אמר רב ברונא אמר רב הנוטל ידיו לא יקדש אמר להו רב יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא אכתי לא נח נפשיה דרב שכחנינהו לשמעתתיה זמנין סגיאין הוה קאימנא קמיה דרב זימנין דחביבא עליה ריפתא מקדש אריפתא זימנין דחביבא ליה חמרא מקדש אחמרא
One who washes his hands should not recite kiddush after washing, as this would constitute an interruption between washing and eating, and he will have to wash again. Instead, he should hear kiddush from someone else. Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta said to them: Not a lot of time has yet passed since Rav died, and we have already forgotten his halakhic rulings. Many times I stood before Rav and saw that sometimes he preferred bread, and he would recite kiddush over bread. On those occasions Rav would wash his hands, recite kiddush over the bread, and eat it. At other times he preferred wine and would recite kiddush over wine. This shows that kiddush is not considered an interruption between washing one’s hands and eating bread.
נטל ידיו לא יקדש - דקידושא מפסיק בין נטילה לאכילה והוי כהיסח הדעת ובעי נטילה אחריתי בתר קידושא:
דחביבא ליה ריפתא - שהיה רעב מקדש אריפתא אלמא לא בעי נטילה אחריתי אלא מעיקרא משי ידיה ואכיל נהמא דקידוש אלמא קידוש שלאחר נטילה לא חשיב היסח הדעת וכן הילכתא דמי שנטל ידיו קודם קידוש א''צ לחזור וליטלן אחר קידוש ולא אפליגו רבנן בין מקדש אריפתא למקדש אחמרא מדלא קא מהדר ליה לרב יצחק בר שמואל מידי ומיהו לכתחלה מוזגין ואח''כ נוטלין לידים כב''ה במסכת ברכות (דף נא:) ומדרב שמעינן שמקדשין על הפת ואומר ויכולו ומברך המוציא ואינו אוכל גם לא יפרוס עד שיקדש אחרי כן ודוקא קידוש אבל הבדלה אינה אלא על הכוס של יין כדאמרינן (שם דף לג.) העשירו קבעוה על הכוס ומי שאין לו כוס יין במקום שרגילין לשתות יין אל יבדיל על הפת ודי לו בהבדלת תפלה בסידור רב עמרם:
מתני׳ אלו דברים שבין בית שמאי ובין בית הלל בסעודה... בית שמאי אומרים נוטלין לידים ואחר כך מוזגין את הכוס ובית הלל אומרים מוזגין את הכוס ואחר כך נוטלין לידים
we will act stringently and not assist the right hand with the left. And he lifts it at least one handbreadth from the ground. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: What is the verse that proves this? “I will lift the cup of salvation and upon the name of the Lord I will call” (Psalms 116:13). And he fixes his eyes upon the cup; so that his attention will not be distracted from it. And he sends it as a gift to members of his household; so that his wife will be blessed. The Gemara relates: Ulla happened to come to the house of Rav Naḥman. He ate bread, recited Grace after Meals, and gave the cup of blessing to Rav Naḥman. Rav Naḥman said to him: Master, please send the cup of blessing to Yalta, my wife. Ulla responded to him: There is no need, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: The fruit of a woman’s body is blessed only from the fruit of a man’s body, as it is stated: “And He will love you, and bless you, and make you numerous, and He will bless the fruit of your body” (Deuteronomy 7:13). The Gemara infers: “He will bless the fruit of her body” was not stated. Rather, “He will bless the fruit of your [masculine singular] body.” For his wife to be blessed with children, it is sufficient to give the cup to Rav Naḥman. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that the fruit of a woman’s body is only blessed from the fruit of a man’s body? As it is stated: And He will bless the fruit of your body; He will bless the fruit of her body was not stated. Rather, He will bless the fruit of your body. The Gemara relates that meanwhile Yalta heard Ulla’s refusal to send her the cup of blessing. Yalta was the daughter of the Exilarch and was accustomed to being treated with deference, so she arose in a rage, entered the wine-storage, and broke four hundred barrels of wine. Afterward, Rav Naḥman said to Ulla: Let the Master send her another cup. Ulla sent Yalta a different cup with a message saying that all of the wine in this barrel is wine of blessing; although you did not drink from the cup of blessing itself, you may at least drink from the barrel from which the cup of blessing was poured. She sent him a stinging response: From itinerant peddlers, Ulla traveled regularly from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia and back, come meaningless words, and from rags come lice. Rav Asi said: One may not speak over a cup of blessing from the moment he takes it in his hand until he drinks it. And Rav Asi said: One may not recite a blessing over a cup of punishment. The Gemara clarifies: What is a cup of punishment? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: A second cup. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: One who drinks in pairs should not recite a blessing, because it is stated: “Prepare to meet your God, O Israel” (Amos 4:12). One must be well-prepared in order to stand before his Creator, and this person who drank two cups of wine is not prepared, as drinking an even number of cups of wine is dangerous due to demons. In concluding the halakhot of blessings, the Gemara cites that Rabbi Abbahu said, and some say it was taught in a baraita: One who eats and walks, recites the blessing of Grace after Meals standing in one place, and one who eats standing, recites the blessing while seated, and one who eats reclining on a divan sits and then recites the blessing. And the halakha is: In all of these cases one sits and then recites the blessing. May we return unto thee : Three who ate ! MISHNA: These are the matters of dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to the halakhot of a meal: One dispute concerns the order of blessings in kiddush. Beit Shammai say: When one recites kiddush over wine, one recites a blessing over the sanctification of the day and recites a blessing over the wine thereafter. And Beit Hillel say: One recites a blessing over the wine and recites a blessing over the day thereafter. Similarly, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagree with regard to drinking wine before a meal. Beit Shammai say: One washes his hands and mixes water with the wine in the cup thereafter, and Beit Hillel say: One mixes water with the wine in the cup and only washes his hands thereafter. The basis of this particular dispute is with regard to the laws of ritual purity, as the Gemara will explain below. Also with regard to the laws of ritual purity, Beit Shammai say: After washing, one dries his hands with a cloth and places it on the table. And Beit Hillel say: One places it on the cushion upon which he is sitting. Similarly, Beit Shammai say: One sweeps the area of the house where the meal took place and he washes his hands with the final waters before Grace after Meals thereafter. And Beit Hillel say: One washes his hands and sweeps the house thereafter. Just as they dispute the order of the blessings in kiddush, they dispute the order of the blessings in havdala. If a meal continued until the conclusion of Shabbat, Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the candle, then the Grace after Meals blessing, then the blessing over the spices, and finally the blessing of havdala. And Beit Hillel say: The order is candle, spices, Grace after Meals, and havdala. With regard to the blessing over the candle, Beit Shammai say: Who created [bara] the light of fire. And Beit Hillel say: Who creates [boreh] the lights of fire. One may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of gentiles, nor over the candle nor the spices designated to pay respects to the dead, nor over the candle nor the spices of idolatry. The mishna cites another halakha with regard to the blessing over the candle: And one does not recite the blessing over the candle until he derives benefit from its light. The mishna cites an additional dispute: One who ate and forgot and did not recite a blessing; Beit Shammai say: He returns to the place where he ate and recites the blessing. Beit Hillel say: That is unnecessary. He recites the blessing at the place where he remembered. Both agree, however, that there is a limit with regard to how long after eating one may recite Grace after Meals. And until when does he recite the blessing? Until the food is digested in his intestines. Wine came before the diners after the meal; if only that cup of wine is there, Beit Shammai say: One recites a blessing over the wine and recites a blessing over the food, Grace after Meals, thereafter. And Beit Hillel say: One recites a blessing over the food and recites a blessing over the wine thereafter. And one answers amen after a Jew who recites a blessing even if he did not hear the entire blessing, and one does not answer amen after a Samaritan [Kuti] who recites a blessing until he hears the whole blessing in its entirety, as perhaps the Kuti introduced an element inconsistent with the Jewish faith in that section of the blessing that he did not hear. GEMARA: The Sages taught in a Tosefta: These are the matters of dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to the halakhot of a meal: Beit Shammai say: When one recites kiddush over wine, one recites a blessing over the sanctification of the day and recites a blessing over the wine thereafter as the day causes the wine to come before the meal. And Beit Shammai offer an additional reason: The day has already been sanctified and the wine has not yet come. Since Shabbat was sanctified first, it should likewise be mentioned first. And Beit Hillel say: One recites a blessing over the wine and recites a blessing over the day thereafter, because the wine causes the sanctification to be recited. Were there no wine, kiddush would not be recited. Alternatively, Beit Hillel say: The blessing over wine is recited frequently, and the blessing over the day is not recited frequently, and there is a general principle: When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice clash, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice. The Tosefta concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel. The Gemara asks: What is alternatively? Why did Beit Hillel cite an additional reason? The Gemara responds: And if you say that there Beit Shammai cite two reasons, and here Beit Hillel offer only one, therefore Beit Hillel said they are two reasons here as well: The blessing over wine is recited frequently and the blessing over the day is not recited frequently. When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice clash, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice. It was taught in the Tosefta: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious, as a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed that the halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Why did the Tosefta tell us here that the halakha is in accordance with their opinion? The Gemara offers two answers: If you wish, say that this Tosefta was taught before the Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed that general principle. And if you wish, say instead, that this Tosefta was indeed taught after the Divine Voice emerged,
בית שמאי אומרים וכו׳: תנו רבנן בית שמאי אומרים נוטלין לידים ואחר כך מוזגין את הכוס... דבר אחר תכף לנטילת ידים סעודה
while its inner side, and its rim, the edge of the vessel that protrudes outwards, and its ear-shaped handle, and its straight handles are pure. However, if the inside of the vessel became ritually impure, it is all ritually impure. Although the decrees of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai are different, they are based on realistic contingencies and on concerns shared by both parties. The Gemara seeks to clarify: With regard to what do they disagree? What is the crux of their dispute? The Gemara explains: Beit Shammai hold: It is prohibited to use a vessel the outer side of which has been rendered ritually impure by liquids. This prohibition stems from a decree of the Sages, due to concern for drips of liquid that would fall from inside the vessel to its outer side, as those drips themselves would be rendered ritually impure by virtue of their contact with the outer side of the vessel. And Beit Shammai hold that there is no reason to issue a decree due to the concern of Beit Hillel lest the liquid on one’s hands will be rendered ritually impure by the cup, as Beit Shammai hold that the use of a vessel of that kind is prohibited. And Beit Hillel hold: One is permitted to use a vessel the outer side of which has been rendered ritually impure by liquid, as they say: Drips are uncommon, and decrees are not issued on the basis of an uncommon case. Because Beit Hillel permit the use of a vessel of that kind, there is concern lest the liquid on one’s hands will be rendered ritually impure due to the cup. Alternatively, Beit Hillel hold that one mixes the water with the wine in the cup and then washes his hands due to the principle: Immediately after the washing of the hands comes the meal. Therefore, he mixes the water and wine in the cup, then he washes his hands, and then he immediately proceeds to the meal. The Gemara asks: What is the point of Beit Hillel adding: Alternatively? The Gemara answers: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai as follows: Even according to you, who said that it is prohibited to use a vessel the outer side of which is ritually impure as we issued a decree due to concern for drips, even so, our opinion is preferable to yours, as our opinion adheres to the principle: Immediately after the washing of the hands comes the meal. We learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagree over where the cloth that one used to dry his hands should be placed. Beit Shammai say: After washing, one dries his hands with a cloth and places it on the table. And Beit Hillel say: One places it on the cushion upon which he is sitting. In a Tosefta, the Sages taught in greater detail: Beit Shammai say: After washing, one dries his hands with a cloth and places it on the table, as if you say that he should place the cloth on the cushion, there is room to issue a decree lest the liquids on the cloth, which is wet because he used it to dry his hands, become ritually impure due to their contact with the cushion, and the liquids would in turn render the hands of anyone who touches the towel ritually impure. The Gemara asks: Even without the liquid, let the cushion render the towel ritually impure directly? The Gemara answers: There is a principle: A vessel does not render another vessel ritually impure. The Gemara asks: Let the cushion render the man sitting upon it ritually impure. The Gemara answers: There, too, there is a general principle: A vessel does not render a person ritually impure. And Beit Hillel say: One places it on the cushion upon which he is sitting, as if you say that he should place it on the table, there is room to issue a decree lest the liquids on the towel might be rendered ritually impure by their contact with the table, and those liquids in turn will render the food placed on the table ritually impure. The Gemara asks: Let the table render the food upon it ritually impure directly. The Gemara explains: Here we are dealing with a table that has second degree ritual impurity status, and an object of second degree ritual impurity status can only confer third degree ritual impurity status upon non-sacred items by means of liquids. By rabbinic decree, liquids that come into contact with second degree ritual impurity assume first degree ritual impurity status and, consequently, can render non-sacred items impure. The Gemara seeks to clarify: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: The basis of their dispute is that Beit Shammai hold: It is prohibited to use a table that has second degree ritual impurity status for purposes of eating because of a decree due to those who eat teruma. A table with that status renders teruma ritually impure through contact. To prevent priests who partake of teruma from unwittingly eating off a table of that sort, a decree was issued prohibiting its use even with non-sacred foods. And Beit Hillel hold: It is permitted to use a table that has second degree ritual impurity status, and we are not concerned about the priests. As those who eat teruma are vigilant and would ascertain the status of a table before eating. Alternatively, Beit Hillel hold that there is no requirement of washing of the hands for non-sacred items by Torah law. The Gemara asks: What is the point of Beit Hillel adding the additional reason introduced with: Alternatively? The Gemara answers: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai as follows: And if you say, what is the difference with regard to food that we are concerned that it might be rendered ritually impure by the cloth on the table; and what is the difference with regard to hands that we are not concerned that they might be rendered ritually impure by the cloth placed on the cushion? Beit Hillel continue: We can respond that even so, this is preferable, as there is no requirement of washing of the hands for non-sacred items by Torah law. It is preferable that hands, whose impurity has no basis in Torah law, will become ritually impure with second degree ritual impurity status, and food, whose impurity has a basis in Torah law, will not become ritually impure. We learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagree over whether cleaning the place where one ate or washing one’s hands should be performed first after the meal. Beit Shammai say: One sweeps the area of the house where the meal took place and he washes his hands with the final waters thereafter. And Beit Hillel say: One washes his hands and sweeps the house thereafter. The Sages taught in a Tosefta where this issue is discussed in greater detail: Beit Shammai say: One sweeps the area of the house where the meal took place and washes his hands thereafter, as if you say that one washes his hands first, the water is liable to splash on the remaining crumbs and you will have ruined the food. But Beit Shammai do not hold that the washing of the hands is first. What is the reason? Due to concern, lest the crumbs will be made disgusting. And Beit Hillel say: If the attendant is a Torah scholar, he removes the crumbs that are an olive-bulk from the table at the end of the meal and leaves only crumbs that are not an olive-bulk, as food that is less than an olive-bulk is not considered food and there is no prohibition to ruin it. This supports the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Crumbs that are less than an olive-bulk in size, one may destroy them with his hand without violating the prohibition against ruining food. Here too the Gemara poses the question: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: The basis of their argument is that Beit Hillel hold: One is forbidden to use the services of a waiter who is an am ha’aretz. Therefore, there is no room for concern that food will be ruined as only crumbs remain on the table. And Beit Shammai hold: One is permitted to use the services of an attendant who is an am ha’aretz. Food will remain on the table and, therefore, there is room for concern that food will be ruined. The solution is to clean the food off the table and only then wash one’s hands. Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said that Rav Huna said: In our entire chapter, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, except for this case, where the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. And Rabbi Oshaya would teach the opposite and reverse the opinions of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai as they appear in our mishna, and in this case as well, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. We learned in the mishna that Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the candle, then the Grace after Meals blessing, then the blessing over the spices, and finally the blessing of havdala. And Beit Hillel say: The order is candle, spices, Grace after Meals, and havdala. The Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar Yehuda happened to come to Rava’s house. He saw that Rava recited a blessing over the spices first. Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to him: Now since Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai do not disagree with regard to the blessing over light, as we learned in our mishna that Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the candle, then the Grace after Meals blessing, then the blessing over the spices, and finally the blessing of havdala. And Beit Hillel say: The order is candle, and spices, Grace after Meals, and havdala, why did you recite the blessing over the spices first? Rava answered after him: Indeed, that is the statement of Rabbi Meir. However, Rabbi Yehuda says in a baraita that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai neither disagree with regard to Grace after Meals that it is recited first, nor with regard to havdala, which is recited last. With regard to what do they disagree? They disagree with regard to the light and the spices. Beit Shammai say: One recites a blessing over light and over spices thereafter, and Beit Hillel say: One recites a blessing over spices and over light thereafter. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The people were accustomed to conduct themselves in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel according to the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda. The blessing over the spices is recited first. The mishna cited a dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai with regard to the formula of the blessing over fire in havdala. Beit Shammai say: Who created [bara] the light of fire. And Beit Hillel say: Who creates [boreh] the lights of fire. Regarding this, Rava says: With regard to the word bara, everyone agrees that it means created in the past. Where they disagree is with regard to the word boreh. Beit Shammai hold: Boreh means that God will create in the future, and Beit Hillel hold: Boreh also means that He has created in the past. Rav Yosef raised an objection: How can there be a dispute over the meaning of the word boreh? In the following verses it is clear that it refers to acts of creation in the past: “Who forms light and creates [boreh] darkness” (Isaiah 45:7), “Who forms mountains and creates [boreh] wind” (Amos 4:13), or “Who creates [boreh] the heavens and stretches them out” (Isaiah 42:5). Rather, said Rav Yosef: With regard to both bara and boreh, everyone agrees that they mean created. Where they disagree is with regard to the light of the fire or the lights of the fire. As Beit Shammai hold that there is one light in a fire, and Beit Hillel hold that there are many lights in a fire, as a flame consists of red, green, and white light. That was also taught in a baraita: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: There are many lights in the fire. We learned in the mishna that one may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of gentiles. The Gemara asks: Granted, the prohibition against the recitation of a blessing over a candle of gentiles in havdala, as the flame of the candle did not rest. Because it was burning during Shabbat, one should not recite a blessing over it at the conclusion of Shabbat. However, what is the reason that one may not recite a blessing over spices of gentiles? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Here we are dealing with a party arranged by gentiles and the spices used at that party were prohibited because the parties of gentiles are generally devoted to idolatry. The Gemara asks: But from that which was taught in the latter clause of the mishna: One may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of idolatry, infer by implication that in the first clause of our mishna we are not dealing with idolatry? There must be a different reason why the spices of gentiles are prohibited. Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura said: These two halakhot are complementary, and the mishna states the halakha employing the style of: What is the reason. The mishna should be understood as follows: What is the reason that one may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of gentiles? Because the parties of gentiles are generally devoted to idolatry and one may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of idolatry. The Sages taught in a baraita: Over light that rested, one may recite a blessing in havdala, and over light that did not rest, one may not recite a blessing. The Gemara asks: What is meant by rested, and what is meant by did not rest?
איתמר נמי אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן אנשי כנסת הגדולה תקנו להם לישראל ברכות ותפלות קדושות והבדלות בתחלה קבעוה בתפלה העשירו קבעוה על הכוס חזרו והענו קבעוה בתפלה והם אמרו המבדיל בתפלה צריך שיבדיל על הכוס
It was also stated: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The members of the Great Assembly established for Israel blessings and prayers, sanctifications and havdalot. Initially, they established that havdala is to be recited in the Amida prayer. Subsequently, when the people became wealthy, they established that havdala is to be recited over the cup of wine. When the people again became impoverished, they established that it was to be recited in the Amida prayer. And they said: One who recites havdala in the Amida prayer must recite havdala over the cup of wine as well.
מקדש אריפתא - פירש רשב"ם שהיה מקדש על הפת במקום יין ואם כן היה נוטל תחלה ולא הוי קידוש הפסק וקשה לר"ת דקידוש על הפת ודאי לא הוי הפסק שהקידוש הוא לאחר המוציא והוי כמו גביל לתורי דלא הוי הפסק בין ברכה לאכילה וכ"ש דלענין נטילה לא הוי הפסק אבל במקדש על היין שהוא קודם המוציא יהיה הפסק בין נטילה לאכילה ומיהו יש ליישב פירושו דפעמים היה דעתו לקדש אריפתא והיה נוטל ואח"כ לפעמים היה נמלך והוה מקדש אחמרא והיה סומך על אותה נטילה ואין להקשות לרשב"ם דהא משמע לקמן דאין מבדילין על הפת מדאמימר בת טוות וא"כ כל שכן דאין מקדשין על הפת דקידוש חמור מהבדלה כדאמרינן לעיל (פסחים דף קה.) דקובעת לקידוש ולא להבדלה ולקמן אמרינן סבור מינה קידושי הוא דלא מקדשינן הא אבדולי מבדלינן דאינה קשיא דאיכא טעמא דכיון שמצוה לסעוד סעודת שבת שייך קידוש על הפת אבל הבדלה אין ענינה אצל פת אלא דוקא על היין דשייך בכל דבר הודאה ושירה מ"מ נראה לר"ת דאין מקדשין על הפת כלל והכא ה"פ הנוטל ידיו לא יקדש משום דס"ל לרב יש קידוש שלא במקום סעודה וחיישינן שמא יפליג וילך לחוץ א"ל רב יצחק כו' זימנין דחביבא ליה ריפתא ומקדש אריפתא כלומר הוה מקדש אחמרא על דעת לאכול מיד ריפתא והיה נוטל מיד ידיו קודם קידוש ולא דמי למזיגת הכוס כדפרישית לעיל וזימנין דחביבא ליה חמרא הוה מקדש אחמרא שלא במקום ריפתא דהיינו סעודה דסבירא ליה דיש קידוש שלא במקום סעודה ומאן דסבר אין קידוש אלא במקום סעודה כ"ש דנוטל ידיו ומקדש דלא הוי היסח ובירושלמי דברכות גבי פלוגתא דב"ש וב"ה מברך על היום ואחר כך מברך על היין משמע כפר"ת דאין מקדשין על הפת דא"ר זעירא מדברי שניהם נלמד מבדילין בלא יין ואין מקדשין בלא יין אמר רבי יוסי ב"ר בון נהיגין תמן מקום שאין יין שליח צבור יורד לפני התיבה ואומר ברכה אחת מעין שבע וחותם במקדש ישראל ויום השבת משמע שאין מקדשין על הפת...
אמר רב טול ברוך טול ברוך אינו צריך לברך הבא מלח הבא לפתן צריך לברך ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו הביאו מלח הביאו לפתן נמי אינו צריך לברך גביל לתורי גביל לתורי צריך לברך ורב ששת אמר אפילו גביל לתורי נמי אינו צריך לברך דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסור לאדם שיאכל קודם שיתן מאכל לבהמתו שנאמר ונתתי עשב בשדך לבהמתך והדר ואכלת ושבעת:
Continuing to discuss the halakhot of breaking bread, Rav said: One who broke bread, and before eating it, offered a piece to another, and said: Take it and recite a blessing, take it and recite a blessing, need not recite the blessing a second time, because that is considered to have been for the purpose of the blessing. If, however, he said: Bring salt or bring relish, he must recite the blessing a second time, as that is considered an interruption between the blessing and eating the bread. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even if he said: Bring salt or bring relish, it is not considered an interruption and he need not recite the blessing a second time. Only if he said: Mix the food for the oxen, mix the food for the oxen, it is considered an interruption and he is required to recite the blessing a second time. And Rav Sheshet said: Even if he said: Mix for the oxen, he need not recite a blessing a second time, as that is also considered to be for the purpose of the blessing, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One is prohibited from eating before feeding his animals, as it is stated: “And I will give grass in your fields for your animals” first and only then: “And you shall eat and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 11:15). In the verse, preparation of food for one’s cattle precedes preparation of his own food. Consequently, it is considered part of the preparation for one’s own meal.
אמרי ליה מר ינוקא ומר קשישא בריה דרב חסדא לרב אשי זימנא חדא איקלע אמימר לאתרין ולא הוה לן חמרא אייתינא ליה שיכרא ולא אבדיל ובת טוות למחר טרחנא ואייתינא ליה חמרא ואבדיל וטעים מידי לשנה תו איקלע לאתרין לא הוה לן חמרא אייתינא שיכרא אמר אי הכי חמר מדינה הוא אבדיל וטעים מידי שמע מינה תלת שמע מינה המבדיל בתפלה צריך שיבדיל על הכוס ושמע מינה אסור לו לאדם שיאכל קודם שיבדיל ושמע מינה מי שלא הבדיל במוצאי שבת מבדיל והולך כל השבת כולו בעא מיניה רב הונא מרב חסדא מהו לקדושי אשיכרא אמר השתא ומה פירזומא ותאיני ואסני דבעאי מיניה מרב ורב מרבי חייא ורבי חייא מרבי ולא פשט ליה שיכרא מיבעיא סבור מינה קדושי הוא דלא מקדשינן עילויה אבל אבדולי מבדלינן
Rava said: The halakha is that one who tasted food before kiddush may recite kiddush; and one who tasted food before havdala may recite havdala; and one who did not recite kiddush on Shabbat eve, at night, may recite kiddush any time during the entire day until the conclusion of Shabbat. Likewise, one who did not recite havdala at the conclusion of Shabbat may recite havdala any time during the entire week, i.e., during the first three days of the week, the time period called: After Shabbat. Ameimar began this teaching of Rava in this emended formulation: Rava said: The halakha is that one who tasted food before kiddush may recite kiddush; and one who tasted food before havdala may recite havdala; and one who did not recite kiddush on Shabbat eve, at night, may recite kiddush any time during the entire day. One who did not recite havdala at the conclusion of Shabbat may recite havdala any time during the entire day of Sunday, but no later. The Gemara relates that the Mar Yanuka, the younger Mar, and Mar Kashisha, the elder Mar, both sons of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: Once Ameimar happened to come to our place and we did not have wine for havdala. We brought him beer and he did not recite havdala, and he passed the night fasting, as it is prohibited to eat before havdala. The next day we exerted ourselves and brought him wine, and he recited havdala and tasted some food. The next year he again happened to come to our place. Once again we did not have wine and we brought him beer. He said: If so, if it is so difficult to obtain wine in your place, beer is the wine of the province. He recited havdala over the beer and tasted some food. The Gemara notes that one may learn from Ameimar’s conduct three halakhot: Learn from it that one who recites havdala in the prayer service must recite havdala again over a cup, as Ameimar had presumably recited the paragraph of havdala in his Amida prayer. And learn from it that it is prohibited for a person to eat before he recites havdala. And learn from it that one who did not recite havdala at the conclusion of Shabbat may recite havdala anytime during the entire week, i.e., during the first three days of the week. In the above story, Ameimar refused to recite havdala over beer. The Gemara addresses this issue at greater length. Rav Huna raised a dilemma before Rav Ḥisda: What is the halakha with regard to whether it is permitted to recite kiddush over date beer? He said: Now, if with regard to barley beer, fig beer, and beer produced from berries, I raised a dilemma before Rav as to whether or not they may be used for kiddush, and Rav had previously raised this dilemma before Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Ḥiyya had inquired of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he did not resolve it for him, as he could not find a source that clearly permits it, is it necessary to say that date beer, which is inferior to those other types of beer, may not be used for kiddush? Those who heard this response understood from it that it is kiddush that one may not recite over it, but one may recite havdala over date beer. Rav Ḥisda said to them that Rav said as follows: Just as one may not recite kiddush over date beer, so one may not recite havdala over it. It was also stated that Rav Taḥalifa bar Avimi said that Shmuel said: Just as one may not recite kiddush over date beer, so one may not recite havdala over it. The Gemara relates that Levi sent Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi a beer of thirteen soakings, i.e., thirteen batches of dates had been soaked in water until it had thoroughly absorbed the taste of the dates. This was considered a high-quality beer. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi tasted it and it was especially pleasant. He said: A beer like this is fit to recite kiddush over and to say upon it all the songs and praises in the world, as it is as good as wine. At night, it disrupted his digestion and caused him pain. He said: It pains on the one hand and soothes on the other. With regard to the discomfort caused by beer, the Gemara cites related statements of amora’im. Rav Yosef said: I will take a vow in public, which cannot be nullified, that I will not drink beer due to its negative effects, despite the fact that beer was a popular beverage in Babylonia. Rava said: I would rather drink water used for soaking flax, and I will not drink beer. And Rava said: One who recites kiddush over beer, his regular drink should be beer. In other words, the fitting punishment for one who recites kiddush over beer, the poor man’s drink in Babylonia, is for him to become poor himself and have to drink beer on a regular basis. The Gemara relates that Rav was found by Rav Huna reciting kiddush over beer. He said to him: Abba, Rav’s first name, has started to acquire coins with beer. As Rav recently began selling beer, it has become his favorite beverage, to the extent that he uses it for kiddush. The Sages taught: One may recite kiddush only over wine, and one may recite blessings only over wine. The Gemara expresses surprise: Is that to say that one does not say the blessing: By Whose word all things [shehakol] came to be, over beer and water? Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: One only says: Bring a cup of blessing to recite the blessing of Grace after Meals, over wine. The Rabbis taught in a baraita: One may not recite kiddush over beer. In the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, they said that one may recite kiddush over beer. With regard to the halakha that one who recites kiddush must drink from the cup, the Gemara states that one fulfills the mitzva of kiddush by tasting any amount of wine. Rabbi Yosei, son of Yehuda, says that one must drink at least a cheekful. Rav Huna said that Rav said, and Rav Giddel from the city of Neresh likewise teaches: One who recites kiddush and tastes a cheekful has fulfilled his obligation, and if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: I teach this baraita in a precise manner, and I do not mention Giddul bar Menashya, nor Giddul bar Minyumei, but rather the plain name Giddul, without any identifying moniker. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference in Rav Giddel’s name? The Gemara answers: To raise a contradiction between one of his rulings and another one of his rulings. Since it is not clear exactly which Sage issued this ruling, it is impossible to prove that he reversed or contradicted his opinion in a later statement. The Gemara returns to the mishna, which stated that it is prohibited to eat adjacent to minḥa time on Passover eve. A dilemma was raised before the Sages in the study hall: Did we learn in the mishna that it is prohibited to eat adjacent to the time of the greater minḥa [minḥa gedola], which is half an hour after midday, or perhaps we learned in the mishna that it is prohibited to eat adjacent to the time of the lesser minḥa [minḥa ketana], two and a half hours before sunset? The Gemara elaborates: Did we learn in the mishna that it is prohibited to eat adjacent to the time of the greater minḥa, and this is because of the Paschal lamb, lest one come to be drawn after the meal and spend a long time eating, as was typical for large meals,
רב חנניא בר שלמיא ותלמידי דרב הוו יתבי בסעודתא וקאי עלייהו רב המנונא סבא אמרו ליה זיל חזי אי מקדיש יומא נפסיק וניקבעיה לשבתא אמר להו לא צריכיתו שבתא קבעה נפשה דאמר רב כשם שהשבת קובעת למעשר כך שבת קובעת לקידוש סבור מינה כי היכי דקבעה לקידוש כך קבעה להבדלה אמר להו רב עמרם הכי אמר רב לקידוש קובעת ולא להבדלה קובעת
This is difficult for the opinion of Ulla, who began but did not conclude the blessing of havdala with: Blessed. The Gemara answers: Ulla could have said to you: This blessing is also considered like a blessing over mitzvot, and therefore it does not require a separate conclusion. The Gemara clarifies this response: What is the reason that blessings over mitzvot do not require a distinctive conclusion? It is because a blessing over a mitzva is a statement of praise, and as it does not include anything unrelated to the praise, e.g., a request or supplication, it is unnecessary to add a separate concluding blessing. This havdala blessing also is comprised only of praise. The Gemara relates that Rav Ḥananya bar Shelemya and other students of Rav were sitting at a meal on Shabbat eve shortly before nightfall, and Rav Hamnuna the Elder was standing over them to serve them. They said to him: Go and see if the day of Shabbat has become sanctified through nightfall. If so, we will interrupt our meal by removing the tables and establish its continuation as the meal for Shabbat. Rav Hamnuna the Elder said to them: You do not need to do this, as Shabbat establishes itself. Whatever you eat after nightfall is automatically considered a Shabbat meal, even without any specific action that designates it as such. Rav Hamnuna the Elder explained his ruling. As Rav said: Just as Shabbat establishes food consumption as a regular, set meal with regard to tithes, so Shabbat establishes the requirement to recite kiddush. Generally, one may eat untithed produce in a casual, incidental manner. On Shabbat, however, the strictures of a regular, set meal apply even to casual eating. Consequently, on Shabbat it is entirely prohibited to eat produce from which the appropriate dues and tithes have not yet been separated. Similarly, Shabbat automatically initiates the requirement to recite kiddush, and it is prohibited to eat until one does so. This halakha indicates that whatever one eats at this stage is considered part of his Shabbat meal, even if he does not remove the table and bring it back. They understood from it that just as the start of Shabbat automatically establishes the requirement to recite kiddush, so its conclusion establishes the requirement to recite havdala. This would mean that one must interrupt his meal to recite havdala, and whatever he eats after that would not be considered part of his Shabbat meal. Rav Amram said to them: This is what Rav said: Shabbat establishes an obligation to recite kiddush, but it does not establish an obligation to recite havdala. The Gemara comments: And this applies only with regard to the matter of interrupting a meal that one has begun before the conclusion of Shabbat, that one does not have to interrupt to recite havdala. However, one may not begin a meal after nightfall until after reciting havdala. The Gemara adds: And with regard to interrupting also, we only said that one need not interrupt his eating; but with regard to drinking, which is considered less significant, no, one must interrupt his drinking upon nightfall, even if he began drinking before the conclusion of Shabbat. And with regard to drinking also, we only said it is prohibited to drink after nightfall before havdala with regard to wine and beer, which are significant beverages; but with regard to water, we have no problem with it. One may begin drinking water even after Shabbat has concluded and before he has recited havdala. The Gemara points out that this last statement disagrees with the opinion of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna saw a certain man drinking water before he recited havdala at the conclusion of Shabbat. He said to him: Is the Master not afraid of the ailment called askara? As it was taught in the name of Rabbi Akiva that whoever tastes anything before he recites havdala, his death will come through askara. Nevertheless, the Gemara notes that the Sages of the school of Rav Ashi were not particular with regard to water. They refrained only from drinking more significant beverages before havdala. Ravina raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: With regard to one who did not recite kiddush on Shabbat eve, i.e., on the night of Shabbat, what is the halakha with regard to his ability to recite kiddush at any time over the course of the entire day? May one recite kiddush later, or has he lost his opportunity by failing to recite kiddush at the proper time? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: From the fact that the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya say that one who did not recite havdala at the conclusion of Shabbat may recite havdala any time over the course of the entire week, it can be inferred that here too, one who did not recite kiddush on Shabbat eve may recite kiddush at any time over the course of the entire day. Ravina raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak from the Tosefta: On the nights of Shabbat and the nights of a Festival there is a mitzva of kiddush over a cup. And there is a requirement to mention the sanctity of the day in Grace after Meals, i.e., the paragraph: May it please [retzei], on Shabbat and: May there rise and come [ya’aleh veyavo], on Festivals. On the day of Shabbat and Festivals, there is no mitzva of kiddush over a cup, but there is a requirement to mention the sanctity of the day in Grace after Meals. Ravina explains his objection: And if it could enter your mind to say that one who did not recite kiddush on Shabbat eve may recite kiddush any time over the course of the entire day, on Shabbat and a Festival too, it can be found that there is a mitzva of kiddush over a cup, for if one did not recite kiddush at night he may recite kiddush the following day. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: The tanna does not teach cases of what if. In other words, the tanna does not take into consideration the uncommon circumstance of one who failed to recite kiddush on the night of Shabbat. Ravina raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak from another source: If there is a choice between the honor of the day of Shabbat and the honor of the night, the honor of the day takes precedence. And if one has only one cup, he should recite over it
אותם בני אדם שקידשו בבית הכנסת אמר רב ידי יין לא יצאו ידי קידוש יצאו ושמואל אמר
so one interrupts for havdala? People eating a meal on Shabbat until after nightfall must interrupt their meal to recite havdala. The Gemara inquires: What is the meaning of the phrase: One interrupts? Is it not referring to removing the table? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to spreading a cloth, which is sufficient for havdala as well. The Gemara relates: Rabba bar Rav Huna happened to come to the house of the Exilarch. His hosts were reclining for a meal, and the attendants brought a table before him so he could eat as well. Since Shabbat had already started, he spread a cloth over the food and recited kiddush. That was also taught in a baraita: And the Sages agree that one may bring the table only if he has already recited kiddush; and if one brought out the table before kiddush, he should spread a cloth over the food and recite kiddush. It was taught in one baraita: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, who disagree over whether it is permitted to eat from minḥa time on Shabbat eve and whether one must interrupt his meal, agree that one may not begin a meal from this time. And it was taught in the other baraita that they agree that one may begin a meal. The Gemara explains: Granted, that which was taught in the first baraita, that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei agree that one may not begin a meal, you will find that this is correct with regard to the eve of Passover, as even Rabbi Yosei concedes that one may not start a meal on Passover eve ab initio. However, with regard to the other baraita, which taught that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei agree that one may begin, when does this halakha apply? If we say it is referring to the eve of Shabbat, this cannot be the case, as it was taught that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei indeed disagree over whether one may start a meal at that time. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult: Here, the baraita in which Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei agree that it is permitted to start a new meal, is referring to before nine hours of the day have passed, as everyone agrees that it is permitted to commence a meal at this time. Conversely, there, the baraita in which they disagree over whether it is permitted to start a new meal, is referring to later in the day, after nine hours. The Gemara continues to discuss the halakhot of kiddush: With regard to those people who recited kiddush in the synagogue, as was customarily done at the conclusion of the prayer service on Shabbat night, Rav said: They have not fulfilled their obligation to recite a blessing over wine. That is, the blessing over the wine in the synagogue does not enable them to drink wine at home without an additional blessing. However, they have fulfilled their obligation of reciting kiddush. And Shmuel said:
אף ידי קידוש לא יצאו אלא לרב למה ליה לקדושי בביתיה כדי להוציא בניו ובני ביתו ושמואל למה לי לקדושי בבי כנישתא לאפוקי אורחים ידי חובתן דאכלו ושתו וגנו בבי כנישתא ואזדא שמואל לטעמיה דאמר שמואל אין קידוש אלא במקום סעודה
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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,
זימנין סגיאין הוה קאימנא קמיה דרב כו' - השתא מסיק דקידוש לא הוי היסח הדעת וא"ת דבפרק אלו דברים (ברכות דף נא.) אמרי ב"ה מוזגין את הכוס ואח"כ נוטלין לידים ומפרש טעמא משום דתכף לנטילת ידים סעודה וכי מזיגת הכוס הוי טפי היסח הדעת מקידוש וי"ל דשאני מזיגה שהיא בחמין וצריך דקדוק שלא יחסר ושלא יותיר והוי טפי היסח [הדעת] מקידוש ור"ת פירש דהתם איירי בחול ויש לחוש שאם יטול קודם מזיגה שיעסוק בשאר דברים ולא יאכל לאלתר ולאו אדעתיה אבל בשבת אין לחוש שיפליג לדבר אחר שהשלחן ערוך ויאכל מיד:
אלו דברים שבין בית שמאי ובית הלל בסעודה בית שמאי אומרים מברך על היום ואח"כ מברך על היין וב"ה אומרים מברך על היין ואח"כ מברך על היום: ...א"ר זעיר' מדברי שניהן מבדילין בלא יין ואין מקדשין אלא ביין היא דעתיה דר' זעירא דר' זעירא אמר מבדילין על השכר ואזלין מן אתר לאתר משום קדושה א"ר יוסי בר' נהיגין תמן במקום שאין יין שליח ציבור עובר לפני התיבה ואומר ברכה אחת מעין שבע וחותם במקדש ישראל ואת יום השבת
(ט) הָיָה מִתְאַוֶּה לַפַּת יוֹתֵר מִן הַיַּיִן אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ יַיִן הֲרֵי זֶה נוֹטֵל יָדָיו תְּחִלָּה וּמְבָרֵךְ הַמּוֹצִיא וּמְקַדֵּשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בּוֹצֵעַ וְאוֹכֵל. וְאֵין מַבְדִּילִין עַל הַפַּת אֶלָּא עַל הַכּוֹס:
(י) מִי שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן לְקַדֵּשׁ עַל הַיַּיִן בְּלֵילֵי שַׁבָּת וְשָׁכַח וְנָטַל יָדָיו קֹדֶם שֶׁיְּקַדֵּשׁ הֲרֵי זֶה מְקַדֵּשׁ עַל הַפַּת וְאֵינוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ עַל הַיַּיִן אַחַר שֶׁנָּטַל יָדָיו לַסְּעֵדָּה. וּמִצְוָה לְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיַּיִן בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּסְעֹד סְעֵדָּה שְׁנִיָּה. וְזֶה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא קִדּוּשָׁא רַבָּה. מְבָרֵךְ בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הַגָּפֶן בִּלְבַד וְשׁוֹתֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִטּל יָדָיו וְיִסְעֹד. וְאָסוּר לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁיִּטְעֹם כְּלוּם קֹדֶם שֶׁיְּקַדֵּשׁ. וְגַם קִדּוּשׁ זֶה לֹא יִהְיֶה אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם סְעֻדָּה:
ויראה לי אע"פ שיכול לקדש על השכר אם הוא חמר מדינה טוב הוא יותר לקדש על הפת כיון שהסעודה באה לכבוד שבת אבל בבקר יראה שיברך על השכר קודם ברכת המוציא. דאל"כ בטלה קידוש של היום דרבינן ליה מקרא כמו קידוש הלילה ולמה נבטלנו כיון דאפשר לקיימו על השכר
(יב) אחר שקידש על הכוס נוטל ידיו ומברך על נטילת ידים ואם נטל ידיו קודם קידוש גלי דעתיה דריפתא חביבא ליה ולא יקדש על היין אלא על הפת: הגה וי"א דלכתחל' יש ליטול ידיו קודם הקידוש ולקדש על היין (הרא"ש והמרדכי פ' ע"פ ורשב"א והגהות מיי' פכ"ט וטור) וכן המנהג פשוט במדינות אלו ואין לשנות רק בליל פסח כמו שיתבאר סי' תע"ג:
(נח) אחר שקידש וכו' - ולא קודם כדי שלא יפסיק בהקידוש בין נט"י להמוציא אבל בני ביתו שאינם מקדשין בעצמן אלא יוצאין בשמיעתן מבעה"ב יוכלו ליטול ידיהם קודם:
(נט) דריפתא וכו' - ודוקא הכא דאיכא ג"כ חשש הפסק שמקדש על היין אחר נטילה וכמו שכתבנו בס"ק נ"ח אבל בעלמא היכא דלא נטל ידיו מותר לקדש על היין אף דריפתא חביבא ליה יותר מיין ועיין לקמן בסימן רע"ב ס"ט בהג"ה במה שכתבנו שם:
(ס) חביבא ליה - היינו דלכך נוטל ידיו שהוא רעב וממהר לאכול פת:
(סא) וי"א דלכתחלה וכו' - דס"ל דאין הקידוש מקרי הפסק כיון שהוא צורך סעודה ולכך יקדש על היין וישתה הכוס ואח"כ יברך המוציא ויבצע הפת וכיון דאינו הפסק ס"ל לרמ"א דטוב לנהוג כן לכתחלה משום דכשאין לו יין ומקדש על הפת בע"כ צריך ליטול ידיו קודם הקידוש וע"כ טוב לנהוג כן תמיד באופן אחד. ולמזוג את הכוס בחמין אחר הנטילה קודם המוציא ודאי אין לעשות כן לכו"ע כיון דצריך לדקדק יפה שימזוג כדרכו שלא יחסר ושלא יותיר הוי היסח הדעת:
(סב) ואין לשנות - וכמה אחרונים כתבו דטפי עדיף לכתחלה לקדש על היין קודם נט"י וכדעת המחבר דבזה יוצא מדינא לכל הדעות ובכמה מקומות נהגו כדבריהם מיהו אם כבר נטל ידיו קודם קידוש בזה יש לעשות כהרמ"א דאעפ"כ יקדש על יין:
(סג) בליל פסח - משום שאז מפסיקין הרבה באמירת הגדה עד הסעודה. כתב בדה"ח אם מקדש על הפת להוציא גם השומעים צריכין השומעים שיכוונו לצאת גם בברכת המוציא דאם לא יכוונו לברכת המוציא רק יכוונו לצאת בקידוש היום וברכת המוציא רוצין אח"כ לברך בעצמן בשעת אכילה עושין איסור דמהפכין סדר הקידוש ע"ש ולפ"ז צריכין ג"כ ליזהר ליטול ידיהם בשוה עם הבעה"ב כשמקדש על הפת דאל"ה איך יכוונו לצאת בברכת המוציא שלו: