Arvei Pesachim #12: 105a

  • Rav Yair Kahn

Gemora Pesachim

Yeshivat Har Etzion


Arvei Pesachim

 

SHIUR #12: 105a

 

by Rav Yair Kahn

105a

Ve-lo le-havdala kova'at

 

Based on Rav, our sugya rules that if one is eating a meal when Shabbat ends, he does not have to interrupt or end his meal and recite havdala. This conclusion seems to differ with the statement of Shmuel (100a-b): "Just as we break for kiddush so we must break for havdala." Tosafot already noted this discrepancy at the beginning of the perek (100b s.v. kakh), and explained that Rav and Shmuel disagree.

 

The Rosh (siman 12) adopts the position of Tosafot, adding that the halakha is in accordance with Rav, and thus there is no need to interrupt the meal for havdala. However, he quotes the opinion of the Ba-al Ha-Ittur, who claims that there is no contradiction between Rav and Shmuel. Rav, who states that it is unnecessary to interrupt the meal is referring to the time of "SHEKIYA" (sunset). Shmuel, on the other hand, rules that at "TZEIT HA-KOKHAVIM" (nightfall) one must stop for havdala. Accordingly, combining Rav and Shmuel, we conclude that one may eat on Shabbat until nightfall, at which point he must interrupt his meal and make havdala.

 

Aval be-Shtiya Lo

 

Although one need not interrupt his meal in order to recite havdala, he is not allowed to continue drinking in similar circumstances. According to Rashi, this difference results from the fact that eating and drinking have different levels of IMPORTANCE. Drinking, which is less notable than eating, does not justify the delay of havdala. Eating however, which has greater significance, is not interrupted by havdala.

 

Tosafot (s.v. Aval) on the other hand, distinguish on the basis of K EVIUT. Eating includes an element of "kevi'ut" (of an established and permanent nature, like a meal), whereas drinking lacks kevi'ut. This explanation of Tosafot can be appreciated based on the nature of the prohibition which bans eating prior to havdala. This restriction is not a blanket injunction against eating per se. The role of havdala is to delineate between kodesh and chol. While havdala recited during tefilla establishes an end to kodesh only with respect to work, havdala recited over a cup of wine (parallel to kiddush over wine) relates to "oneg Shabbat" as well. Therefore, havdala al ha-kos signals the end of se'udot Shabbat and the introduction of a new week of ordinary meals. Hence, prior to havdala one may continue eating a meal which is defined halakhically as a se'udat Shabbat. However, one is enjoined from beginning a mundane weekday meal before havdala. The "kevi'ut" inherent in eating defines the entire meal as one unit, and since the meal began on Shabbat it is considered in its entirety as a se'udat Shabbat. Consequently, one may continue the meal prior to havdala. Drinking, however, which lacks the "kevi'ut" element, does not form one unit. Hence, the wine one drinks after the end of Shabbat is not an extension of "oneg Shabbat", and is banned before havdala (see Mordekhai).

 

The idea that the meal forms a unit which is defined in its entirety as a "se'udat Shabbat" may have ramifications regarding an additional halakha. If one continued his meal after Shabbat, he is nevertheless, obliged to recite "retzei" in birkat ha-mazon (see O.C. 188:10), even though the time is now after Shabbat. It is reasonable that the "retzei" in this case is required due to the classification of the meal as a "se'udat Shabbat", since birkat ha-mazon is not being recited on Shabbat itself. In fact, the Rosh (Responsa 22:6) argues that "retzei" should not be recited in this case. However, his contention is that "retzei" is solely a function of WHEN birkat ha-mazon is recited. He does not argue with the classification of the meal as a "se'udat Shabbat". (There is also the opposite situation, where the meal is defined as a se'udat chol, but the birkat ha-mazon is recited on Shabbat. See Tosafot 100a s.v. R. Yossi, Rosh siman 7, responsa 22:6.)

 

As mentioned above, the gemara distinguishes between eating and drinking. The initial impression is that the TYPE of food one is eating is irrelevant. However, according to Tosafot, it is reasonable that only food which establishes kevi'ut is included in this category. (Regarding the question, which food establishes kevi'ut, see shiur #4). However, if one is eating an insignificant snack which lacks kevi'ut, he must stop eating and recite havdala.

 

Moreover, if we accept the theory that eating is singular because it creates a unified framework of a meal, then it is possible that only a bona fide se'uda may continue uninterrupted. In other words, the actual distinction is not between eating and drinking, but rather between a se'uda (based on bread) and anything else. (see Rambam Hilkhot Shabbat 29:12, Yalkut Yosef O.C. 299)

 

 

Be-Chamra ve-Shikhra Aval Maya Leit Lan Bah

 

Even though all drinking must be discontinued prior to reciting havdala, one may go on drinking water. The standard explanation is that water is the exception since it lacks significance. The Nimukei Yosef, however, offers a novel interpretation of this gemara and claims that chamra ve-shikhra (wine and beer) are the exception; all other liquids may continue to be drunk. He argues that there is a specific prohibition banning wine and beer, since these beverages specifically are themselves suitable for havdala. (See Meiri s.v. kevar)

Tosafot (s.v. aval) note that if one is in the middle of a meal, he may continue drinking. The obligation to stop drinking is limited to a situation where it is not within the context of a meal. Tosafot's assumption is a direct outgrowth of their explanation that eating differs from drinking because it contains a "kevi'ut" aspect. If one is in the midst of eating, which establishes "kevi'ut", and unifies the entire meal, then drinking within this framework is also integrated as part of the "se'udat Shabbat".

 

However, if we adopt the explanation of the Nemukei Yosef, it is reasonable to prohibit wine or beer even within the context of a meal. In fact, there are some Rishonim who suggest this explicitly (Sefer Ha-Meorot, see Meiri).

 

Sources for next week:

1. 105a "ba'a minei ... ke-tuna (105b)."

2. Rambam Hilkhot Shabbat 29:4, Tur OC 271 "Ve-im lo kiddesh ba-layla ... tfei.".

 

Questions:

1. What is the basis of the argument between Rav Amram Gaon and the Rambam quoted by the Tur? (See Bach)

2. What is the difference between "chaviva mitzva be-shaita" and "zrizim makdimim le-mitzvot?"

 

 


 

 

 

To receive this Gemorah shiur every week, write to:

With the message:

 [email protected]

Subscribe yhe-Pesachim

 


This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.

Make Jewish learning part of your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash


(c) Yeshivat Har Etzion2002 All rights reserved to Yeshivat Har Etzion

Yeshivat Har Etzion
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
[email protected]