(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Pesachim 105


QUESTION: The Talmidim of Rav were eating a meal on Friday afternoon and they asked Rav Hamnuna Saba to check whether nightfall had come. If it had, they would recite Birkas ha'Mazon, remove the tables (Akiras ha'Shulchan), and recite Kidush in order to start the Shabbos meal. Rav Hamnuna Saba replied that there was no need to check if nightfall had come, because the very onset of Shabbos itself makes the meal designated for Shabbos. The RASHBAM explains that since one is not permitted to eat before reciting Kidush, it is not necessary to recite Birkas ha'Mazon and remove the table in order to show that the meal is for the sake of Shabbos. Rather, it suffices to be Pores Mapah and recite Kidush.

This Gemara is problematic in several ways. First, it seems that Rav Hamnuna Saba is ruling like Shmuel (100a), who says that when Shabbos arrives while one is in the middle of a meal, all one needs to do is Pores Mapah and recite Kidush. The Rashbam (100a), though, explained that Shmuel holds like Rebbi Yosi, that m'Ikar ha'Din one is allowed to continue eating when Shabbos arrives without having to stop his meal and recite Kidush; Shmuel requires Pores Mapah and Kidush only as a stringency. According to Rebbi Yosi, the onset of Shabbos does *not* make it prohibited to eat! How, then, could Rav Hamnuna say that the onset of Shabbos itself makes the meal designated for Shabbos? (DEVAR SHMUEL)

Second, the Talmidim of Rav were ready to say Birkas ha'Mazon and remove the table. They apparently ruled like Rebbi Yehudah, who said that if Shabbos arrived while one was eating a meal, one must recite Birkas ha'Mazon and remove the table (in contrast to Shmuel's ruling). On the other hand, Rav Hamnuna Saba, who ruled that one must merely be Pores Mapah and recite Kidush, was ruling like Rebbi Yosi. Why is he arguing with the Talmidim of Rav based on logic, and saying that they do not need to say Birkas ha'Mazon because the onset of Shabbos itself makes the meal designated for Shabbos? They hold like Rebbi Yehudah, and he holds like Rebbi Yosi, and Rebbi Yehudah argues with the logic of Rebbi Yosi! At most, he should have just told them that the Halachah follows the opinion of Rebbi Yosi!

ANSWER: The RASHBAM earlier (100a) explained that Rebbi Yehudah requires Akiras ha'Shulchan and not just Pores Mapah, as we see from the ruling of Shmuel who ruled *not* like Rebbi Yehudah but still required Pores Mapah, as Shmuel stated explicitly, "The Halachah is not like Rebbi Yehudah... rather, one must be Pores Mapah and recite Kidush." Shmuel, therefore, understood that Rebbi Yehudah requires Akiras ha'Shulchan.

The Amora'im here -- the Talmidim of Rav -- interpreted Rebbi Yehudah's opinion the same way Shmuel understood it, and since they ruled like Rebbi Yehudah they required Akiras ha'Shulchan. Rav Hamnuna Saba argued about what Rebbi Yehudah meant; he held that Rebbi Yehudah only required Pores Mapah (but not for the same reason as Shmuel, for Rebbi Yehudah requires it m'Ikar ha'Din, while Shmuel requires it just as a stringency).

This answers the first question. When Rav Hamnuna Saba said that the onset of Shabbos itself makes the meal designated for Shabbos and therefore only Pores Mapah is required, he was expressing his view of *Rebbi Yehudah's* opinion, and not the opinion of Shmuel!

This also answers the second question. Rav Hamnuna Saba was not ruling like Rebbi Yosi, with Shmuel's stringency, while the Talmidim of Rav were ruling like Rebbi Yehudah. Both the Talmidim of Rav and Rav Hamnuna Saba ruled like Rebbi Yehudah; they argued how to interpret Rebbi Yehudah's opinion!


Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak asserted that even though a person is allowed to recite Kidush ha'Yom ("Vayechulu...") throughout the day of Shabbos if he neglected to say it at night, it is best to say it at night because "Chavivah Mitzvah b'Sha'ato," a Mitzvah is most beloved when done at its proper time. He was asked what is the difference between Kidush and Havdalah -- which we are supposed to delay and not say immediately at the conclusion of Shabbos, even though that is its proper time. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answered, "I am not a Chacham, I am not a Chozeh, I am not a Yachid. I am a Gamar and a Sadar, and they say in the Beis Medrash the same thing that I say, that there is a difference between the onset of the day (Kidush) and the conclusion of the day (Havdalah). When it comes to Kidush, we want to recite it as soon as possible, and when it comes to Havdalah, we want to delay it."

What is the meaning of this strange introduction, "I am not a Chacham... and they say in the Beis Medrash the same thing that I say," that Rav Nachman gave to his answer?

ANSWER: The OHR SAME'ACH (Hilchos Shabbos 29:12) offers a brilliant interpretation of Rav Nachman's comment. Rav Nachman's answer is based on the fact that Havdalah should be delayed, in contrast to Kidush which should be recited promptly. When to recite Havdalah is actually the subject of a dispute between Amora'im earlier (102b-103a). The Gemara there discusses the order of blessings when Yom Tov occurs on Motza'ei Shabbos, and one must recite both Kidush (for Yom Tov) and Havdalah (for Shabbos). Seven different Amora'im and Tana'im took sides regarding the blessing of Havdalah is said first or whether the blessing of Kidush is said first (see Chart #18). The Amora'im who said that Kidush must be said first were Rav, Levi (according to our Girsa, and not the Rashbam's), the Rabanan, and Mar brei d'Ravna. These Amora'im agreed with Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's conclusion that Havdalah should be delayed. Those who said that Havdalah should be recited first, in contrast to Rav Nachman's opinion, were Shmuel, Rabah, and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananya (Rebbi Yehoshua is mentioned twice -- first he is quoted by Marta and then by Rebbi).

When Rav Nachman presented his case about delaying Havdalah, he chose to allude to those who preceded him in discussing the topic. He referred to six of the seven, stating that three agreed with him and three argued with him. He said, "I am not a Chacham," meaning that he does not hold like the one who was called a Chacham. Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananya is called "Chakima d'Yehuda'i," the Chacham of the Jews (Bechoros 9b). He said, "I am not a Chozeh," referring to Shmuel, who was an expert astronomer who observed ("Chozeh") the stars and celestial bodies (Berachos 58b; Tosfos, Ta'anis 7a). Finally, he said, "I am not a Yachid," referring to Rabah [bar Nachmani], who said in Bava Metzia (86a), "I am a Yachid (peerless) in the study of Nega'im, and I am Yachid in the study of Ohalos."

After alluding to those with whom he argued, he alluded to those with whom he agreed. "I am Gamar (learned)" refers to Levi, about whom the Gemara (Sanhedrin 17b) says that whenever a reference is made to "the one who learned (Gamar) before the Chachamim," it refers to Levi. "I am Sadar (I organize my learning)" refers to Rav, who is called "Reish *Sidra* d'Bavel" (Chulin 137b). Finally, Rav Nachman said that "they say in the Beis Medrash the same thing that I say" for he is in agreement with the anonymous Rabanan of the Beis Medrash who also said that Havdalah should be delayed. (The only one to whom he did not refer was Mar brei d'Ravna. Since he was a contemporary of Rav Nachman, Rav Nachman felt no need to address his opinion.)

A similar approach is suggested by RAV REUVEN MARGOLIOS (CHEKER SHEMOS V'KINUYIM #4; see fn. 8 there).

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,