Greetings. I don't understand why Chazal would have a takkana to make havdala in maariv at any time when maariv is only optional anyway, and havdalah can be made on other drinks as well. Plus, since maariv is optional, people must have been able to always make havdalah simply by reciting the bracha, regardless of wine being used in shul or anywhere else. In any case, if wine was a difficult item to procure, then anyone could have made havdalah on chamar medina. So I don't understand the explanation in the gemara. Thank you.
David Goldman, USA
The Rif writes (4th Perek) that the concept of optional Ma'ariv is only if he did not daven Ma'ariv, but if he davened Ma'ariv he has already accepted it as mandatory, and if he makes a mistake he must go back and repeat the Tefilah. Rav Chaim of Brisk (Hilchos Tefilah 10:6) explains that the Rambam and Ra'avad also argue about whether after it was accepted to daven Ma'ariv it is actually obligatory or still retains its status as Tefilas Nedavah. The Ra'avad rules like the Rif. Thus, when Chazal said that if a person made Havdalah in davening he needs to make it on wine as well, they were referring to one who davened and made Ma'ariv obligatory to him (Rif, Ra'avad), and despite this they wanted him to make on wine as well if he can.
The Rashba (see also Shulchan Aruch ha'Rav 294:1) explains in this Sugya that Chazal did not want the see-saw aspect to continue, with times of wealth allowing wine and times of poverty allowing Havdalah in Tefilah, so they established it in Tefilah but also on a cup of wine, but the main Takanah remains the original one -- to recite Havdalah in Tefilah. (He presumably also holds like the Rif and Ra'avad.)
Since wine is not always prevalent, the later Amora'im allowed the use of other beverages if they were the only ones available. This was in consonance with the second Takanah which saw the main Havdalah as that in Tefilah, but since it is a Hidur to also make on wine and wine was not available, the main beverage available served as a substitute.
Another proof of this is that if someone ate after forgetting to say Havdalah in Tefilah, he must repeat the davening again, but if he said Havdalah and ate, even if he has not made Havdalah on wine he does not need to repeat.
Yoel Domb
Thank you for your reply. There are now a number of different issues, so I would like to address them.
If Maariv had a status of being obligatory, then it would necessarily require the chazaras hashatz since there were people who needed to be yotsi but couldn't davven themselves. But a chazara was never applied to Maariv.
If the Sanhedrin applied making Havdalah over wine (Anshe Knesses Hagedola), the why couldn't they have simultaneously allowed for using another drink where wine wasn't available? Why would it have had to wait until a Sanhedrin in the time of the Amoraim? In any event, this means that prior to the takkana people simply made the bracha of Havdalah at the end of Shabbos, regardless of whether they davened maariv or not. OR was it the case that wine was the PREFERRED drink, but not the only one?
In that situation, why would the ikker havdala be applied to a tfilla that historically was not obligatory like shachris and mincha (either according to the Rif or to the Rambam)? Thus, according to the Rambam and others, if Jews did not davven maariv, WHEN did they say Havdalah according to the narrative of the gemara?
The narrative of the story of the application of Havdalah seems to have been a later narrative, similar to the explanation for the narrative concerning birkos hashachar, and the story of the miracle of the candles of Chanukah. Apparently according to the Yerushalmi in Brachos there were different opinions about Havdalah as well. In both Talmuds, however, there still remains the unsolved question (except perhaps according to the Rif) according to the opinion that it was added specifically to the amidah as to HOW Havdalah was made by people who did not choose to davven maariv.
The concept of Chazaras ha'Shatz was for those who are not Baki, and there is no need to require them to come especially to Ma'ariv even after it was accepted as obligatory. This would require a new Takanah, which the later Beis Din did not have authority to enact.
As for Havdalah, I agree with you that there may have been a time that people recited it without davening, but it is possible that the goal of incorporating it into the davening was twofold: to establish both Ma'ariv and Havdalah as obligatory. Possibly for the same reason the Berachah Me'ein Sheva was added on Friday night to enable even those who did not follow the Tefilah to participate in some way with the others.
Your question regarding how those not Baki would hear Havdalah if it is in davening is definitely valid. I suggest that this is why Havdalah was established to be said in Shul after davening. Havdalah was then incorporated in a ceremony with wine, possibly because of the very problem you raised, that people were not davening Ma'ariv on a regular basis, and then it was restored back to Tefilah as well when wine proved to have its own problems. The idea of other beverages was b'Di'eved, as Chazal understood the spiritual virtues of wine and even said (Pesachim 113a) that one who makes Havdalah on wine will receive Olam ha'Ba. There are various deep reasons for this (such as, the first sin was due to wine, and Havdalah as well as Kiddush serve to rectify this sin).
Other beverages were also not the Chamar Medinah at the time of the Takanah, as apparently people drank mainly wine, and only later when they also became more prevalent they were considered important enough to make Havdalah on them.
Yoel Domb