Siman 299

It is forbidden to eat anything or to drink wine or other beverages from nightfall before one recites havdalah, and even if one recited havdalah in the prayer—it is forbidden before one recites havdalah over the cup, except for water, which has no importance at all and is permitted according to the law. And that which we are careful even regarding water, in truth it is not according to the law, but rather for the reason explained in siman 291 according to the Midrash, that this is the time of the return of the souls to Gehinnom; see there. But every food and beverage is forbidden according to the law of the Gemara, because the obligation of havdalah has fallen upon him. And even according to those who hold that havdalah is rabbinic—nevertheless, he is obligated in havdalah, and the proof is that even according to those who hold that havdalah is from the Torah—nevertheless, havdalah over the cup is certainly rabbinic after he has recited havdalah in the prayer, and nevertheless it is forbidden, and so too for the one who holds that its essence is rabbinic. And even in a case of doubtful nightfall it is forbidden, which is approximately half an hour before night, and one should not eat seudah shlishit then, but before this—it is permitted. And it is obvious that if he has not yet eaten seudah shlishit—that he must eat it even slightly after sunset. (See Magen Avraham subsection 1 who wrote that if he prayed Maariv while it was still day—it is forbidden to eat until he recites havdalah, and the Pri Megadim disputed this and wrote that it is not similar to kiddush; see there.)

There are those who complain about large meals that they begin to eat close to darkness on Shabbat, and it is a complete prohibition (Bach and Magen Avraham), and there is one who permits it, for the prohibition is only with certain darkness (Taz, subsection 1). And like this opinion, one of the great authorities cited in the name of Piskei Tosafot, who wrote that a person of spirit should be careful not to eat during doubtful darkness, but one should not protest against others (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 5). And so it is implied from the words of the Rambam, chapter 29, law 5, who wrote: "From the time the day has departed—it is forbidden for him to eat, drink, perform work, or taste anything until he recites havdalah." Thus far his words. Behold, specifically from the time the day has departed is it forbidden. Furthermore, he mentions it similar to work, which certainly does not apply before darkness, as is understood; therefore, in a time of pressing need, one may be lenient in this until it is actually dark. However, ab initio, one should certainly be scrupulous not to come to this, and they should begin at the very least at the time of sunset, and a blessing shall come upon them.

And this is regarding starting a meal, but if he was sitting at a meal while it was still day, and his meal extended even several hours into the darkness—he does not need to stop, neither from eating nor from drinking. And it is not similar to the eve of Shabbat, where at darkness he must stop, and he spreads a cloth and recites kiddush as is written in siman 271, for on the contrary, just as on the eve of Shabbat he must stop due to the honor of the Shabbat, so too conversely, due to the honor of Shabbat—he does not need to stop once it is dark, and furthermore it is forbidden to stop, as it appears like one who is driving away the king. And it is brought in the Mekhilta: Guard it at its departure—like a person who does not want his beloved to leave from him. And this is what they said in Pesachim (105a) that Shabbat fixes—for kiddush but not for havdalah, see there.

And this is the opinion of the Rambam there and the Rosh there, and so wrote Rashi and Rashbam and Tosafot (ibid. 99b). Nevertheless, the Smag wrote that from the Rif it appears that this is specifically in a case of doubtful darkness, but not in a case of certain darkness; and in certain darkness one must stop and recite havdalah, and so wrote the author of the Ittur. And there are those who were concerned for their words, and they wrote regarding the Maharsha, of blessed memory, that he stopped during a wedding feast and went to the synagogue to pray and returned to the feast (Magen Avraham, subsection 2). And this is the opinion of the "there are those who say" brought in the Shulchan Aruch, and this is his wording: "And there are those who say that these words apply in a case of doubtful darkness, but in certain darkness, even if he was sitting and eating—he spreads a cloth and recites havdalah and finishes his meal." Thus far his words. But the primary ruling is according to the first opinion, which is the opinion of most of the poskim, and so is the world's custom, and so ruled our teacher, the Rema.

And this is when they were sitting at a meal. But if he was sitting and drinking, or even many who sat to drink and it grew dark—they must stop, for this is not a fixed gathering, and even if they are eating fruits and delicacies. And it appears to me even if they are eating mezonot—this is not a fixed gathering, for if it were a fixed gathering they should have washed their hands and recited the blessing 'Hamotzi'. And since they did not do so—their eating is temporary, and they must stop.

And if he began in a state of prohibition, meaning that he sat down to eat after it became dark—it is obvious that he must interrupt for havdalah, and even if he recited Keriat Shema; for if not—behold, he must interrupt for Keriat Shema even before it becomes dark, if he began half an hour close to nightfall, as has been written in siman 235. And there is one who says that this is specifically according to the one who holds that havdalah is from the Torah, but according to the one who holds that havdalah is rabbinic and he began to eat—he does not need to interrupt, as with every matter that is rabbinic (Magen Avraham, subsection 2). And it does not seem correct to say so, for havdalah is not similar to all other matters; since it was instituted specifically at the beginning of the night—he is obligated to interrupt even if it is rabbinic (the HaGarz in Kuntres Acharon), and such is the primary ruling. However, if he began close to nightfall, since there are those who permit it as has been written in section 2—he does not interrupt; but regarding Keriat Shema if he has not recited it—it appears that he must interrupt, therefore at the very least he should recite Keriat Shema at his table.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2: "If they were drinking and said 'Come, let us recite havdalah,' if they wished to return and drink before havdalah—they do not need to repeat the blessing, and there is one who disagrees on the matter." Thus far his words. And it is not understood, for regarding drinking it has been explained that they are obligated to stop. However, in truth it does not deal with this matter, and the main point here deals with the matter of the blessing. The first opinion is the view of the Rambam in chapter 4 of Berakhot, that even though regarding kiddush in such a case when they said 'Come, let us recite kiddush'—it constitutes an interruption and they must repeat the blessing, as written in siman 271—nevertheless regarding havdalah it is not so. And the reason is that just as kiddush is more stringent regarding when the time arrives one spreads a cloth and recites kiddush, even when they sat for a meal, and regarding havdalah it is not so—similarly regarding their statement: in kiddush—it constitutes an interruption and they must bless when they wish to return and drink, but not in havdalah. And the "one who disagrees" is the Ra'avad there, who holds that since they said 'Come, let us recite havdalah'—the obligation of havdalah takes effect upon them just as in kiddush, and they must repeat the blessing. And specifically without a statement is there a distinction, because Shabbat establishes itself but havdalah does not, but when they spoke—behold by their will they established the havdalah as an obligation at this moment. And if it is difficult, for even without this they are obligated to stop for havdalah, it can be said that it deals with when they spoke before it grew dark for them in a manner that they were still permitted to drink, and by their statement they became forbidden, or that they sat for a meal, or that in truth they are committing a prohibition regarding this matter. (See Beit Yosef and Magen Avraham subsection 5 and Taz subsection 3)

When one is sitting at a meal and desires to pause for havdalah to perform havdalah in the middle of the meal before the Maariv prayer—he may perform havdalah, and if they drank wine beforehand, he does not need to repeat the blessing of "borei peri hagafen" over the cup of havdalah, for havdalah is not an interruption, just as kiddush is not an interruption in such circumstances, as has been written in siman 271. And there is one who disagrees, [holding] that havdalah is an interruption. But the primary [ruling] is like the first opinion, for the one who disagrees holds that one is obligated to interrupt according to the opinion we wrote in section 4, and therefore it automatically follows that it is an interruption. And even though regarding kiddush everyone agrees one must interrupt, and nevertheless we do not bless "borei peri hagafen" as has been written there, that is because kiddush is required for the meal, which is not the case with havdalah. However, regarding the law, since we do not hold like this opinion, as has been written in section 4—therefore here too regarding the law we hold that he does not need to bless. And this is when they were sitting at a meal, but when they were only drinking and sought to perform havdalah, since we hold that they are obligated to interrupt, as has been written in section 5, it automatically follows that he must repeat the blessing of "borei peri hagafen" over the cup of havdalah (so it is according to the words of the Taz, subsection 4). And there is one who says that even when they were engaged in drinking, he does not need to bless, because havdalah is not an interruption at all (Be'er Heitev). And there is one who says that even if they were engaged in a meal, he must bless, for havdalah is even worse since it has no connection to the meal at all (Magen Avraham, subsection 6). And in my humble opinion, the primary [ruling] is like the first opinion, and it is good to be careful not to come to this; and indeed, we are not accustomed to this, but rather we finish the meal, pray Maariv, and perform havdalah. But if necessity brings one to perform havdalah in the middle of the meal—he should not bless "borei peri hagafen" over the cup of havdalah. (And the Magen Avraham himself is somewhat in doubt, see there, and so it was explained from the Eliyah Rabbah and the Tosefet Shabbat, see there, that this is the primary law.)

When he was sitting at a meal, and we have said that he does not need to interrupt, and he finished his meal—he may recite the blessing over the cup and drink from it. And even though after Birkat HaMazon drinking is forbidden—nevertheless, the cup of Birkat HaMazon is associated with the meal, and it is permitted for him to drink it. However, this is when he always recites the blessing over a cup—the cup becomes for him like the meal itself, but if he always recites the blessing without a cup—even now he should not drink it (Magen Avraham, subsection 7). And this is when it is already night, but if it is still before night, even though it is after sunset and close to bein hashemashot—he is obligated to drink it in any case. However, if he does not have another cup for havdalah—in any case he should not drink it, but rather he recites the blessing over the cup and afterward recites havdalah over it, whether he recites havdalah immediately or after the prayer. But if he has another cup for havdalah—he certainly must drink it according to what has been explained, and he shall recite havdalah over another cup (this is the explanation of what is written in the Shulchan Aruch, section 4, see there).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 7: One who recites havdalah over wine at his table, even if he recited havdalah before he washed his hands—he exempts the wine within the meal, so that he does not need to recite a blessing over it. And some say that he does not exempt it unless he washed his hands before he recited havdalah. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: "And if he recited havdalah first—he must recite the after-blessing of the three-faceted type after it." Thus far his words. And afterwards in section 8, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: "When he exempts the wine within the meal so that he does not need to recite a blessing over it—he also does not need to recite an after-blessing over the cup of havdalah. And if he only has one cup, and he thought they would bring him more wine and he recited havdalah over that cup, and afterwards they did not bring him more and he recited birkat hamazon without a cup—there is one who says that he must recite an after-blessing over the cup of havdalah." Thus far his words, and the matters require explanation.

And this is its explanation: It has already been explained in siman 174 that wine before the meal exempts wine during the meal, and if so, naturally when one wishes to eat immediately after havdalah—the wine of havdalah exempts the wine during the meal, and should it be diminished just because it also contains a mitzvah? However, the "there are those who say" hold that it is certainly diminished, for on a weekday when one drinks of his own will—it is properly called wine before the meal, and it exempts that which is during the meal. But havdalah, which one is obligated to perform—this has no connection to the meal at all, and it is not similar to kiddush, which is only in the place of a meal. Therefore, they hold that specifically if he washed his hands before he performed havdalah—then it exempts the wine during the meal, but if he did not wash his hands—it does not exempt. And this is what our teacher, the Rema, says: that naturally since it does not exempt—he is obligated to recite a berakhah acharonah over the cup of havdalah, since it has no connection to the meal. But according to the first opinion that it does exempt—he does not need a berakhah acharonah, and these are the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 8.

And afterward he says: "And if he has only one cup, etc.," and this is its explanation: That even according to the first opinion which holds that the wine of havdalah is like wine before the meal, which exempts the wine within the meal and therefore does not require an after-blessing as I have written, nevertheless there is a distinction between it and wine before the meal. For regarding wine before the meal, it was explained in siman 174 that it does not require an after-blessing in any case, whether he drank wine during the meal or did not drink, and whether he recited a blessing over the cup or did not recite a blessing; but regarding the wine of havdalah, he is not exempt from an after-blessing unless he had wine during the meal or recited a blessing over the cup. But otherwise—he is obligated in an after-blessing. And it is also not similar to kiddush which is exempt in any case, as I have written in siman 271, and the reason for the matter is that wine before the meal which comes for the sake of the meal to open the digestive tract, or wine of kiddush since there is no kiddush except in the place of a meal—rightly birkat hamazon exempts them in any case; but the wine of havdalah which does not come to open the digestive tract, and also has no connection to the meal—by what would birkat hamazon exempt it from an after-blessing? Rather, if he drinks wine during the meal, since it exempts it from a first blessing, as has been explained—the wine within the meal also exempts it from an after-blessing, and it becomes as one wine. Or even if he did not have wine during the meal but he recited a blessing over the cup, when he recites the after-blessing over the cup of birkat hamazon—it will automatically exempt it as well; but where both are absent—he is certainly obligated in an after-blessing.

Therefore, if he knows that he will not have wine during the meal, and also will not have a cup for birkat hamazon—it is obvious that he must recite the bracha acharona immediately. However, if he thought that he would have wine during the meal or for the cup of blessing and did not recite the bracha acharona, and afterward it turned out that he did not have any and did not drink during the meal and also recited birkat hamazon without a cup—therefore, this is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote, that some say he must even now recite the bracha acharona over the cup of havdalah. And he wrote this in the language of "there is one who says" because there is a line of reasoning to say that since previously he thought he would have it and now it has changed, we might say that since he did not recite the blessing at its time until birkat hamazon—the birkat hamazon exempts him post facto; he comes to teach us that there is one who says that even in such a case he must recite the blessing. (See Magen Avraham subsection 10 who raised a difficulty from the four cups, and I do not understand it, for this is like kiddush as the Taz wrote in subsection 7, and in the Taz subsection 6 there are some printing errors, and examine it closely.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 9: "If one wishes to dine immediately after havdalah—one must be careful not to bring bread to the table before havdalah, and if he brought it—he spreads a cloth over it and covers it, because it is preceded in the verse, and one would need to give it precedence if he does not cover it." Thus far his words. And it is not understood, for granted regarding kiddush where he is able to recite kiddush over the bread—the concept of shame appropriately applies, but regarding havdalah where it is impossible to recite havdalah over it—how does shame apply? And it must be said that this itself is its shame, that it is impossible to recite havdalah over it, and it always had superiority over the wine and now the wine surpasses it (Taz subsection 8 and Magen Avraham subsection 12). And there is a proof for this from the morning meal, for there too one does not recite kiddush over the bread, and nevertheless it must have a cloth spread over it, as was written at the beginning of siman 289. However, on Shabbat there is an additional reason in memory of the manna, as was written in siman 271, but we hold the primary reason to be shame, and the proof is that at the third meal one does not cover the bread, as was written in siman 291 at the end of section 10, see there.

We maintain in Pesachim (107a): "If one tasted—he must still recite havdalah." This means that even though it is forbidden to eat before havdalah, nevertheless, if he forgot and ate, or even if he ate intentionally—the havdalah is not lost, but rather he recites havdalah afterward. And we further say there: that one who did not recite havdalah on Saturday night—may continue to recite havdalah until the end of the third day, for these three days belong to the previous Shabbat, but from here onward—he shall not recite havdalah; such is the version of Rashi, the Rashbam, and Tosafot, and so wrote the Rambam in chapter 29, see there. But the version of the Geonim brought by the Tur is: only on Sunday until nightfall can he recite havdalah and not after that, and such is the version of the Rif. And before us in the Rif the matters are perplexing, for first he wrote "the entire day," and at the end of his words he wrote "until the third day," see there.

And it is simple that on the next day or until Tuesday, he only recites the blessing "borei peri ha-gafen" and "ha-mavdil," and neither the blessing over besamim nor the blessing "borei meorei ha-esh," for they have no relevance except on motzaei Shabbat. And furthermore, he wrote like the author of the Halakhot Gedolot, that this which we say, "if he tasted—he must still recite havdalah," these words apply when he recites havdalah on motzaei Shabbat; but when he recites havdalah the next day—it is only when he has not tasted, but if he tasted—he does not recite havdalah the next day, and certainly not until Tuesday according to our version. And the Tur challenged him: what is the difference between this and that? And in my humble opinion, it seems that the Ba'al Halakhot Gedolot holds that when he has nothing upon which to recite havdalah on motzaei Shabbat—he is permitted to eat; and since we find in the Gemara there that Amemar, when he did not have anything for havdalah—remained in a fast until the next day, and why did he do so? Rather, it is because if he had eaten—he would not have been able to recite havdalah the next day. And the reason can be explained, for truly it is not understood what relevance there is on Sunday, and certainly on Monday and Tuesday, to say: "Who distinguishes between holy and profane," for has the holiness not already departed and it has been profane for some time? Rather, if he does not eat on account of the havdalah—it is for him until now like a type of holiness regarding this matter, for the past holiness prevented him from eating; but when he has eaten—what relevance is there to say now "Who distinguishes between holy and profane"? For it is well on motzaei Shabbat—he speaks regarding the time, but on Sunday, has the time not already passed? However, the primary ruling was decided by our teacher, the Rema, in section 6 according to the first opinion, that one recites havdalah until Tuesday even if he tasted, for such is the opinion of most poskim. And regarding the matter of whether he is permitted to eat before he recites havdalah the next day—it was explained in siman 296, see there in section 14.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: One who fasts three days and three nights should hear havdalah from others, and if there are no others with him, he may recite havdalah while it is still day on Shabbat and drink, and afterwards accept the fast upon himself. Thus far his words. That is to say, if he fasts one day or two days and has no one from whom to hear havdalah, he can recite havdalah after the fast on Tuesday, but when he fasts three days, the time has passed and he is forced to recite havdalah while it is still day. However, even for one who fasts one day, if he begins the fast from the night on Motzaei Shabbat and has someone from whom to hear havdalah on Motzaei Shabbat, it is better to hear it in its time than to recite havdalah for himself after the fast, and this is obvious. (And so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 11). And one should not ask: behold, since he recited havdalah, he accepted the fast upon himself? For this applies to an obligatory fast and not to a fast that he accepted upon himself, for he accepted it in this manner (Magen Avraham, subsection 9). And specifically when he accepted upon himself to fast from the beginning of the night, but in an ordinary case, the fast does not begin from the evening, for we follow the common idiom of people (ibid.), and in the common idiom of people, the term "fast" refers only from morning until evening.

And one who fasts two consecutive days from the conclusion of the holy Shabbat until Monday evening, if he did not hear havdalah, he recites havdalah then as has been written; and if Rosh Hashanah falls then—he should not recite kiddush and havdalah over one cup, for one does not recite two sanctifications over one cup. And it is not similar to a Yom Tov that falls on the conclusion of Shabbat, for there it is one sanctification, as in the havdalah we say "between holy and holy," but not in the havdalah of a weekday with the kiddush of Yom Tov. Therefore, he should recite kiddush over one cup and afterward recite havdalah over another cup (ibid.), and if he does not have wine—he recites kiddush over the bread and eats and afterward recites havdalah over the beer, and even though it is forbidden to eat before havdalah—nevertheless here it is impossible in any other way, or he may also recite kiddush over the beer, and it is better to hear kiddush from another and afterward recite havdalah (ibid.).

It is forbidden to perform work before havdalah, and thus our sages, of blessed memory, said in Shabbat (150b): It is forbidden for a person to perform his needs before he performs havdalah; see there. And if he performed havdalah in the prayer—he does not need to perform havdalah over the cup regarding the matter of work, and it is permitted for him to perform work even before havdalah over the cup. And if he needs to perform work before the prayer—he says: 'Who separates between holy and profane' without a blessing; so it is according to the opinion of Rashi there, because it is only for a mere recognition. And the opinion of the Rosh is with a blessing, and that is that he should say: 'Blessed are You, Hashem, Who separates between holy and profane,' and so it is explicitly stated in the Behag; and also the opinion of the Rosh is that even though he performed havdalah in the prayer and wants to perform work—he must bless 'Blessed are You, Hashem, Who separates between holy and profane.' But the custom of the world is like Rashi in both matters, both without mentioning the Name and also when he performed havdalah in the prayer that he does not need anything. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 10 brought only the opinion of Rashi, since this is how they practiced and it is a rabbinic matter, and also in mentioning the Name there is a doubt of a blessing in vain, and therefore one should not protest if they practiced like Rashi (Beit Yosef). And on a Yom Tov that occurs on Saturday night—he says: 'Who separates between holy and holy' (Magen Avraham, subsection 13), but to eat there is no permission in this until he performs havdalah over the cup (ibid.).

And it is necessary to teach the women who do not pray Maariv and do not say "Atah Chonantanu," and who perform melakhah before the havdalah over the cup, that they should say: "He who distinguishes between the sacred and the profane." And it seems that most of our women are not careful in this, and they kindle fire at night before havdalah. And it can be said that they relied on what our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 10, that there are those who say that all this applies to a complete melakhah, such as writing or weaving, but merely kindling a lamp or carrying from domain to domain—this is not required; and from this the custom spread to be lenient, such that they kindle lamps immediately once the congregation has said "Barchu," but the primary view is like the first opinion. Thus far his words. However, there is no reason to distinguish between a light melakhah and a heavy melakhah.

And it seems to me that the reason for this opinion is because, seemingly, there is no reason for this utterance, and why is the utterance "Who distinguishes between the holy and the profane" necessary, for behold, it is night. Rather, the reason is that since the Torah required havdalah, as it is written: "And to distinguish between the holy and the profane," and it is stated regarding "Observe" — "And you shall remember," from which we derive havdalah, as I wrote at the beginning of siman 296, behold we see that the Torah required distinguishing with the mouth and saying "Who distinguishes between the holy and the profane." And this is the reason of the Bahag and the Rosh who required a blessing with the Name, as I wrote in section 19, because this is a decree of the verse or an asmachta, and indeed according to them there is no distinction between one melakhah and another. But for us, who hold like Rashi that it is not necessary with the Name, and if so it must be understood, for this is not a blessing at all. And it must be said that according to this opinion, that which the Torah required havdalah — it is not because without this it is forbidden to do melakhah, but it is a mitzvah unto itself, for the Torah commanded to remember the sanctity of Shabbat at its entrance and its exit. Rather, the Sages of blessed memory said that since the Torah required havdalah — we too must make some recognition even regarding melakhah, and not because of a prohibition but to pay attention to remember some havdalah. Therefore, "Blessed" without the Name is sufficient, since it is merely for recognition as Rashi explained, and if so, paying attention and recognition is only relevant to melakhah where the labor is evident, and not to that which only has the name of melakhah upon it. And this is in order to settle the custom; however, it is certainly more proper that every head of the household should teach in his home that when they kindle the lamp, they should first say "Who distinguishes between the holy and the profane."

It is brought in the Yerushalmi (chapter Makom She-nahagu, halacha 1): "Those women who are accustomed not to perform labor at the conclusion of Shabbat—it is not a custom," meaning it is not a proper custom because there is no reason for it. "Until the order is completed—it is a custom," meaning until they complete the prayer—it is a valid custom not to perform labor, and regarding this they said in our Shas there: 'One who performs labor on motzaei Shabbat—does not see a sign of blessing' (Tosafot ibid.). And there is one who wrote that the women were accustomed not to perform labor the entire night of motzaei Shabbat (Magen Avraham subsection 15), but we have not heard of this custom, which is against the Yerushalmi, and our women only refrain until after havdalah, and afterward they perform all labors, and such is the primary ruling.

And know that in the Zohar Bereishit in the introduction (page 14b), it counts three things that one who does them causes evil to himself, and it says there: "The third is one who kindles a lamp at the conclusion of Shabbat before Israel has reached the Kedusha of the Seder, for he causes the fire of Gehenna to be kindled with that fire before its time." Thus far its words. And it says there that those who are punished in Gehenna curse that person who kindled the lamp before its time, see there. (The Magen Avraham, subsection 17, cited this Zohar as saying not to kindle until after one has recited Havdalah over the cup, see there; but it is not so, for the wording of the Zohar is as I have written, except that afterwards it wrote according to the wording of the Magen Avraham, see there. And it is perplexing, for one must kindle a lamp for Havdalah, and this has already been addressed in the margin of the Zohar in Derech Emet, see there what he answered. And in my humble opinion, it appears that what it wrote afterwards, "until they recite Havdalah over the cup," means "until" but not including, which is to say after the Seder of Kedusha when one recites Havdalah immediately according to the law, and delve into this.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who say to draw water every Motzaei Shabbat, for the well of Miriam circles all the wells every Motzaei Shabbat, and whoever encounters it and drinks from it will be healed of all his ailments; but I have not seen this custom. See above, siman 263, regarding one who adds from the profane to the sacred, whether it is permitted for him to tell another who has already recited Havdalah to perform labor for him; thus far his words. And there it was explained that it is permitted, and it is permitted for him to benefit from his labor; see there. And in siman 295 it was explained that we recite the verses of "Veyiten Lecha," and "Eliyahu HaNavi," and the Ribon of the Yerushalmi; see there.