Kiddush on Shabbat Day Without a Meal (2)
Translated and adapted by Rav Eliezer Kwass
"EIN KIDDUSH ELA BI-MEKOM SE'UDA"
Can one fulfill the obligation of daytime kiddush without eating a meal? We will first examine this question with regard to the evening kiddush and then attempt to transfer our findings to kiddusha rabba.
Shmuel rules (Pesachim 101a), "Ein kiddush ela bi-mekom se'uda," - Kiddush can be made only at the site of a meal. This statement is accepted as halakha, yet it is subject to several different interpretations by the Rishonim.
Rashi there (s.v. Kiddush) adapts a maximalist position and explains that, "if he made kiddush without eating a meal he did not fulfill the mitzva of kiddush." This conclusion is by no means obvious, for one could have simply understood that there are two separate issues in operation: a) the basic mitzva of kiddush, derived from "Remember the Shabbat day;" and b) an additional rule that kiddush should be made where the meal is eaten, and that the first can be fulfilled without the second.
This latter approach is put forth by Rabbeinu Yona (quoted by the Rosh, Pesachim 10:5) who rules that one who will not make kiddush in his own house still fulfills the biblical level of the obligation through the kiddush made in the synagogue (even though no one eats there). If one was not able to fulfill the rabbinic law mandating that kiddush be made in the place where the meal is eaten, he at least has accomplished the biblical level of the mitzva.
The Rosh (ibid.), however, takes issue with Rabbeinu Yona. The Acharonim (Rabbi Akiva Eiger's notes to Shulchan Arukh OC 271; Yechaveh Da'at II, 34) explain that the Rosh believes that Shmuel's dictum is actually a part of the biblical mitzva of kiddush. This is a very difficult position to take, for the whole obligation to eat the Shabbat meal is not of biblical origin at all but rather part of the prophetically instituted mitzva of "oneg Shabbat." Even if we maintained that enjoying Shabbat is a biblical obligation the mitzva would be enjoyment in general and would not take the specific form of a Shabbat meal.
And in truth, the text of the Rosh does not explicitly state that the rule is biblical. He simply reads "Ein kiddush ela bi-mekom se'uda" literally, as "Kiddush does not exist without a meal." Even though the law was indeed instituted by the Sages, he maintains: their enactment now means that one cannot fulfill even the biblical level of the obligation unless he makes kiddush in the context of a meal. The two aspects are inextricably linked. (A similar rationale is found in Tosafot Sukka 3a and Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona Berakhot 11a concerning the recital of the evening shema while leaning on one's side; Peri Megadim: Mishbetzot Zahav 288:2 relating to our issue.) This approach allows us to understand Rashi's ruling that one who made kiddush but neglected to have a meal did not fulfill the mitzva of kiddush at all.
In contrast to all this, the Rashbam comments on Shmuel's statement that "if one made kiddush but did not eat IN THE SAME PLACE he did not fulfill his obligation to make kiddush." Does this imply that one who eats no meal at all would fulfill his obligation? Although, on the face of it, it seems more plausible to understand that he, too, does not fulfill his obligation, there is some indication to the contrary in the following story related by the gemara in the continuation of our sugya:
"Abbayei said, 'When we were at the master's (Rabba's) house, when he would make kiddush he would say to us, "Eat something, lest until you go to your lodgings your candle will have gone out and you will not have made kiddush in your eating place, and with the kiddush you heard here you also will not have fulfilled your obligation because kiddush can only be in the place of eating."'"
Rashi and the Rashbam flesh out Rabba's concern: "... and you will not eat, and EVEN if you go to sleep without eating you will not have fulfilled your obligation through the kiddush made here." The word "even" implies that one could have thought that eating in one place and making kiddush in another is invalid, but that making kiddush without eating at all is still valid, for then the rule might not apply. Furthermore, for one who eats a meal the mitzva of "Remember the Shabbat" is connected by the Sages to his meal and cannot be done without it; if one does not eat a meal his kiddush may consist only of declaring the sanctity of the day. Rashi and the Rashbam, therefore, negate this possibility and conclude that EVEN if one does not eat at all, his kiddush is still invalid.
It must be noted, however, that one can point to a difference between Rashi's and the Rashbam's positions. Remember, Abbayei, in the gemara's anecdote, INTENDED to eat a meal with kiddush. Possibly, it is only in a case like this that his kiddush at Rabba's house would fail to serve its purpose, because his intention to eat subverted it. One who never intended to eat might, according to the Rashbam, be able to fulfill his obligation with kiddush alone. Rashi, on the other hand, eliminated this possibility with his unambiguous statement, quoted earlier, that "if he made kiddush without a meal he did not fulfill the mitzva of kiddush."
Our interpretation of the Rashbam is the equivalent of the approach explicitly taken by the Meiri and later by the Peri Megadim (OC 288). The Peri Megadim uses it to explain the Maharam's opinion that one who is fasting can make kiddush and give the wine to another to drink and thus fulfill his obligation.
The Tosafot, though, analyze this story differently and it is possible that they believe that even one who intends to eat in a different place does fulfill the basic obligation of kiddush (as Rabbeinu Yona held) and misses out only on the added requirement of making kiddush at the site of a meal. Tosafot ask the following question: Why was Rabba concerned only that they not make kiddush without a candle? Surely he should have been concerned that they not eat their meal without a candle as well!? [For the issue of kiddush without candlelight, see the Rosh and the Mordekhai (there) - apparently the Tosafot agree with the Mordekhai that kiddush must be by candlelight, unlike the Maharsha; for the issue of candlelight for the Shabbat evening meal, see Rashi and Tosafot Shabbat 25b that the obligation of candle-lighting extends to the meal, and this is found as well in the Terumat Ha-deshen 93; see Tosafot for the answer to their question.] From their question, we can deduce that Tosafot assumed that upon arrival at their lodgings they were going to eat a meal in the dark, relying upon the kiddush they heard from Rabba. When seen in this light, the story provides no indication that one who will not eat at all fails to fulfill the mitzva of kiddush, for it could be that Rabba's students did accomplish the basic level of kiddush but since they were planning to eat, still needed to have "kiddush at the site of a meal."
The Ran appears to support the opinion of Rashi and the Rashbam:
"We learn from the episode of Abbayei and Rava that one must not say that the requirement that kiddush be in the same place as a meal applies only to one eating elsewhere but not to one who does not eat at all. In truth, one who does not eat does not fulfill the mitzva of kiddush at all."
Three major approaches emerge from the Rishonim:
1. RABBEINU YONA (and perhaps the Tosafot): One who makes kiddush without eating fulfills the mitzva of kiddush but not the additional dimension of kiddush attached to a meal. He must therefore make kiddush again, when he eats.
2. THE ME'IRI (and perhaps the Rashbam): One who does not eat and never intended to eat fulfills his basic obligation of kiddush, but one who intends to eat does not fulfill his obligation of kiddush unless he eats with it.
3. RASHI AND THE ROSH: One does not fulfill his obligation of kiddush at all unless he eats a meal.
It is unclear whether the Ran agrees with the Me'iri or with Rashi, but the latter opinion seems the more plausible one. This is accepted as halakha by the Shulchan Arukh (Beit Yosef )C 273 and Shulchan Arukh 273:3): "If one made kiddush without eating a meal he does not even fulfill the mitzva of kiddush," not distinguishing between one who intends to eat a meal and one who does not. The Mishna Berura (OC 273:11) rules this way as well (although in the Bi'ur Halakha he raises the possibility that the Shulchan Arukh agrees with the Meiri).
WHY CONNECT KIDDUSH AND THE MEAL?
It is possible that the necessity of having a meal in order to fulfill the mitzva of kiddush is dependent on how we understand the rule which requires kiddush to be made in the same place as the meal. There are two possibilities:
a) Kiddush becomes more important when done in the context of the mitzva of "oneg Shabbat;" or
b) The Shabbat meal is enhanced by opening with kiddush.
If possibility (a) is correct it is likely that without a meal one does not fulfill his obligation to make kiddush at all. The gemara's formulation, "Kiddush can only be made in the place of the meal," also seems to focus on kiddush (in accordance with the opinion of the Rosh, discussed last week).
On the other hand, Rishonim derive our rule from the passage "ve-karata la-Shabbat oneg" (Yeshayahu 53:13) - "and call the Shabbat a delight." This verse is the source for the mitzva of oneg Shabbat, which serves to support possibility (b). They expound, "in the place of calling (kiddush) there should be oneg (the meal)." Ostensibly they should have phrased it the other way around, that the meal should be where kiddush takes place, a formulation that appears only in the Sefer Ha-manhig.
It is possible (though this does not appear in the Rishonim) that both aspects of the rule, kiddush requiring a meal and the meal requiring kiddush, coexist.
The Rashbam (Pesachim 101a) brings a second reason for having kiddush and the meal in same place, emphasizing kiddush. If, he writes, we are to [make kiddush over] wine, it should be wine which has added importance - the wine of a meal.
PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS
As we have seen, the Shulchan Arukh rules that the mitzva of kiddush cannot be fulfilled unless a meal is eaten (in agreement with Rashi, the Rosh, and the Ran). How, then, can one who is not going to eat a meal fulfill even the mitzva of nighttime kiddush, which is biblically mandated?
According to those authorities who rule that one fulfills his biblical obligation to make kiddush through prayer (in "ata kidashta" of the Shabbat evening prayer), such a person is in a less difficult predicament. He fulfills his biblical obligation through prayer and is merely unable to fulfill his rabbinic obligation to make kiddush over wine. But according to those who rule that one does not fulfill kiddush through prayer but only through wine, it appears that he is in an impossible situation. The Peri Megadim (Mishbetzot Zahav 288:3) discusses kiddush for one who fell asleep before the Shabbat meal, had a bad dream, and must fast (a "ta'anit chalom") on Shabbat itself. He concludes that the person must eat, for the "oneg Shabbat" involved in going through with the fast does not outweigh the biblical mitzva of kiddush which is only possible in the context of a meal.
At night, then, one must make the effort to eat in order to be able to make kiddush, even if he enjoys not eating. One who is, God forbid, unable to eat because of sickness is forced into a position ("anuss") in which he is not able to fulfill the mitzva and is therefore exempt from his obligation ("anuss rachmana patrei"). Even so, it is preferable that he should either make kiddush for others or hear it from others with the intention of thereby fulfilling his obligation. This is according to those (Rabbeinu Yona, the Meiri, and the Rashbam) who rule that kiddush can exist independently of the meal.
As for the daytime meal - we concluded previously that this rabbinic obligation still exists even for one who does not eat a meal. For one who derives pleasure from not eating, "oneg Shabbat," which is a mitzva mentioned in the Prophets ("divrei kabbala"), takes precedence over the rabbinic mitzva of daytime kiddush, and he should forgo the daytime kiddush (as the Peri Megadim implies). Certainly one who is sick is permitted not to eat even though this means not making kiddush.
Even in the day, though, such a person should make an effort to hear or make kiddush in order to fulfill the opinion of those (the Ran, and one understanding of the Rambam) who hold that kiddush in the day is a real "kiddush" (not just wine that enhances the meal) and that kiddush exists independently of the meal with the meal simply enhancing it. This was the custom of the Maharam, quoted in the Magen Avraham (OC 597:3). This represents a stringency, though; the basic ruling is that of the Shulchan Arukh that his kiddush is meaningless. Therefore one is not obligated to go to great lengths in order to make kiddush if he is exempt from eating a meal.
Daf Kesher #162, Tevet 5749, vol. 2, pp. 182-184.
**************************************************************
Copyright (c) 1996 Yeshivat Har Etzion. All rights reserved.
**************************************************************
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!