ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 103
(a) Rabah (*Ya*ha*ne*k) puts Ner between Havdalah and Kidush - because,
seeing as the two are contradictory in terms (the one, sanctifies, the
other, declares mundane), it is not befitting to place them next to each
(b) Levi (*Ki*ne*ya*h) ...
1. ... moves Yayin away from first place to put it third - because, by
placing it first (where it really belongs), it appears as if it does not
refer to Havdalah; and Havdalah (even more than Kidush, which one can recite
over bread) must be recited specifically over wine (which explains why it is
placed, not second, but third).
(c) The Rashbam switch the opinions of Rabah and Levi - firstly in order to
conform with Levi's opinion quoted in the Yerushalmi, and secondly, because
Rav, Shmuel and Levi would be the natural order for these three Chaveirim to
appear (whereas Rabah was from a later generation).
2 ... puts Havdalah last - like we do every Motza'ei Shabbos.
(a) The Rabbanan, who say *Ki*ya*ne*h, follow Kidush with the order *Ya*ne*h
- either in keeping with the order of Havdalah every Motza'ei Shabbos; or in
order to separate Havdalah from Kidush as much as possible.
1. Mar Brei de'Revana (*Ne*ki*ya*h) puts Ner before Kidush - because, to
begin with, it cannot be placed between Yayin and Havdalah, as it is every
week, since, due to the fact that Kidush too, is recited, we need to place
Yayin next to Havdalah (as we explained earlier). Consequently, it is
appropriate put Ner first, as soon as one derives benefit from it - even
(c) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah (*Ne*ha*Ya*k) - puts Yayin in between
Havdalah and Kidush - in order that Yayin should refer to Havdalah and to
Kidush (Ner, on the other hand, does not require a Kos).
2. It would seem that Marsa in the name of Rav Yehoshua (*Ne*ya*ha*k) puts
Ner before Yayin - to avoid the impression that Yayin refers to Havdalah,
and not to Kidush.
(d) Rebbi Chanina compares this to a King who is leaving town (Shabbos), at
the same time as the governor (Yom-Tov) is coming in - does one not first
accompany the king before accompanying the governor?
1. ... Abaye puts Zeman before Ner - because, in his opinion, one should
first conclude Kidush, of which Zeman is an integral part.
2. ... Rava puts it at the end - because that is where it always goes. Why?
Because Zeman can be said anywhere, even in the street, and is not
intrinsically attached to Kidush.
(a) The author of the Mishnah in Berachos, which puts Ner before Besamim
according to both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, is Rebbi Meir. Rava however,
who inverts the order and puts Besamim first, holds like Rebbi Yehudah in a
Beraisa, in whose opinion, Beis Hillel give Besamim precedence over Ner.
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that
Birchas ha'Mazon comes before Havdalah - because, having eaten, he becomes
obligated to recite it, and 'Ein Ma'avirin Al ha'Mitzvos'.
(c) Their Machlokes, according to him, is whether Ner comes before Besamim
(Beis Shamai) or Besamim before Ner (Beis Hillel).
(d) Rebbi Yochanan concludes like Beis Hill, according to Rebbi Yehudah.
(a) Rav Ya'akov bar Aba queried Rav, when, he recited a Berachah over the
Kos shel Berachah - because he had already recited a Berachah a Berachah
over the cup that he had drunk earlier in the meal.
(b) He conceded however, that that was the right thing to do when eating by
the Resh Gelusa - because, when they would serve one cup of wine, he did not
know whether they would serve him another one, in which case he did not
expect to drink any more cups, and treated each cup as a separate entity.
(c) After the disciples of Rav had said 'Hav Lan ve'Nivrich!' and then 'Hav
Lan ve'Nishti!', Rav Yeiva Saba quoted Rav as saying that, once one says
'Hav Lan ve'Nivrich!', one is not permitted to drink until after Birchas
ha'Mazon before he has recited Birchas ha'Mazon (according to the Rif, one
is permitted to drink, but only with a fresh Berachah).
(d) We have proved from this episode that - even if, during the meal, one
intends to drink another cup of wine, and no second Berachah is required,
this will not be the case by someone who specifically breaks with the meal
by saying 'Hav Lan ve'Nivrich!', which is considered a Hesech ha'Da'as - and
certainly once he has actually recited Birchas ha'Mazon. Both of these cases
require a fresh Berachah over the next cup of wine.
(a) Ameimar recited a Berachah over each cup of wine that he drank - because
after each cup, he decided that he would not drink any more, and then
changed his mind.
(b) Mar Zutra, who recited a Berachah over the first and the last cups -
held like the Talmidim of Rav (see previous question).
(c) Rav Ashi recited a Berachah over the first cup only, which, in his
opinion, covered all subsequent cups - even the last one.
(d) Mar Zutra's proof from the Talmidim of Rav is not valid, he argues,
since the Halachah is not like them. How do we know that? Because when Yom-
Tov falls on Motza'ei Shabbos, Rav himself holds *Ya*k*ne*h, and does not
require a second Berachah for Havdalah; similarly, no second Berachah will
be required for Birchas Hamazon after Kidush either (in other words, Rav
Yeimar Saba has been proved wrong). (See Rashbam, who maintains that the
Halachah is not like Rav Ashi, because Rava and Mar Zutra are considered a
(a) When Rava explained to Rav Ya'akov bar Aba that his servant had acted on
his own initiative - Rav Ya'akov bar Aba argued that the servant would not
have kindled the torch, if he had not heard from his master that that was
the correct thing to do.
(b) The *real* reason that he kindled a torch, even though there was a light
already burning - was because it is a Mitzvah to use a torch for Havdalah.
(c) The text of Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi's Havdalah was 'Baruch ... Hamavdil
Bein Kodesh le'Chol'.