Go to daf 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121
Or set your preferences to change how Hebrew/Aramaic is displayed.
דף קא,א גמרא
Even Regarding the mitzvah of sanctifying the day they have not fulfilled the mitzvah Rather: for Rav, what is the purpose according to him to recite kiddush in one's home? the reason is to discharge the mitzvah for his children and the members of his household. And for Shmuel why do I have to recite kiddush in the House of Assembly? To discharge the obligation for guests for they eat and drink and sleep in the House of Assembly And Shmuel is consistent in his reason for Shmuel said: There is no recitation of kiddush except in the place of the meal They deduced from this it is forbidden to travel during a meal ??? from house to house but: from one place to another place in a single house No. It is not forbidden. Rav Anan son of Tachalifa said to them: Oftentimes I was standing in the presence of Shmuel and he came down from the roof to the ground floor and he repeated kiddush And, also, Rav Huna reasoned There is no kiddush except in the location of a meal For Rav Huna once made kiddush, and he knocked over a lamp so it was too dark in the room to eat his meal so he carried his place setting to the dining chamber of Rabah his son where there was a lamp and he made kiddush and tasted some food We can thus say this is how he reasons: There is no kiddush except in the location of a meal. And even Rabbah reasons There is no kiddus except in the location of a meal. for Abaye said: For I was in the house of the Master i.e., Rabah When he would make kiddush he said to us you all should taste something perhaps, when you enter to your apartments you will knock over a lamp and you won't make kiddush in the house where you eat and with the kiddush that you heard from here you will not fulfil your obligation For there is no kiddush except in the location of a meal Really? For thus said Abaye: In all things did Master i.e, Rabah do as Rav except for these three which he did like Shmuel He permitted transferring tzitzit from garment to garment and kindling from one Chanukah lamp to lamp and he ruled that the halacha is like Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging as it is taught: Rabbi Shimon says: a person may drag a bed a chair or a bench across a dirt floor on Shabbat but only if it is not his intention to make a furrow Like the stringent rulings of Rav did he act Like the lenient rulings of Rav he did not act. Returning to the topic of those who make kiddush in the synagogue: And R' Yochanan said: Even Regarding the mitzvah of sanctifying the day on wine also they have fulfilled the mitzvah Recall that both Rav and Shmuel agreed that the obligation on wine was not discharged by making kiddush in the synagogue; Rav said the obligation on the sanctification of the day was discharged while Shmuel said neither was discharged. So Rabbi Yochanan says both obligations are discharged by kiddush in synagogue. And he is consistent R' Yochanan with his reasoning for R' Chanin the son of Abaye said: R' Pedat said: R' Yochanan said: one who changes wine
דף קא,ב גמרא
and one who changes places it is not necessary to bless a second time They challenged him from this teaching: One who changes places, It is necessary for him to bless a second time one who changes wines, it is not necessary to bless a second time This refutes Rabbi Yochanan, and he is refuted. Rav Idi the son of Avin sat in front of Rav Chisda and Rav Chisdah sat and he said in the name of Rav Huna: That which you said, that in the case of a change of place it is necessary to bless They did not teach such a ruling. Rather: from house to house they taught that a second blessing is required but: from one place to another place within the house No. Rav Idi bar Avin said to him that is what we learned in a baraita of the house of Rav Hinak and there are those who say in a baraita of the house of the son of Hinak like what you said So rather, Rav Huna taught a baraita? Is that what we're supposed to learn? Come and learn from this. Rav Huna had not heard this baraita. And, too, Rav Chisdah sat and he said in his own name That which you said, that One who changes places, It is necessary for him to bless They did not say that in general Rather: They only said it regarding items that do not require a blessing after themselves in their location but: items that do require a blessing after themselves in their location They do not require to bless a second time. What is the reason? He established the first place to which he intends that he returns Since he will need to return to the first place to make the after-blessing, his second place is considered subordinate to the first place, rather than a separate meal. And Rav Sheishet said One of these and one of these It is necessary for him to bless a second time. Regardless of whether one needs to return for the after-blessing, Rav Sheishet rules that one must make a second kiddush. They challenged him from this teaching: Members of a fellowship that were reclining together to drink and they rose to their feet to go out to greet a groom or to greet a bride when they go out they are not required to bless at the end of eating, before they leave i.e., they need not make a blessing to conclude the meal that they are interrupting and when they return they are not required to bless at the beginning of resuming eating In what matters are we saying this? When they left behind them there an elderly person or an ill person so that there is at least one continuous presence connecting the two parts of the interrupted meal but: in a case where they did not leave behind them there not an elderly person and not an ill person then when they go out they are required to make a blessing in conclusion of the meal that they are interrupting and when they return they are required to make a blessing at the beginning of the resumption of the meal This ends the baraita that is being cited to challenge Rav Sheishet. The gemara will now clarify the nature of the challenge. When the baraita teaches they rose to their feet it teaches the general rule regarding matters that do require a blessing after themselves in their location is what we're dealing with (lit. what we're immersed in) and the reason that they need to make additional blessing is that they left behind them there an elderly person or, an ill person he is the cause that, when they go out it does not require a blessing at the end of eating, before they leave and when they return it does not require a blessing at the beginning of the resumption of the meal but: in the case where they did not leave behind them there an elderly person or, an ill person when they go out they require a blessing at the end of eating, before they leave and when they return they require a blessing initially It is a difficulty for Rav Chisda's position. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said
Copyright © 2012 Andrew Marc Greene. All rights reserved.