Siman 296

We learn in Shevuot (18b): "Anyone who recites Havdalah over wine at the conclusion of Shabbatot—he will have male children, as it is written: 'To distinguish between the holy and the profane, and between the impure and the pure,' and at the end of the portion it is written: 'To distinguish between the impure and the pure,' and adjacent to it: 'When a woman conceives and gives birth to a male.' And he will have children worthy of rendering legal rulings, as it is written: 'To distinguish between the holy... and to teach the children of Israel.'" And behold, even though these homiletical interpretations are asmakhtot, nevertheless, if the essential mitzvah of Havdalah were not from the Torah—our sages, of blessed memory, would not have supported them with verses, to recite Havdalah over wine.

And in truth, this is the opinion of the Rambam at the beginning of chapter 29 of Shabbat, who wrote: "It is a positive commandment from the Torah to sanctify the Sabbath day with words, as it is said: 'Remember...' and one must remember it at its entrance and at its exit: at its entrance with the kiddush of the day, and at its exit with havdalah." Thus far his words. And from the Torah, prayer is sufficient, but the rabbis instituted it over a cup of wine, and the rabbis supported these with verses in Shevuot there, and havdalah became exactly like kiddush. And that which they said in Berakhot (33a) that the Men of the Great Assembly instituted blessings and prayers, sanctifications and havdalahs, and initially they established it in the prayer, etc., see there—this refers to the versions of how and what. And the proof is that he also says "sanctifications" there, and kiddush is simple that it is from the Torah, rather he is speaking of the version of the kiddush, and likewise regarding havdalah.

And so it is explicitly stated in the SeMag (Positive Commandment 26), and this is his wording: "'Remember the Sabbath day'... and one must sanctify it at its entrance and at its departure... one at its entrance is 'Remember', and one at its departure is mentioned as it is written regarding 'Observe', for it says in the Midrash that this refers to the departure of the Sabbath." Thus far his words. The Sefer HaChinuch also wrote this. And so wrote the commentator at the beginning of Nazir, which says: "He shall abstain from wine and strong drink" — to forbid wine of a mitzvah. And it asks, what is this? — kiddush and havdalah. And the commentator explained: For it is written "Remember," I only have [it] at its entrance; from where [do we know] at its departure, etc., see there. And from the language of the Gemara itself this is proven, for it compares havdalah to kiddush based on the exposition of the verse; consequently, the essence of havdalah is from the Torah. And in Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer (Chapter 20) it says: that Adam the first, when he knew that the holy day was departing, said "Blessed is He who separates between holy and profane." And it says there further that when one recites havdalah over wine, the Holy One, Blessed be He, acquires him as His treasure, as it is said: "And I have separated you from the peoples to be Mine" (ibid. 20:26), "And you shall be a treasure to Me" (Exodus 19:5), see there. And the intention is that he expounds it like a gezerah shavah "Mine - Me" (so it appears to me); however, from all this it appears explicitly that it is from the Torah.

And the Maggid Mishneh there wrote that there are those who disagree, and they hold that havdalah is only d'rabbanan, see there, and according to their opinion all these verses are a mere asmakhta. And there is a practical legal difference regarding women, for if it is d'oraita—women are also obligated, for they are equal regarding all matters of Shabbat. And if it is d'rabbanan, and the matter is not dependent on the observance of Shabbat but is an independent matter, and it is a time-bound commandment—women are not obligated in it (Beit Yosef at the end of this siman in the name of Orchot Chaim). And some say that even if it is d'rabbanan—they are obligated, for they instituted it similar to kiddush (Maggid Mishneh ibid.).

And based on this, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 8: "Women are obligated in havdalah just as they are obligated in kiddush, and there is one who disagrees." Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote: Therefore they should not perform havdalah for themselves, but rather they should hear havdalah from the men. Thus far his words. And there is one who challenged him, for even if they are exempt—they are permitted to recite the blessing, just as they recite blessings over several positive time-bound mitzvot such as sukkah and lulav and the like (Bach and Magen Avraham subsection 11). And that which one of the poskim wrote, that they are not permitted to perform havdalah for themselves—the intention is that they are not obligated, but if they wish—they are permitted (ibid. in the Bach). And there is one who settles the words of our teacher, the Rema, that specifically in a place where men are obligated by Torah law—then they are permitted to recite the blessing, but not regarding havdalah, according to the one who holds that even for men it is only by rabbinic law (Turei Zahav subsection 7). And I wonder, for is it not so that lulav all the days of the festival are rabbinic law alone except for the first day, and yet women recite the blessing. And there is one who wishes to distinguish that specifically regarding practical mitzvot can they recite the blessing, but not regarding a mitzvah that is merely speech (see Magen Avraham ibid.). And this too is not so, for behold, even in havdalah there is an action of drinking the cup, and furthermore what logic is there to distinguish in this, and furthermore most of the poskim hold that it is by Torah law and they are obligated by Torah law, and they can even fulfill the obligation for the men. And even if it is by rabbinic law—there are those who hold that they too are obligated by rabbinic law, and they can fulfill the obligation, for both are by rabbinic law, and this one who holds that they are not obligated at all—these are individual opinions. And granted that there is reason to be concerned regarding the matter of them fulfilling the obligation for men, and it is also good for them to hear from the mouth of men, however it is simple that if there is no one to perform havdalah for them—they should perform havdalah for themselves. And I saw one who raised a difficulty: how shall they perform havdalah, given that women do not drink from the cup of havdalah. And I wonder at this, for is this a law? It is merely a custom, and not all of them are concerned for this, and it is simple that when they perform havdalah they must drink. And I saw one who wrote that a man who already performed havdalah—should not perform havdalah for the sake of women, just as a man does not recite the blessing over the shofar for the sake of women when he has already fulfilled his obligation, as is written in siman 589 (Eliyah Rabbah subsection 18). And it seems to me that this is not a comparison, for regarding shofar it is simple that there is no obligation upon them at all, but regarding havdalah—according to most poskim they are obligated. And granted also that for the minority opinion there is reason to be concerned lest they are exempt, and certainly if they can perform havdalah for themselves it is better, but if they cannot—it is permitted and a mitzvah for a man to perform havdalah for their sake, for such is the opinion of most of the poskim (so it appears in my humble opinion).

The order of havdalah: wine, besamim, candle, havdalah; and your mnemonic is YaBNeH. And the reason that wine precedes all things is that it is frequent and it is the cause for the havdalah (Berakhot, beginning of chapter 8). And we prioritize besamim over the candle, for the blessing of besamim is also frequent compared to the blessing of the candle, which is only on Saturday night, whereas besamim can be blessed upon several times a day. And the blessing of hamavdil is obvious that it must be at the end, for it is the essence and the conclusion of the matter like kiddush. And the laws of besamim in detail will be explained in siman 297, and the laws of the candle in siman 298. And one should be careful that the cup not be pagum, and also the wine should not be pagum; and the defect of the cup is when it is slightly broken or has a large crack, and the defect of the wine is when one has tasted from it, and the laws of this were explained above in siman 182 regarding birkat hamazon, see there.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2: That it is better to recite havdalah over a pagum cup of wine than over beer. Thus far his words. And there is one who says that his intention is in a place where beer is not chamar medina, but when it is chamar medina—it is better over beer that is not pagum than over pagum wine (Magen Avraham, subsection 5), and it is not permitted to recite havdalah over pagum unless one has no other beverage at all (ibid.). But it does not imply so, for our teacher, the Rema, is standing in a place where beer is chamar medina, as he was dealing with this previously; see there. And the truth is that he holds that pagum wine is better than beer that is not pagum (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 5), for even regarding birkat hamazon it was explained above in siman 182 that post facto one fulfills the obligation with pagum; see there. Nevertheless, regarding the law—there is no definitive ruling in this, and the great authorities agreed that beer that is not pagum is better than pagum wine (the Gra and the Graz).

In the beit knesset, they begin from the blessing "borei peri hagafen," but every head of household in his home begins with verses for a good omen and success: "Behold, God is my salvation," "And you shall draw water with joy," "Salvation belongs to Hashem," "Hashem of hosts is with us," and some add also "Hashem of hosts, happy is the man," "Hashem, save," "The Jews had light," and they conclude "so may it be for us" and say "I will lift the cup of salvations." And why are these not said in the beit knesset? In order to teach the masses that this is not part of havdalah, and furthermore, since they previously said "Ve-yiten lekha," they have already said many verses for a good omen.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that at the time of havdalah they should fix their eyes on the cup and on the candle. Thus far his words. And this is from the Tur in siman 299, who wrote: "And those who answer amen—it is necessary that they fix their eyes on the cup and on the candle," see there. And there is one who explained that the one who recites havdalah also needs to fix his eyes on the cup and on the candle (Derech HaChayim), but this is not implied from the wording of the Tur, obviously. However, one is forced to say so, for behold, this is one of the ten things said regarding a cup of blessing—to fix one's eyes on it (Berakhot 51a), and as I wrote above in siman 183, and consequently here where there is also a candle—he must fix his eyes also on the candle. Rather, the Tur said that even the listeners must, and all the more so the one who recites havdalah himself, and the reason for this is so that they do not divert their attention from it. And they did not require them also to fix their eyes on the besamim, because the besamim are not indispensable to havdalah, and many times one recites havdalah without besamim.

He further wrote: That it is customary to pour from the cup of wine onto the ground before finishing "borei pri hagafen," so that the cup should not be pagum. And the reason for the pouring is as we say in Eruvin (65a): Any house in which wine is not spilled like water—there is no sign of blessing in it, and they do this as a good sign at the beginning of the week; they also pour from the cup after havdalah and extinguish the candle in it and wash his eyes with it due to love of the mitzvah. Thus far his words. Now, that which he wrote that it is customary to pour so that the cup should not be pagum—this has no understanding at all, and the Levush wrote that one should not pour at the beginning of the blessing—so that he does not recite a blessing over a cup that is pagum, see there. And it is not understood, for this is not pagum, as it is called pagum when one drinks from it. And also in the Levush he wrote that one should pour when he begins the blessing, and this is even more astonishing, for if so, the end of the blessing is pagum, if this is called pagum (Taz, subsection 1). Furthermore, there is no greater disgrace than this, to pour onto the ground after the blessing (ibid.), and so it is explicitly stated in Sefer Chasidim (siman 111). And there is one who explained that certainly it is not called pagum except when one drank from it, and this "p'gam" is a term of disgrace, meaning that if he pours after the blessing—it is a disgrace as I have written, and therefore he pours before the conclusion of the blessing (Magen Avraham, subsection 2). And this too is astonishing, for if there is disgrace at the completion of the blessing—certainly there is disgrace also before the conclusion of the blessing.

And in truth, the commentators of the Shulchan Arukh wrote not to act according to his words, but rather at the time that they fill the cup for havdalah—they fill it to its very brim in a manner that a little will also spill onto the ground (Taz and Magen Avraham there), and such is the custom of the world. And there are those who challenge this as well, and wrote to abolish the spilling entirely due to the degradation of the drink, but it is possible that with a small amount there is no concern (ibid.). And I say that also the intention of our teacher, the Rema, is such, and on the contrary, he corrected it further because he is concerned for the degradation of the drink, and also did not want to abolish the custom entirely; therefore he advised to act in this manner. That is to say, that which he wrote "to spill from the cup"—his intention is not to spill by hand, and a proof for this is that he did not write "to spill from within the cup," as he wrote at the end: "one spills from within the cup after havdalah." Rather, this is the explanation: that one should not spill much over all its brims, in a manner that at the time of filling the cup it spills onto the ground, for there is degradation in this as I have written. Rather, he should fill it truly full according to the law of a cup of blessing, but at the time that he begins the blessing and moves the hand slightly—it will spill a little of its own accord. However, he should be careful that much does not spill, which would be a defect to the cup such that it would not be full, but a little—it is still full, for it is impossible to be exact. And that which he wrote: "so that the cup shall not be defective"—this is the explanation: that it should spill in an amount such that it will not be defective, meaning to be careful not to spill much, and so it is proper to do. And that which he wrote: "before he finishes Borei Peri HaGafen"—this is when they begin from the blessing, and if they begin from "Hinei El Yeshuati"—it should spill then, and his main intention is on the contrary not to spill intentionally, but rather since it is truly full, when he takes it in his hands and begins the havdalah and the hand moves a bit—it will spill of its own accord. And at the end he wrote to spill from within the cup after havdalah, meaning after drinking, and they spill truly onto the table or into a vessel and extinguish the candle in it, and wash the eyes for the sake of healing and for the sake of the love of the mitzvah. (And in the Mordechai at the beginning of Yoma he brought a response of the Geonim that they put water into the havdalah cup and drink, and what remains they wash the face in order to show love for the mitzvah, and the remnants of a mitzvah hold back calamities, see there.)

One does not recite havdalah over bread, for specifically kiddush, which is required in the place of the meal—one may properly recite kiddush over it and eat the meal, as it is related to the kiddush; but havdalah is not related to bread, and one must necessarily recite havdalah over a beverage. And on a Yom Tov that falls on Saturday night, which includes kiddush that is recited over bread: some say that by way of the kiddush, one also recites havdalah over it, and some say that it is better to perform both the kiddush and the havdalah over beer or another beverage. The primary view is like the first opinion, for since one is obligated to eat, the havdalah is also related to the bread, and it is no different than kiddush.

And if he has no wine—one recites kiddush over beer or over other beverages when they are hamar medina, except for water; for even though the majority of their drinking is water, nevertheless, since there is no importance in this, one does not recite havdalah over it. And it appears to me that even prepared water, such as seltzer water or lemonade in our locales, or water into which honey was placed for flavor or another type of fruit—nevertheless, ultimately it is water, and one does not recite havdalah over this. And we have already written in siman 272, section 14, that when there is nothing else that he is able to drink, one recites havdalah over milk or over sweetened tea, and this is not like plain water, since it is cooked and is not called water. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote: that it is the custom to recite havdalah on the night following Pesach over beer and not over wine, because it is dear to him. Thus far his words. And there is one who wrote regarding this that specifically in a place where beer is hamar medina, but in Ashkenaz—it is forbidden (Magen Avraham, subsection 6), meaning since wine is common there. However, the wording does not imply so, for if so, why specifically on the night following Pesach because of dearness? For even without this it would be permitted, as has been explained. And it appears that even in a place where there is wine but they are also accustomed to beer, and the beer is also hamar medina, and therefore throughout the year he is obligated to recite havdalah over wine, only on the night following Pesach he recites havdalah over beer because of dearness (and so it is explained from the words of the Taz, subsection 3, see there).

And if he has no wine, nor beer, nor any other beverage for havdalah: some say that he is permitted to eat, and he shall rely on the havdalah in the prayer or say "Hamavdil" without a cup and without a blessing, for the blessing is only over the cup, but rather without a blessing, similar to what will be explained at the end of siman 299 (see Magen Avraham subsection 7, and it requires further study if his intention was with a blessing and he compares it to Birkat HaMazon, for this is no comparison at all; and see Pri Megadim and examine it carefully). And in truth, reason tends toward this, for why should he fast since he has no cup? And if so, if he will not have a cup the entire week—shall he not eat?! And although we find in Pesachim (107a) regarding Amemar that he did not eat—this was a measure of piety, and not according to the law. And some say that certainly if he will not have one until tomorrow night—we do not tell him to fast all day; however, if he expects that tomorrow he will have a cup—he is forbidden to eat today until tomorrow when he performs havdalah. And even though it is a mitzvah to eat on Motzaei Shabbat, as written in siman 300, nevertheless, without havdalah—the mitzvah is set aside. Therefore, according to the one who holds in section 12 that when Yom Tov falls on Motzaei Shabbat one does not perform havdalah over bread, and he has no beverage—he shall not eat until tomorrow if he expects that he will have a cup tomorrow. And even though it is a mitzvah to eat at night on Yom Tov, nevertheless, since he has not performed havdalah—its mitzvah is set aside. (And this is the intention of the Magen Avraham subsection 8). However, we have already ruled there that the primary law is that in such a case one performs havdalah over bread.

And regarding this matter, according to the one who holds that there is no birkat hamazon without a cup, and he has only one cup, and if he recites havdalah over it he will not have a cup for birkat hamazon: if he expects that tomorrow he will have a cup—he should recite havdalah now and not eat until tomorrow; and if he does not expect one even for tomorrow—it is better that he eat before he recites havdalah and recite birkat hamazon over it, and he should not drink yet until he recites havdalah and drinks it. However, according to those who hold that birkat hamazon does not require a cup—he should recite havdalah over the cup and eat, and recite birkat hamazon without a cup. And all this refers to a case where he only had a cup of exactly a revi'it and it was already diluted properly, and if they add a little water—they will spoil it; for if not so—it is possible to recite havdalah and drink a little, and add a little water to it afterwards to complete it to a revi'it, and recite birkat hamazon over it. And even though ab initio one must drink a cheekful, yet in a place where it is not possible—one fulfills the obligation even with a small drinking, as I wrote in siman 271, section 30, see there. And for us—this law is not relevant at all, for we are not accustomed at all to a cup for birkat hamazon.

One whose means do not suffice to purchase wine for kiddush and for havdalah—he should purchase for havdalah, for kiddush is possible over bread; and even the kiddush of the day which is not possible over bread—nevertheless havdalah takes precedence, for according to many poskim it is from the Torah, as I wrote at the beginning of this siman, and the kiddush of the day is according to everyone rabbinic. Furthermore, even the kiddush of the day in a case of great necessity one fulfills with bread, as I wrote in siman 289, which is not the case regarding havdalah. And if his means do not suffice to purchase oil for the Chanukah candle and wine for havdalah—the Chanukah candle takes precedence even though it is rabbinic, because of pirsumei nisa; and we have already written in siman 271 that bread to eat takes precedence over all things, see there.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled that havdalah is performed while sitting, and the reason is that anything through which one fulfills the obligation for others must be done with fixedness. Our teacher, the Rema, ruled that it is performed while standing, and such is the custom in these lands. And the reason is that to escort the King, one must be standing. And if it is because of fixedness, since everyone prepares themselves for this, it constitutes fixedness even while standing (Tosafot Berakhot 43a), and nevertheless there are some of the great authorities who perform it while sitting (and so it appears from the Gra, subsection 6). Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6: That one holds the wine in the right hand and the myrtle in the left and recites the blessing over the wine, and then takes the myrtle in the right hand and the wine in the left and recites the blessing over the myrtle, and returns the wine to his right hand. Thus far his words. This is because regarding that which one blesses over, one must hold that object in the right hand, which is the primary hand. And know, that the holding in the left hand is not an obligation at all, and therefore among us we do not hold the besamim during the blessing over the wine, and when we bless over the besamim, we place the cup on the table and take the besamim in the right hand. Rather, the primary intention is to hold the wine in the right hand and the myrtle in the right hand at the time of their respective blessings, and consequently the second object is in the left, but this is not a necessity.

Even if all the members of the household heard havdalah in the synagogue, if they intended not to fulfill their obligation, or even without specific intent, where they did not intend to fulfill the obligation and it is their constant custom to perform havdalah at home—they perform havdalah at home. And this is not called one who increases blessings in vain, for on the contrary, it is good for every head of the household to perform havdalah in his home. And there is one who says that a talmid chakham should not rely on the havdalah in the synagogue (Sema in Choshen Mishpat siman 291, subsection 27), and even though there is no reason for this and they disagreed with him (Magen Avraham subsection 10)—nevertheless, it is certainly good for every head of the household to perform havdalah in his home. However, if it is their constant custom to rely on the havdalah in the synagogue—without specific intent they have fulfilled their obligation, unless they intended not to fulfill it. And we have already explained at the beginning of this siman that many poskim hold that havdalah is from the Torah, and women are obligated like men; see there.