Print this Article
The obligation to recite Kiddush where one will eat their Shabbat meal
By Rabbi Moshe Pinchasi
A Problematic Custom
The Gemara in Pesahim[1] discusses the custom that was prevalent in the times of the Talmud, to recite Kiddush in the Bet HaKenesset after Arvit on Friday night. The Gemara cites a debate between Rav and Shemuel. According to Rav, those present can rely on that Kiddush, although they will be eating their Shabbat meal at home. However, according to Shemuel, since the Kiddush was not recited where the Shabbat meal will be held, those present did not fulfill their obligation of Kiddush. Although in matters of general Halacha (non-monetary law) we usually follow Rav’s opinion, in this instance, the Rishonim[2] follow Shemuel’s opinion, because it is also accepted by many other Amora’im.
According to most Rishonim[3] this is a rabbinic injunction, as it is derived from the verse in the Navi: “V’Karata LaShabbat ‘Oneg” [4] – and you shall declare the Shabbat for delight – which implies that the declaration of Shabbat, the Kiddush, should be made where one will delight it and hold their meal. The Rosh[5] is of the opinion that reciting Kiddush in the place where one will eat is a Torah obligation.
Location, Location, Location
We must now define what is considered the location of the Se’uda. Ideally, ones should recite the Kiddush precisely in the spot where they will be eating, and not even change seats. However, b’di’avad, if one recites the Kiddush and wants to sit elsewhere, as long as it is in the same room, he may do so – even if this was not his original intention. This would apply even in a very large hall[6], or if there are large objects which block the view from the spot of the Kiddush to the spot of the meal[7].
The Shulhan Aruch[8] cites the opinion of Sar Shalom Ga’on, that one may even rely on the fact that the spot where he will eat the meal is visible from where he is reciting the Kiddush, even if he did originally intend to eat there. For example, if one recites the Kiddush outdoors in his Sukkah and is then forced into the house because of rain, one would not have to repeat the Kiddush, if the spot where he made the Kiddush is visible[9].
Original Intent
Some Rishonim[10] are lenient if one had in mind during the time of the Kiddush that he will be eating his meal elsewhere. Nevertheless, the Shulhan Aruch[11] follows the opinions that having intent to change locations is not sufficient[12]. Still, if one is just changing locations from one room to another in the same house, and intended to do so at the time of the Kiddush, one does not have to recite the Kiddush again.
In the event that one already recited Kiddush with the intention to dine in another house, the Ben Ish Hai[13] writes that one must recite Kiddush again where they eat, as per the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch. However, the Kaf HaHayim[14] and Hacham Ovadia Yosef[15] write that despite Maran’s ruling, since this matter is disputed in the Rishonim we would apply the rule of Safek Berachot L’Hakel and not require one to recite Kiddush again. Obviously, with regards to the morning Kiddush one can simply recite Bore Peri HaGefen again over a cup of wine, and avoid this problem.[16]
Room to Room
Let us now discuss the scenarios in which we would apply Maran’s leniency and allow one to eat in a different room when that was his original intent. Would we consider two rooms in a hotel or hospital as two rooms in the same house? How about a separate guest house, or rooftop?
The Poskim write that any two locations under one roof are considered to be two rooms within one house[17]. The Ohr L’Tziyon[18] writes that this would seem to include even two apartments on separate floors in one building. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach disagrees[19], and maintains that is the two locations belong to separate owners – even if they are in the same house – then they are not considered to be two rooms in one house.
The Ohr L’Tziyon also proves that reciting Kiddush in one’s home with the intent to eat on the porch, would also be included in this leniency[21].
Sources:
[1] ק:
[2] תוס’ (שם ד”ה ידי קידוש) והרא”ש (שם ס”ה), ועוד דהא הכא ר’ יוחנן ס”ל כוותיה דרב, ואמרו בביצה (דף ד.) דרב ור’ יוחנן הלכה כר”י, ועוד דהא הרא”ש פסק (שבת פ”ג סס”א) דאף אי ר’ יוחנן פליג ארב ושמואל, קיי”ל כר”י, וא”כ כ”ש הכא דבשיטה אחת קיימי.
[3] רבינו יונה הו”ד ברא”ש שם, ועוד
[4] רי”ף בפסחים דף כ. ובתוס’ דף קא. ד”ה אף, ועוד
[5] שם
[6] רא”ש שם
[7] משנ”ב סי’ קעח סק”ט בשם האחרונים
[8] שו”ע סי’ רעג ס”א
[9] ואפי’ מקצת מקומו (בא”ח ש”ב פר’ בראשית ס”א). אמנם הסתפק בבא”ח (ש”א פר’ בהעלותך ס”י, ובשו”ת ר”פ יו”ד ח”ג סי’ יט) אם נמצא בחדר שצריך לילך לפינה של החדר או לעמוד כדי לראות את מקום הקידוש אם מהני, ובחזו”ע (שבת ח”ב עמ’ קכז) הוכיח מתוס’ שמהני אף לאכול במקום שיש אפשרות לראות משם את מקום הקידוש אפי’ שזה עתה אינו יכול לראות מחמת שהוא יושב וכדו’, ואם סגרו את החלון או הדלת של משום הקידוש נסתפק בשש”כ (פנ”ד הע’ כ) אם מהני
[10] הרא”ש בפסחים (שם) והמרדכי (בתוספותיו לפסחים דף לה.) ובשבולי הלקט (השלם, סי’ ע) והאו”ז (הל’ ער”ש אות כג) והכל בו (ס”ס לא) לשי’ רבינו נסים גאון
[11] שם
[12] תוס’ בפסחים (דף ק: ד”ה ידי קידוש), טור (סי’ רעג) ועוד
[13] ש”ב פר’ בראשית ס”א
[14] סי’ רעג אות יח
[15] הליכות עולם (ח”ג עמ’ ב)
[16] ואם הוא גם רואה את מקומו וגם היתה דעתו לאכול בבית אחר, פסק האחרונים [באה”ל (סי’ רעג ס”א ד”ה וכן) ובחזו”ע (שבת ח”ב עמ’ קכז) ועוד] שיש כאן ס”ס ואפי’ לכתחילה מותר לו לשנות מקומו.
[17] עי’ משנ”ב שם סק”ח
[18] ח”ב פי”ב סט”ו
[19] שש”כ ח”ב פנ”ד הע’ כז
[20] וע”ע בס’ ברכת ה’ (ח”ג פי”א סי”א ובהע’ 49) שאף הוא חלק ע”ד האול”צ
[21] שהרי הרמ”א (שם) כ’ דהמשנה מקומו מבית לסוכה חשיב כמפנה לפנה, והמג”א (סק”ב) פי’ דהיינו כשהסוכה באותו חדר, אבל בחדר אחר חשיב כמחדר לחדר, הרי דאיהו ס”ל דאע”פ שהסוכה אינה מקורה מ”מ אינה חשובה אלא כחדר אחר בבית.