(a)According to Rav, those who heard Kidush in Shul do not need to hear it again at home. But is one not supposed to hear Kidush in the place where one eats?
(b)What does Rav mean when he says 'Yedei Yayin Lo Yatza'?
(c)What is the difference between this case and someone who makes Kidush at home and wishes to drink another cup of wine during the meal?
(d)Why the difference?
(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 Makom is.
(a)According to Rav, why does one recite Kidush again at home?
(b)According to Shmuel, why does one recite Kidush in Shul?
(a)According to Rav, one recites Kidush again at home - in order to render Yotzei 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)What did Rav Huna do one Friday night when the light went out after he had made Kidush but before he had begun eating?
(b)Why did Rabah instruct Abaye to wash and eat bread (see Tosfos) when he made Kidush, even though it had not been Abaye's intention to do so?
(c)What does the Gemara prove from the two above episodes?
(d)Can someone who does not intend to eat where he is reciting Kidush, make Kidush for someone who does?
(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 Yotzei Kidush there; neither could Abaye be Yotzei 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 b'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)But how can Rabah possibly hold like Shmuel, when Abaye specifically taught that, with the exception of three cases, Rabah always ruled like Rav?
(b)Why does this not clash with the principle that (before the decision to follow the opinion of Beis Hillel) one either sides with Beis Shamai or with Beis Hillel, but not once like one, and once like the other?
(a)Abaye specifically taught that, with the exception of three cases, Rabah always ruled like Rav - l'Chumra. Consequently, in our case, where he rules like Shmuel - l'Chumra, there is no discrepancy at all.
(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)There are three exceptions where Rabah follows the opinion of Shmuel concerning Tzitzis, Chanukah and Shabbos. What are they?
(a)Rabah follows the opinion of Shmuel concerning Tzitzis - 'Ein Matirin mi'Beged l'Beged'; with regard to Chanukah - 'Ein Madlikin mi'Ner l'Ner', and with regard to Shabbos - 'Halachah k'Rebbi Shimon bi'Gereirah' (that 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven, Mutar').
(a)Rebbi Yochanan is very lenient when it comes to the issue of Shinuy. What does he say with regard to ...
1. ... Shinuy Yayin?
2. ... Shinuy Makom?
(b)Sometimes even he will agree that fresh wine requires another Berachah. Which Berachah is that, and when will this apply?
(c)Rebbi Yochanan is disproved in one of the rulings quoted in (a) from a Beraisa. What does the Beraisa say?
(a)Rebbi Yochanan says with regard to ...
1. ... Shinuy Yayin - 'Ein Tzarich l'Varech'.
2. ... Shinuy Makom - 'Ein Tzarich l'Varech'.
(b)Even Rebbi Yochanan agrees however, that if better wine is brought to the table, one recites 'Baruch ha'Tov v'ha'Meitiv'.
(c)He is disproved from a Beraisa, which says 'Shinuy Makom, Tzarich Levarech, Shinuy Yayin Ein Tzarich Levarech'.
(a)What does Rav Huna say about changing one's location from one part of the room to another? Does it require a fresh Berachah?
(b)What does the Gemara ask on Rav Huna from a Beraisa?
(c)What does it answer?
(d)On what grounds does the Rashbam dismiss the Kashya as an error?
(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 Berachah.
(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 Chidush?
(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)Rav Chisda restricts the Din of Shinuy Makom to things that do not require a Berachah Acharonah in their place. What is the definition of 'something that requires a Berachah Acharonah in its place'?
(b)What Halachah emerges from Rav Chisda's distinction, and what is the reason for it?
(c)According to this, when the Gemara asked earlier (at the end of the previous Amud) on Rebbi Yochanan, why did it 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?
(d)What does Rav Sheshes say regarding this matter?
(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 'Bnei 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 Beraisa speaks of a group who sat down together to drink, and who broke up ('Akru Ragleihem') to go and greet a Chasan and Kalah. How do we know that it was wine that they were drinking?
(b)How does the Beraisa conclude?
(c)Why is this a Kashya on Rav Chisda?
(d)What does the Gemara answer?
(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.
(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.
(a)According to Rav Chisda, is there any difference (with regard to things that require a Berachah Acharonah in their place) between whether one continues eating in a new location, or he returns to his original one? Do either of these require a fresh Berachah?
(a)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 Berachah.