פסחים 101 — Soncino English Talmud

¹They have not done their duty in respect of kiddush either. Then according to Rab, why he [the Reader] recite kiddush at home? — In order to acquit his children and his household [of their duty]. And [according to] Samuel, why must he recite kiddush in the synagogue? — In order to acquit travellers of their obligation, for they eat, drink, and sleep in the synagogue. Now Samuel is consistent with his view, for Samuel said: Kiddush is [valid] only where the meal is eaten. From this it was understood [by the disciples] that only [to adjourn] from one house to another [is forbidden], but [to adjourn] from one place to another in the same house is not [forbidden]. Said R. ‘Anan b. Tahlifa to them: On many occasions I was standing before Samuel, when he descended from the roof to the ground and then recited [again] kiddush. Now R. Huna too holds that kiddush is [valid] only where the meal is eaten. For [on one occasion] R. Huna recited kiddush and [then] his lamp was upset, whereupon he carried his utensils into the marriage chamber [baldachin] of his son Rabbah, where a lamp was [burning] recited kiddush [again], and then ate something, which proves that he holds: kiddush is [valid] only where the meal is eaten. Now Rabbah too holds: kiddish is [valid] only where the meal is eaten. For Abaye said: When I was at the Master's [sc. Rabbah's] house, and he recited kiddush, he would say to us: ‘Eat a little [here], lest by the time you reach your lodgings your lamps become upset, and you do not recite kiddush in the house where you eat, while you will not have discharged [your duty] with the kiddush of this place, because kiddush is [valid] only where the meal is eaten. But that is not so, for surely Abaye said: In all matters the Master [sc. Rabbah] acted in accordance with Rab, except these three, where he did as Samuel: [viz.,] one may light from lamp to lamp; one can detach [the fringes] from one garment for [insertion in] another garment; and the halachah is as R. Simeon in respect to dragging. For it was taught, R. Simeon said: A man may drag a bed, seat, or bench, providing that he does not intend to make a rut! — He acted upon Rab's stringent rulings, but he did not act upon Rab's lenient rulings. But R. Johanan maintained: They have done their duty in respect of wine too. Now R. Johanan is consistent with his view, for R. Hanin b. Abaye said in the name of R. Pedath in R. Johanan's name: Both for a change of wine^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ

^ᵃnote:Seeing that one's duty is not fulfilled thereby in any case.
^ᵇnote:Not actually in the synagogue, but in adjoining rooms (Tosaf. on the basis of Meg. 28a). Hence the synagogue is like home to them.
^ᶜnote:After kiddush, since the meal must be eaten in the same place.
^ᵈnote:V. R. Hananel. Proving that you must not adjourn from one place to another even in the same house.
^ᵉnote:Abaye was an orphan, and brought up in Rabbah's house.
^ᶠnote:One may kindle one Hanukkah lamp from another.
^ᵍnote:V. Num. XV, 38.
^ʰnote:Over an earthen floor on the Sabbath or festival.
^ⁱnote:Though the dragging will possibly make one. — Why then does he rule as Samuel in respect to kiddush?
^ʲnote:That was the general rule stated by Abaye, the three exceptions all being leniencies, where he acted as Samuel.
^ᵏnote:This refers back to 100b bottom. Having heard the benediction for wine in the synagogue, they do not repeat the benediction at home, for in R. Johanan's view their departure from the synagogue does not break the continuity, as they are regarded as having had their mind set upon the meal and the wine from when they heard kiddush.

²and for a change of place, he need not recite the benediction [again]. An objection is raised: [For] a change of place, he must recite the benediction [again]; for a change of wine, he need not recite the benediction [again]? This refutation of R. Johanan is [indeed] a refutation. R. Idi b. Abin sat before R. Hisda, while R. Hisda sat and said in R. Huna's name: As to what you said, [for] a change of place he must recite the benediction [again], they taught this only [of a change] from one house to another, but not from one place to another place. Said R. Idi b. Abin to him: We have learnt it thus in the Baraitha of the School of R. Henak — others state, in the School of Bar Henak — in accordance with your ruling. Does then R. Huna teach us a Baraitha? — R. Huna had not heard the Baraitha. Furthermore, R. Hisda sat and said in his own name: As to what you said: For a change of place he must recite the benediction [again], we said this only of things which do not require a benediction after them in the same place; but for the things which demand a blessing after them in the same place, he need not recite the benediction [again]. What is the reason? He [mentally] returns to the first appointed place. But R. Shesheth maintained: Both for the one and the other he must recite the benediction [again]. An objection is raised: If the members of a company were reclining to drink, and they [precipitately] arose to go out to welcome a bridegroom or a bride, when they go out, they do not need [to recite] a benediction beforehand; when they return, they do not need [to recite] a benediction at the beginning. When is that? If they left an old man or an invalid there; but if they did not leave an old man or an invalid there, when they go out they need [to recite] a benediction beforehand, [and] when they return they need a benediction at the beginning. Now since he teaches, ‘they [precipitately] arose,’ it follows that we are treating of things which require a blessing after them in the same place, and it is only because they left an old man or an invalid there that when they go out they do not need a benediction beforehand, and when they return they do not need a benediction at the beginning. But if they did not leave an old man or an invalid there, when they go out they need a blessing beforehand and when they return they need a blessing at the beginning: this is a difficulty according to R. Hisda?-Said R. Nahman b. Isaac:^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ

^ˡnote:If a man recites a blessing for wine and drinks, and the more wine is brought from a different barrel, even if the second is of a different quality, he does not repeat the blessing; similarly, if he recites a blessing over food or drink and then continues his meal elsewhere. Hence the same applies here. — Where a man need not recite a blessing, he may not recite, as a blessing must not be recited where there is no obligation.
^ᵐnote:In the same house, e.g., from one room to another.
^ⁿnote:Surely it is superfluous!
^ᵒnote:Rashbam deletes both the question and the answer, as it is quite usual for an amora to state what is taught in the Baraitha.
^ᵖnote:Where they are eaten, Rashbam: sc. water or fruit. After everything else, however, (i.e., wine, the seven species enumerated in Deut. VIII, 8, bread, and the five species of grain enumerated in the Mishnah Supra 35a) a blessing in the nature of grace must be recited where it is consumed. Tosaf.: after everything except bread and perhaps also the five species of grain a blessing need not be recited where they are eaten.
^ᵠnote:Since these things must be followed by a blessing in the place where they are consumed, even when he changes his place he keeps the first in mind, so that his eating in both places should be as one act of eating, the subsequent blessing being for what he ate in both. Consequently, he does not recite a blessing before eating in the second place either.
^ʳnote:Lit., ‘detached their feet’.
^ˢnote:I.e., the blessing after wine, since it is their Intention to return.
^ᵗnote:When they drink afresh.
^ᵘnote:Which assures that their departure is only an interruption.
^ᵛnote:‘They detached their feet’ implies that they hurried, on account of the bridegroom or bride, but otherwise they would have remained there, in order to recite the benediction before leaving. — According to Tosaf. (p. 538, n. 3) ‘to drink must be omitted from the Baraitha, since in their view no beverage, not even wine, is subject to this rule.