ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 101
PESACHIM 101 - dedicated by Uri Wolfson in honor of his Chavrusa, Rav
Mordechai Rabin of Har Nof.
(a) According to Rav, those who heard Kidush in Shul do not need to hear it
again at home - Rav does not hold of the Halachah that Kidush must be
recited in the location of the Shabbos-meal.
(b) Initially, all the participants should drink some of the Kidush-wine;
failing that, any of the participants may do so, though it is preferable for
the person who recited Kidush to drink it.
(c) When Rav says 'Yedei Yayin Lo Yatza' - he means that even though they
may have drunk wine in Shul, they are not exempt from reciting a fresh
Berachah when they drink wine again at home during the meal. This is
because, going from one house (or even room) to another is considered a
'Hesech ha'Da'as' (having taken his mind off it, thereby creating a new
obligation to recite a Berachah).
(d) Someone who makes Kidush at home and wishes to drinks another cup of
wine during the meal - does not require a fresh Berachah, because he has not
changed his location, so it is not considered a Hesech ha'Da'as, as Shinuy
(a) According to Rav, one recites Kidush again at home - in order to render
Yotze the members of his family who were not in Shul.
(b) According to Shmuel, one recites Kidush in Shul - for the sake of guests
who had nowhere to eat, and who would eat in one of the side-rooms adjoining
the Shul (see Tosfos DH 'de'Achlu') - in spite of the fact that for the
person reciting Kidush, it was not the place where he ate.
(a) When the light went out one Friday night, after Rav Huna had made Kidush
but before he had begun eating - he took his food to the room where his son
Rabah was celebrating his recent marriage (where there *were* lights), and
recited Kidush again.
(b) Rabah instructed Abaye to wash and eat bread when he made Kidush, even
though it had not been his (Abaye's) intention to do so - because he was
afraid that, by the time Abaye arrived in his apartment (where he intended
to make Kidush and eat), the lights might have gone out, in which case he
could not be Yotze Kidush *there*; neither could Abaye be Yotze with the
Kidush that he (Rabah) was about to make - unless he ate bread.
(c) The Gemara proves from the two above episodes that Rav Huna and Rabah
both hold 'Ein Kidush Ela be'Makom Se'udah'.
(d) Someone who does *not* intend to eat where he is reciting Kidush, is
nevertheless permitted to make Kidush for someone who *does* - as we saw
above (in 2b).
(a) Abaye specifically taught that, with the exception of three cases, Rabah
always ruled like Rav - le'Chumra. Consequently, in our case, where he rules
like Shmuel - le'Chumra, there is no discrepancy at all.
Rabah follows the opinion of Shmuel concerning Tzitzis - 'Ein Matirin
mi'Beged le'Beged'; with regard to Chanukah - 'Ein Madlikin mi'Ner le'Ner',
and with regard to Shabbos - 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon bi'Gereirah' (that
'Davar she'Ein Miskaven, Mutar').
(b) The principle that one either sides with Beis Shamai or with Beis
Hillel, but not once like one, and once like the other - is only applicable
by two rulings that are interdependent, so that to rule like one in one
case, and like the other, in the other, is contradictory, It does not apply
when the two rulings are independent.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan says with regard to ...
(b) Even Rebbi Yochanan agrees however, that if better wine is brought to
the table, one recites 'Baruch ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv'.
- ... Shinuy Yayin - 'Ein Tzarich le'Varech'.
- ... Shinuy Makom - 'Ein Tzarich le'Varech'.
(c) He is disproved from a Beraisa, which says '*Shinuy Makom, Tzarich
Levarech*, Shinuy Yayin Ein Tzarich Levarech'.
(a) Rav Huna says that changing one's location from one part of the room to
another is not considered Shinuy Makom and does not require a fresh
(b) the Gemara asks on Rav Huna from a Beraisa, which says that changing
one's location from one part of the room to another is not considered
Shinuy Makom and does not require a fresh Berachah. Then what is his
(c) In fact, Rav Huna was not aware of this Beraisa.
(d) The Rashbam dismisses this Kashya as an error - because it is common for
an Amora to make a statement that concurs with a Beraisa, which was not
always known to all the Amora'im.
(a) 'Something that requires a Berachah Acharonah in its place' - refers to
anything which requires a long Berachah Acharonah (i.e. bread, cake, wine
and grapes, figs, pomegranates, olives and dates (see Tosfos DH 'Ela').
(b) According to Rav Chisda, it is only for foods over which one recites
'Borei Nefashos' that Shinuy Makom requires a new Berachah, because, due to
their relative insignificance, the moment one gets up from one's place,
one's fixture is broken; whereas with regard to food which (due its
importance) requires a Berachah Acharonah in its place, getting up does
break one's fixture, as a result of which they do not require a new Berachah
in one's new location.
(c) When the Gemara asked earlier (at the end of the previous Amud) on Rebbi
Yochanan, it could not answer that the Beraisa speaks about things that do
*not* require a Berachah in that place, whereas Rebbi Yochanan speaks about
things that *do* - because whereas Tana'im speak briefly, often making it
necessary for the Amora'im to qualify their statements, Amora'im are
expected to be precise in what they say. Consequently, if Rebbi Yochanan
makes an unqualified statement, it is not up to us to qualify it. (Note:
according to the Rashbam, who includes wine among the things that require a
Berachah Acharonah in their place, the Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan is
nevertheless automatically answered, since *he* is talking specifically
about wine - see Tosfos DH 'Ela', who poses this Kashya, and who learns that
it is only bread and possibly cake that fall under this category, but not
wine. See also how they re-word the Beraisa of 'B'nei Chaburah'.)
(d) Rav Sheshes does not differentiate between one type of Berachah and
another. According to him, Shinuy Makom *always* requires a fresh Berachah.
(a) The group who sat down together to drink, and who broke up to go and
greet a Chasan and Kalah - must have been drinking *wine*, because the
Beraisa says 'Akru Ragleihem', a Lashon that is confined to important things
that require a Berachah Acharonah in their place - and wine is the only
beverage in that category.
Rav Chisda does not differentiate between whether one continues to eat in a
new location, or whether he returns to his original one; in neither case, do
things that require a Berachah Acharonah in their place, require a fresh
(b) The Beraisa concludes that even with regard to wine, it is only if they
left an old or sick person in their original location that they are Patur
from reciting a fresh Berachah, but that if nobody remained, a fresh
Berachah is required - even by wine.
(c) According to Rav Chisda, no fresh Berachah should be required over wine
- even if nobody was left in the original location?
(d) The Gemara answers that the author of the Beraisa in question is Rebbi
Yehudah, who follows his own reasoning in another Beraisa, but that the
Chachamim, who argue with him in that Beraisa, exempt Shinuy Makom from a
second Berachah by all cases of things that require a Berachah Acharonah in
their place - corroborating Rav Chisda.