אף ידי קידוש לא יצאו אלא לרב למה ליה לקדושי בביתיה כדי להוציא בניו ובני ביתו
Even the obligation of kiddush they have not fulfilled, and they must recite kiddush again at home. The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rav, why should one have to recite kiddush a second time at home if he has already fulfilled his obligation in the synagogue? The Gemara answers: He must repeat kiddush to fulfill the obligations of his children and the members of his household, who did not come to the synagogue.
ושמואל למה לי לקדושי בבי כנישתא לאפוקי אורחים ידי חובתן דאכלו ושתו וגנו בבי כנישתא
The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Shmuel, why do I need to recite kiddush in the synagogue at all, if one does not fulfill his obligation with that kiddush? The Gemara answers: The purpose of kiddush in the synagogue is to fulfill the obligations of the guests who eat and drink and sleep in the synagogue. Since these visitors are staying in the synagogue for Shabbat, they must hear kiddush there.
ואזדא שמואל לטעמיה דאמר שמואל אין קידוש אלא במקום סעודה סבור מינה הני מילי מבית לבית אבל ממקום למקום בחד ביתא לא
And Shmuel follows his line of reasoning, as Shmuel said: There is no valid kiddush except in the place of one’s Shabbat meal. If one does not eat a meal in the location in which he recites kiddush, he has not fulfilled the mitzva of kiddush. The students understood from this statement that this halakha applies only when one goes from house to house and eats the Shabbat meal in a different house from the one in which he recited kiddush. But if one went from the place where he recited kiddush to another place in one house, no, there is no problem, and he has fulfilled the mitzva of kiddush.
אמר להו רב ענן בר תחליפא זימנין סגיאין הוה קאימנא קמיה דשמואל ונחית מאיגרא לארעא והדר מקדש
However, Rav Anan bar Taḥalifa said to the students: Many times I stood before Shmuel, and he descended from the roof to the ground floor and recited kiddush again. This indicates that Shmuel maintains that even if one recites kiddush and eats the Shabbat meal in a different part of the same house, he must recite kiddush a second time.
ואף רב הונא סבר אין קידוש אלא במקום סעודה דרב הונא קדיש ואיתעקרא ליה שרגא ועיילי ליה למניה לבי גנניה דרבה בריה דהוה שרגא וקדיש וטעים מידי אלמא קסבר אין קידוש אלא במקום סעודה
With regard to this halakha, the Gemara notes: And Rav Huna also maintains that there is no kiddush except in the place of one’s Shabbat meal. The proof of this is that Rav Huna once recited kiddush and his lamp was extinguished. And as it was difficult to eat in the dark, he brought his belongings to the wedding home of his son Rabba, where there was a lamp, and he recited kiddush there and tasted some food. Apparently, Rav Huna maintains that there is no kiddush except in the place of one’s Shabbat meal.
ואף רבה סבר אין קידוש אלא במקום סעודה דאמר אביי כי הוינא בי מר כי הוה מקדש אמר לן טעימו מידי דילמא אדאזליתו לאושפיזא מתעקרא לכו שרגא ולא מקדש לכו בבית אכילה ובקידושא דהכא לא נפקיתו דאין קידוש אלא במקום סעודה
The Gemara further comments: And Rabba also maintains that there is no kiddush except in the place of one’s Shabbat meal, as Abaye said: When I was in the house of my Master, Rabba, when he would recite kiddush he would say to us: Taste some food here, lest by the time you get to your place of lodging your lamp be extinguished, and you will not be able to recite kiddush in the place where you will eat. And with the kiddush you heard here you do not fulfill the mitzva, as there is no kiddush except in the place of one’s Shabbat meal.
איני והאמר אביי כל מילי דמר הוה עביד כרב לבר מהני תלת דעביד כשמואל מתירין מבגד לבגד ומדליקין מנר לנר
The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Is that so? But didn’t Abaye say: With regard to all the customs of my Master, Rabba, he would act in accordance with the opinion of Rav, except for these three instances, in which he acted in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: Rabba maintained that one may untie ritual fringes [tzitzit] from one garment and tie them to another garment, contrary to Rav’s opinion that this constitutes a disgrace of the mitzva. He also maintained that on Hanukkah one may light from one lamp to another lamp, despite Rav’s opinion that this is prohibited as a mundane usage of the lamp of the mitzva.
והלכה כרבי שמעון בגרירה דתניא רבי שמעון אומר גורר אדם מטה כסא וספסל בשבת ובלבד שלא יתכוין לעשות חריץ
In addition, Rabba maintained that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: A person may drag a bed, chair, or stool on Shabbat if it is difficult for him to lift them, provided that he does not intend to dig a furrow in the ground. In the event that he does create a furrow, he has not violated a prohibition, as an unintentional act does not constitute a prohibited act of labor on Shabbat. In light of Abaye’s statement that with the exception of those three rulings Rabba always acted in accordance with Rav, why didn’t Rabba follow the opinion of Rav with regard to kiddush, as Rav maintains that one fulfills the mitzva of kiddush even if he does not eat his Shabbat meal in the same location?
כחומרי דרב הוה עביד כקולי דרב לא הוה עביד
The Gemara answers: He would act in accordance with Rav’s stringencies, but he would not act in accordance with Rav’s leniencies. In the three cases listed above, Rabba was lenient despite Rav’s stringent ruling. However, with regard to kiddush, Rabba did not follow Rav’s lenient opinion.
ורבי יוחנן אמר אף ידי יין נמי יצאו ואזדא רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר רבי חנין בר אביי אמר רבי פדת אמר רבי יוחנן אחד שינוי יין
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Not only do those who recite kiddush in the synagogue fulfill the mitzva of kiddush, they fulfill even their obligation to recite a blessing over the wine they will drink during their meal at home. Since they intend to eat the Shabbat meal and drink wine at home, they do not divert their attention from the blessing and need not recite another one. And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his regular line of reasoning, as Rabbi Ḥanin bar Abaye said that Rabbi Pedat said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Both in a case of a change of wine during a meal to a new type,