recite havdalah over it, and also not for the cup of Birkat HaMazon, even though one recites over it "borei pri hagafen" in our lands where snakes are not common and we are not careful regarding uncovering. But for a matter of mitzvah, it is included in "Offer it now to your governor." And regarding uncovering, it does not help even if one passed it through a strainer (Gemara ibid.) for the reason that has been explained, and one must warn about this, for not everyone knows this law.

Since it was explained in section 1 that wine at the bottom of the barrel, even though it contains dregs, is fit for kiddush, therefore wine dregs or grape seeds upon which one poured water: if it is fit to recite over it "borei pri hagafen" according to what was explained in siman 204, one may recite kiddush over it, and if not, one may not recite kiddush over it. And regarding that which was explained that one may recite kiddush over raisin wine, the Tur wrote, and this is his wording: "One may recite kiddush over raisin wine, it makes no difference whether they withered on their vines or whether they were shriveled by the sun or by a derivative of fire, such as if one placed them in hot water to hasten their shriveling or hung them in smoke. And this is provided that some moisture emerges from them when they are pressed, but if they have no moisture, and nothing emerges from them except through soaking them in water—no." Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote similarly in section 6, and behold, the Rif and the Rambam also wrote this in chapter 29, see there.

And according to this, it is a great and wondrous wonder how we perform kiddush over our raisins, for it is a known matter that from the small raisins from which they make wine in all our regions, no wine moisture emerges, and how have we found our hands and feet in this. And we already wondered about this above in siman 204, section 15, and we wrote there to find merit: for the Rif and the Rambam, who hold that "taste is like the essence—is not from the Torah," rightly require that there must be some wine from the raisins themselves, but we, who hold like Rabbeinu Tam and the Ra'avad that "taste is like the essence—is from the Torah," therefore if in the soaking of the raisins in water there is the taste of wine—it is "taste like the essence," and it is like wine; see there. And in siman 204, section 16, we wrote another justification: that wine depends on what the world considers to be wine; see there. And what shall we do since wine is not common among us, and also regarding the law of temad, it was explained there.

The Rambam wrote in chapter 29, law 14: "One may only recite kiddush over wine that is fit to be offered as a libation upon the altar. Therefore, if honey or leaven was mixed into it, even like a mustard seed in a large barrel—one may not recite kiddush over it; so we instruct in all of the West. And there is one who permits reciting kiddush over it, and says that 'wine fit to be offered as a libation upon the altar' was only stated to exclude wine whose smell is bad, or that was left uncovered, or cooked wine, as one may not recite kiddush over any of these." Thus far his words. The explanation of the matters: For it has already been explained that it is not a general rule that what is disqualified for the altar is disqualified for kiddush, and the rule is only regarding that which is defective for the altar, such as its smell being bad or being left uncovered, because of 'present it now to your governor,' but not regarding other matters. And the Rambam holds that the mixing of leaven or honey is also considered as being defective, for the wine remains as it was, and if so, why is it disqualified for the altar? Rather, it is because it became defective and is like wine left uncovered. And the one who disagrees says that this is not because of a defect, but because the Torah forbade leaven and honey for the altar, as it is written: "For any leaven or any honey you shall not burn etc.," but it is not relevant to kiddush, and it is like diluted wine which is disqualified for libations but valid for kiddush. And most of the poskim agreed with the "one who permits," and in the Shulchan Aruch the opinion of the Rambam was not brought at all, see there. And the Rashba, of blessed memory, brought proof from the Yerushalmi, chapter Arvei Pesachim, regarding the matter of the four cups, which says that one fulfills the obligation with conditum wine, and this is wine in which honey and spices are mixed. And such is the opinion of the Ramban and the Ritva in chapter 6 of Bava Batra, see there, and so wrote the Rivash and so wrote Rabbeinu Yerucham; and he further wrote that even if it contains so much honey and pepper that it was changed—one may recite kiddush over it. (Beit Yosef)

And behold, the Rambam wrote that cooked wine is also invalid for kiddush, and they also wrote in the name of Rashi that one recites over it "she-hakol," and so wrote one of the Geonim. (Tur) But Rabbeinu Tam, and Ri, and the Ittur, and the Rosh wrote that cooked wine is valid for kiddush, and all the more so that one recites over it "borei pri ha-gefen." (Tur) And their reasoning is clear, for that which the Torah invalidated cooked wine for libations was not because of its inferiority, for we have learned a complete Mishnah at the beginning of the eleventh chapter of Terumot that cooked wine is better; see there. Rather, it is because it has changed from its natural state, and it is written "sacrifice and libations"—just as a sacrifice has not changed, so too libations must not have changed, (Bechorot 17a) and this is not relevant to kiddush. And the first opinion holds that in taste it has changed for the worse, and in the Mishnah of Terumot the explanation is that it improves in the sense that it is fit to last for a much longer time than that which is not cooked, but nevertheless the name "wine" has departed from it. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 4 wrote: "One may recite kiddush over cooked wine and over wine that contains honey, and some say that one does not recite kiddush over them." Thus far his words. And he took as the primary view the opinion of those who permit, and therefore he wrote the opinion of those who forbid in the name of "some say." And so wrote our teacher, the Rema: that the custom is to recite kiddush over them even if he has other wine, provided it is not as good as the cooked wine or that which contains honey. Thus far his words. And that which they did not mention the mixing of leaven is because it is not the way to mix leaven into wine, but if a small amount of leaven fell into a large amount of wine in a manner that the taste did not change at all, it is also valid, according to the opinion of those who disagree with the Rambam.

The Rambam wrote there in law 17: "A province where the majority of its wine is beer, even though it is invalid for kiddush—it is permitted to recite havdalah over it, since it is the chamar hamedina." Thus far his words. This means that the majority of the drinking of the people of the province is beer, but kiddush—in all cases it is forbidden, for kiddush was only instituted over wine and not over another beverage, and consequently if he has no wine—he recites kiddush over bread. And likewise if he desired bread more than wine—he recites kiddush over it, as he explained there previously, and we brought this in the previous siman, section 31, see there. And since he did not explain that this is specifically regarding the kiddush of the night—one may infer from this that he holds there is no distinction in this between the kiddush of the night and the kiddush of the day, for if it were not so, he should have explained this. And even though in the kiddush of the day when he recites kiddush over bread there is no recognition of the kiddush, since there is only the blessing of 'Hamotzi'—nevertheless, what of it, for the recognition is in the lechem mishneh and in his intention for the sake of kiddush.

And behold, the Rif also wrote in the chapter Arvei Pesachim that one only recites kiddush over wine, except if bread is more beloved to him—then he recites kiddush over the bread; and this is the opinion of the early Geonim, Rav Amram, Rav Tzemach, and Rav Nissim, and such is the opinion of the Ra'avyah and the Maharam of Rothenburg (Hagahot Maimoniot ibid.). However, the Rosh in the chapter Arvei Pesachim (siman 17) wrote that one may recite kiddush over beer if it is chamar medina, and that such is the opinion of Ri, the author of the Tosafot, and the Ra'avan, and to this most of the Geonim agreed; see there. And in truth, from the Gemara (Pesachim 107a) it is explicitly implied that there is no difference between kiddush and havdalah, as it says there that Rav and Shmuel hold: just as one does not recite kiddush over beer, so too one does not recite havdalah over beer; see there. And if so, just as we do not rule accordingly regarding havdalah, so too regarding kiddush. Furthermore, it is stated there that Rav recited kiddush over beer, which is the opposite of what the Shas previously cited in the name of Rav. And of necessity one must say that previously it was dealing with a case where it is not chamar medina, and in the place where he recited kiddush over beer, it was chamar medina; and this serves as a proof for the approach of those who permit it, and at any rate there is no proof for those who forbid it. However, in the Yerushalmi Berakhot at the beginning of the eighth chapter, it is explicitly stated like those who forbid it, as it says there: "One recites havdalah without wine but rather over beer, but one does not recite kiddush without wine"; see there. And those who permit it were not concerned by this, since in our Gemara it is the opposite; and furthermore, the Rosh wrote there that one could say that this refers to a place where it is not chamar medina; see there. (And those who forbid it are not satisfied with this, for if so, havdalah also, and the plain meaning of the Yerushalmi does not imply thus; see there.)

And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, decided in section 9 like the Rosh, and this is their wording: "In a place where wine is not found: some say that one may recite kiddush over beer and other beverages except for water, and some say that one may not recite kiddush. And according to the Rosh: at night one should not recite kiddush over beer but rather over the bread (and he places his hands upon it), and in the morning it is better to recite kiddush over beer, so that he may recite the blessing 'shehakol' over it before the blessing 'hamotzi,' for if he recites the blessing over the bread first—there is no distinction here. And these are words of reason, and so is the simple custom like the words of the Rosh. And if there is wine in the city—one should not recite kiddush over the bread." Thus far their words, because the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam is that one does not recite kiddush over bread. Nevertheless, one should not recite kiddush over beer ab initio at night, because this is against the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam. But during the day—it is necessary to bypass their opinion, for if not so, there is no recognition or distinction as I have written. And it results that for the halacha they decided neither like the Rambam nor like Rabbeinu Tam, but rather that in a place where we are able to fulfill their opinions—it is incumbent to do so, and if it is not possible—we establish it according to the law. (And we are more meticulous to fulfill the opinion of the Rambam than to fulfill the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam, because the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam is a singular opinion, and delve into this.)

However, that which they wrote: that when there is wine in the city, one should not recite kiddush over bread, for certainly wine is the preferred fulfillment of the mitzvah both at night and during the day; nevertheless, even the greats of the generation were accustomed in the morning to recite the blessing over beer. (See the Bach and Magen Avraham that the Maharshal and the Rashak did so, and they had wine, see there.) And the commentators labored to provide a reason for this: there is one who wrote that they desired to exempt the drinks within the meal, (Bach) and there is one who wrote because wine is expensive, (Taz subsection 6) and there is one who wrote because in our countries beer is considered chamar medina, (Magen Avraham subsection 9) or perhaps the beer was dear to them, for for this reason even today in our times many recite kiddush in the morning over whiskey, because for most of the world whiskey is dear before eating, and for us it is chamar medina. And there are those who wrote not to recite kiddush over whiskey unless in countries where the majority of the masses' drinking is whiskey every day, (ibid. subsection 6) and that he should be able to drink a cheekful in one swallow. (Eliyah Rabbah) And for us it is so, for they do not drink it so strong, and it is chamar medina.

However, all the reasons are not accepted by the heart, for ultimately wine is certainly better than other beverages, and why did they not perform kiddush over wine during the day as well, since they had wine in their homes or in the city. And in my humble opinion, another reason seems clear, for behold the Tur wrote that when are other beverages called chamar medina - when wine does not grow around the city within a day's journey, see there, and the Mordechai wrote when the vineyards were stricken, see there. And behold, all our early authorities and likewise the early Geonim were in Babylonia and in Spain and in France and Germany, where there are many wines, for in all these lands grapes grow in great abundance. But in the northern lands like ours - it is known that we have no wine at all, and those brought from other lands are impossible to obtain because of the great cost, and also many God-fearing people do not want to drink them because of the hechsher, as is known. And we have only raisin wine, and this wine is with difficulty that one may recite over it "borei pri hagafen," as we toiled over this above in siman 202 and siman 204 and above in section 7. Therefore, the great ones who were in our land distanced themselves from this wine, and it was enough for them with the kiddush of the night, and in truth our raisin wine is heavy upon us like a heavy burden, but with no alternative - it is necessary to perform kiddush over it. And there is one who wrote that one must be careful that the raisins be at least one part in six of the water. (Tevuat Shor) And more than this we saw of great ones, that they performed havdalah over milk or over sweet tea, even though it certainly is not relevant to call them "chamar medina," but because of the pressure of the difficulty, such as when one has neither wine nor beer, or when one is careful regarding chadash. And behold, they perform the kiddushim at night over bread and in the morning over schnapps, but havdalah, when it is difficult to drink schnapps - it is necessary to perform it over some beverage, and milk is a beverage and sweet tea is also drunk a lot, for in truth when we are precise, we have no chamar medina at all except for schnapps, for most householders in our land do not drink during the week neither wine nor beer at every meal, and what relevance is there to call them "chamar medina." Therefore, in such great difficulty - it is enough that the name of a beverage is upon it. However, it is certain that over wine is better than all beverages, whether for kiddush or for havdalah or for the cup of blessing.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 9: One who does not drink wine because of a vow may recite kiddush over it, and others sitting with him shall drink. And if there are no others with him, he should recite kiddush over the bread and not over the wine, or hear kiddush from others. Thus far his words. And there is one who disagrees with this if the others know how to recite kiddush, for why should they not recite kiddush themselves? (Magen Avraham, subsection 9). However, it appears that our teacher, the Rema, also intended his words for the kiddush of the night, and such as where the others do not know how to recite kiddush themselves. And know, that which was explained that if the bread is dear to him he may recite kiddush over the bread at night—and so it is explicitly in the Gemara (Pesachim 106b)—it is not an obligation, but rather that he may recite kiddush over the bread; however, if he desires to recite kiddush over the wine, the authority is in his hand (ibid.), and it is simple. And among us, there are those for whom whiskey is most dear, who recite kiddush even at night over whiskey. And the mind of the sages is not comfortable with this, for at night it should be either over wine or over bread, and if whiskey is dear to him, he should drink it after Hamotzi. However, in the morning he may recite kiddush over whiskey. And that which some wish to say, that whiskey is not included in the category of a beverage because of the Midrash which says that oil rises above all beverages and whiskey is not so—it is an error, for specifically very strong whiskey does the oil not rise over, and we drink whiskey that is not so strong; and furthermore, one does not learn from the Midrash, and our eyes see that it is chamar medina.

The blessing of the wine of kiddush exempts the wine within the meal and after the meal before the blessing of the food, and likewise it exempts all types of drinks. And there is no need for a blessing after it over the wine, for the blessing of the food exempts it, whether one recites the blessing over a cup or whether one does not recite the blessing over a cup. And also in the morning when one ate types of mezonot after the kiddush, and immediately they wash the hands and eat the meal - there is no need for a final blessing even over the mezonot, as I have written in siman 176, see there.

There is one who wrote in this language: "If he is on Erev Shabbat in a place where there is wine, and he knows that on Shabbat he will not have wine—he should recite kiddush while it is still day over the wine and drink, and it is forbidden afterwards to perform work." (Magen Avraham at the beginning of this siman). And it is true that it is found thus in the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot, Laws of Kiddush, and this is his wording: "And where the matter is certain to him that at twilight wine will not be available to him for kiddush, but wine was available to him at Mincha...—he recites kiddush while it is still day and says 'Vayechulu', and at night when he comes to his home—he recites kiddush over bread to fulfill the obligation of his sons and the members of his household." Thus far his words. And certainly the intention is after Plag HaMincha. (And so it is explicitly stated in the Magen Avraham there, and so wrote the Machatzit HaShekel and the Pri Megadim; and see there where he wrote that kiddush precedes prayer with a tzibbur, meaning kiddush over wine if he cannot obtain both, and nevertheless it remains in need of further study. And in my humble opinion it does not appear so, and he should recite kiddush over the bread, and let prayer with a tzibbur not be like one for whom bread is dear; and delve into this.)