Clarification: If he doesn't have another Kos, as we learned earlier (Daf 102:).

Clarification: Rav Ashi does not argue with the Amora'im whom the Gemara will quote shortly; he too, holds 'Ta'amo Pagmo' ...

Clarification (cont.): And all he means is that from her there is no proof.

Clarification: The Rashbam interprets 'Kapid' as 'Lechatchilah', and that if one only has a Kos Pagum, then one should recite Kidush over it.

Question: If so, how could they permit eating before Havdalah merely because one is fussy (Lachatchilah)?

Ruling: Nevertheless, one can rely on the Rashbam in case of emergency.

Source: Because "Remembering/mentioning" is said in connection with wine - ''His memory is like the wine of the Levanon" (Hoshe'a 14); "We will remember Your friendship more than wine" Shir 1).

Clarification: This Zechirah refers to Kidush; We do not find 'Vayechulu' over a Kos, only in Tefilah, as the Gemara says in Shabbos (Daf 119.), and they only instituted it over a Kos in order to render Yotzei one's children and family.

Implied Question: And the reason that we recite 'Vayechulu' loudly after the Amidah ...

Answer: Is because of Yom-Tov which falls on Shabbos, when we say 'Atah Bechartanu' in the Amidah, which does not include 'Vayechulu'.

Answer (cont.): So they instituted to say it every Shabbos, so as not to draw a distinction between one Shabbos and the other.

Qualification: It seems however, that Kidush over wine is an Asmachta (hinted in the Torah, though really, it is mi'de'Rabbanan).

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says in 'Mi she'Meiso' (B'rachos, Daf 20:) that 'Women are Chayav Kidush min ha'Torah' ...

Answer: That refers specifically to Kidush, but not to wine, which is only mi'de'Rabbanan ...

Proof: As is implied at the beginning of Nazir (Daf 3:) where the Gemara says "mi'Yayoin ve'Sheichar Yazir" - 'to forbid the wine of Mitzvah like the wine of R'shus'.

Proof (cont.): What is that asks the Gemara, Kidush and Havdalah? Is one obligated to have wine from Har Sinai, that one needs to prohibit it?

Proof (cont.): It must therefore refer to what Rava said, that if someone declares that he will drink wine, and then that he will be a Nazir, a Pasuk is needed to teach us that the Nezirus takes effect, even though he is is under oath to drink wine.

Alternative Explanation: It may well be however, that Kidush over wine is min ha'Torah, and it is only the obligation to drink it that is mi'de'Rabbanan.

Question: In Perek Sheloshah she'Achlu (B'rachos, Daf 47.) the Gemara says that the participants are not permitted to taste until the Mevarech has tasted'.

Answer #1: That speaks specifically with regard to 'ha'Motzi', where one (the Mevarech) is obligated to eat, as the Gemara says in Perek Ra'uhu Beis-Din (Rosh ha'Shanah, Daf 29:) 'One should not give a piece of bread to the guests unless he is eating together with them'.

Answer #1 (cont.): Consequently, one is obligated to wait until the Mevarech has tasted.

Conclusion: Kidush, on the other hand, where he is under no obligation to drink, it is not necessary to wait for him.

Answer #2: However in the Yerushalmi of B'rachos, where Rebbi Aba says in the name of Rav that the participants are forbidden to taste before the Mevarech; and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi permits them to drink even though he has not drunk'.

Answer #2 (cont.): The Gemara explains that they do not argue - since Rebbi Avahu (Aba?) speaks where they all share one Kos, whereas Rebbi Yehoshua is speaking where each participant is holding his own Kos.

Answer #2 (cont.): It also implies that unless each person is actually holding his Kos, they are not allowed to taste before the Mevarech even if he pours from the Kos shel B'rachah into their Kosos.

Answer #2 (cont.): But if each person has his own Kos, they do not need to wait for the Mevarech, and that is why the old man bent down and drank.

Extrapolation: It is possible to extrapolate from here that it is not necessary to pour from the Kos shel B'rachah into the other Kosos.

Reservation: But where the Kosos are Pagum, the Mevarech must pour some his Kos into the other Kosos, to enable them to drink from cups that are not Pagum, as we learned in Perek ba'Kol Me'arvin (Eruvin, Daf 40:).

Support: Also with regard to 'ha'Motzi' one can extrapolate from the Yerushalmi that if each participant has his own loaf, they do not need to wait for the Mevarech, and each one is permitted to eat from his own loaf.

Question: And when the Gemara says in B'rachos (Daf 40.) 'Take and make a B'rachah!' and on Daf 46. there) that the host should make a Motzi generously - implying that the participants only eat what the host gives them?

Answer #1: It is speaking either where each participant does not have his own loaf ...

Answer #2: Or on Shabbos, where they do not have Lechem Mishnah, in which case they are obligated to eat from the host's loaf.

Explanation #1: The Rashbam and Seider R. Amram Gaon explain that this is on account of Hesech ha'Da'as.

Question: But Rav himself in Perek Kol ha'Basar (Chulin, Daf 106:) allows one to wash one's hands in the morning (to eat bread) and to stipulate that it covers the whole day.

Answer: Stipulation only helps there where water is not common - i.e. that there is not at hand or that one needs the water that one has for something else ...

Answer (cont.): But where water is available, and on hand, it does not help to stipulate.

Answer (cont.): As is implied there, when Rava said to the inhabitants of the valley of Arvos 'People like you, for whom water is not available, wash your hands in the morning, and stipulate for the entire day'.

Answer (cont.): Some say in a case of emergency, and Rava disagrees with Rav; whereas others maintain, even not in a case of emergency, and he concurs with Rav'.

Conclusion: The Gemara implies that Rav also speaks where water was not easily available, and it concludes that 'he concurs with Rav'

Explanation #2: ha'Rav Elchanan however, explains that 'Someone who has washed his hands should not recite Kidush' because it looks as if he is washing is hands for fruit (i.e. wine), and Chazal describe someone who does so as conceited.

Clarification: The Gemara now concludes that Kidush is not a Hesech ha'Da'as.

Question: In Perek eilu Devarim (B'rachos, Daf 51.) Beis Hillel say that one first pours out the cup of wine and then washes one's hands ...

Question (cont.): And the Gemara there explains that this is because 'the meal comes immediately after washing'.

Conclusion: Is pouring out the cup more of a Hesech ha'Da'as than Kidush?

Answer #1: 'Pouring' is different, inasmuch as it includes adding hot water, and requires care not to add too little and not too much, making it more of a Hesech ha'Da'as than Kidush.

Answer #2: Rabeinu Tam however, answers that the Gemara there is referring to a weekday, and one suspects that if one washes before pouring out the Kos, one will become involved in other matters, and will not eat straightaway ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Whereas on Shabbos, when the table is already laid to eat immediately, becoming involved in other matters is highly unlikely.

Explanation #1: The Rashbam explains that he used to recite Kidush over bread instead of wine, in which case he would wash his hands first, and Kidush was not a Hefsek.

Question: Rabeinu Tam asks that Kidush was certainly not a Hefsek, seeing as Kidush followed 'ha'Motzi' and it was like 'Mix food for the oxen!', which is not considered a Hefsek between the B'rachah and eating.

Question (cont.): How much more so was it not considered a Hefsek with regard to washing one's hands (See Maharsha).

Question (cont.): But when he recited Kidush over wine, which precedes ha'Motzi, there would have been a Hefsek between washing and eating (i.e. ha'Motzi' - Maharsha)?

Answer: One can however substantiate his explanation - in that sometimes having in mind to recite Kidush over bread, he would wash, and then he would change his mind and recite it over wine, relying on that washing.

Refuted Question: One cannot however, query the Rashbam from the implication later - from the fact that 'Ameimar went to bed hungry' - that one may not recite Havdalah over bread, in which case, how much more so Kidush, since we find that Kidush is more stringent than Havdalah ...

Proof #1:, as the Gemara said earlier (Daf 105.) 'Shabbos fixes for Kidush but not for Havdalah'.

Proof #2: And the Gemara says later 'He understood from him that one cannot make Kidush, but Havdalah, one can'.

Refutation: This is not a Kashya however - since it is based on a good reason ...

Refutation: Because, since it is a Mitzvah to eat Se'udas Shabbos, Kidush over bread makes sense, whereas there is no connection between Havdalah and bread, only with wine, which pertains to everything

Explanation #2: Nevertheless, Rabeinu Tam learns that one cannot recite Kidush over bread at all.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And what the Gemara means here is - that 'Someone who washes his hands should not recite Kidush, because Rav holds that there is Kidush even not on the location of the meal, and he is therefore concerned that the person who washed will leave the room and go outside.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Rav Yitzchak said to them 'Sometimes Rav fancied bread, so he recited Kidush over bread' - meaning that he made Kidush over wine with the intention eating bread immediately, so he would wash his hands before Kidush.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And this is not comparable to pouring out the cup, as Tosfos explained

Explanation #2 (cont.): And sometimes when he fancied wine, he would recite Kidush over wine not in the location of the bread (i.e. the meal), since he held that 'there is Kidush even not in the location of the meal'.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And how much more so according to the one who holds 'Ein Kidush Ela be'Makom Se'udah', it is not a Hesech ha"Da'as if one washes one's hands and recite Kidush,

Support: In the Yerushalmi in B'rachos in connection with the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel as to whether one recites the B'rachah first over the day or over wine', it is implied like Rabeinu Tam, that one does not recite Kidush over bread ...

Support (cont.): Because R. Zeira said there 'From the words of both them we can learn that although one can make Havdalah without wine, one cannot make Kidush without wine'. R. Yossi b'R. Bun said 'The custom there that when there is no wine, the Shatz goes down to the Teivah and recites a B'rachah that is like seven, which concludes with "Mekadesh Yisrael ve'Yom ha'Shabbos" ' ...

Conclusion: Implying that one does not recite Kidush over bread.

Havdalah over Beer: One needs to ascertain as to whether one makes Kidush over beer there where it is a national beverage, just as one makes Havdalah over it.

Havdalah over Beer (cont.): And the entire Sugya which forbids making Kidush over beer one can establish there where it is not a national beverage.

Proof: Since Rav said that 'Just as one cannot make Kidush, so too, can one not make Havdalah!' And when it is a national beverage it is obvious that one can make Havdalah over it.

Havdalah over Beer (cont.): And later too, where he says 'Ein Mekadshin be'Lo Yahyin' as well as the Yerushalmi that Tosfos quoted earlier may well come to preclude only where it is not a national beverage.

Proof: Also, if one can make Kidush over beer there where it is a national beverage, it works out nicely that on Yom-Tov that follows Shabbos, one recites 'Yakn'haz' over beer.

Proof (cont.): Whereas if one does not, and according to the Rashbam, that one recites Kidush over bread - it is difficult to understand how one can make half 'Yakn'haz' over bread and half over beer?

Rav Amram Ga'on: However, Seider R. Amram Ga'on writes 'Even though we do not make Havdalah over bread, on Yom-Tov that falls on Motza'ei Shabbos we do ...

Resin: Seeing as Kidush is the Ikar, as is evident from the ruling 'Yakn'haz', and we make Kidush over bread, Havdalah becomes secondary to Kidush, and we recite it over bread together with Kidush.

Kos shel Birchas ha'Mazon: As regards the Kos shel Birchas ha'Mazon, it appears that one does make it over beer, where it is a national beverage ...

Proof #1: Since even Havdalah, which requires a Kos according to all opinions, one can recite over beer, how much more so Birchas ha'Mazon, where there is a Beraisa in 'Eilu Devarim' (B'rachos 52:) which holds that it does not need a Kos shel B'rachah.

Proof #2: Moreover, the Gemara says in our Sugya that we do not say 'Bring a Kos shel B'rachah' - to recite Birchas ha'Mazon - 'except over wine (but not over beer)'.

Proof #2 (cont.): But that is only if one not fix one's meal over it, but that if one did, it doesn't matter ...

Proof #2 (cont.): This implies that if one fixed one's meal over it (beer), one may recite Birchas ha'Mazon over it - and how much more so if it is a national beverage.

Refutation: The Rashbam however, erases it from the text.

Conclusion: The conclusion is that one can make Havdalah over beer provided it is a national beverage, but not over bread.

Conclusion (cont.): And according to Rabeinu Tam, one cannot make Kidush over bread either.

Conclusion (cont.): Whether one can make Kidush over beer remains a Safek.

Clarification: This means until the next day before eating.

Question: According to Tosfos' explanation earlier (101.) that 'He has also not fulfilled his obligation of wine' speaks where he drank in Shul, how can he then make Kidush at home?

Answer: It is not considered 'Ta'am', since he only drank from the Kos shel B'rachah.

Question: Regarding the question that is asked 'Now that Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu does not bring a Takalah (sin) even to the animals belonging to Tzadikim (how much more so, to the Tzadikim themselves')?

Answer: Because here, where the food itself is permitted only the time is forbidden, the question is not relevant, as Tosfos explains in Gitin (Daf 7. [See Mesores ha'Shas]) in detail.

Explanation: Rashi explains that 'his Rebbe' refers to Rav, since Rav Huna stated his opinion according to Rav.

Question: But Rav Asi was also a Talmid of Rav, and the Lashon implies 'like his Rebbe' but not like his (Rav Asi's)?

Explanation #2: Consequently, 'like his Rebbe' refers to Rav Huna, whose Talmid Rav Yirmiyah was, as the Gemara states in the second Perek of Kidushin (Daf 46.), when it says 'the words of the Talmid appear to be correct'.

Implied Question: And even though Rav Yirmiyah bar Aba was a Talmid Chaver of Rav, as we see in Perek Tefilas ha'Shachar (B'rachos, Daf 27:), where he said to him 'Did you separate?' and not 'Did Mar separate?'

Answer: The text in most Sefarim in B'rachos reads 'Rav Yirmiyah', and in Kidushin, 'Rebbi Yienmiyah'.