We are learning Aruch HaShulchan (The Set Table), section Reish-Ayin-Alef, subsection Lamed-Dalet. The Beit Yosef (House of Joseph) says that one must drink a meluah lugmav (a cheekful) from the cup of kiddush. That means you put the wine on one side of your mouth, so that you can see a bulge coming out of the side of his mouth. It is most of a revi'it (quarter-log measure). A revi'it is 3.2 ounces, so 1.7 ounces is already the shi'ur (measure) for kiddush.
This is also an important halachah. If the person who made kiddush did not drink the required amount, but someone else at the table drank a cheekful in one shot, it is still acceptable. However, the drinking of two people cannot be combined to make a cheekful. If everyone at the table together drinks a meluah lugmav, the Beit Yosef says that is not enough. Nevertheless, it is a mitzvah min hamuvchar (most preferred mitzvah) for everyone to taste from the kiddush. So there is some validity to passing the cup around.
Some say that if everyone together drank a cheekful, they have fulfilled their obligation, because everyone's drinking combines to make the measure. The Geonim (Geonim), however, hold that if the person who made kiddush did not taste it, he has not fulfilled his obligation, and it is proper to be concerned about their opinion. They are strict: they say the person making kiddush must drink. That is specifically for kiddush; regarding other matters that require a cup, the Geonim agree that it is enough for someone else to taste it.
The matter requires explanation. The Aruch HaShulchan is going to explain the Geonim's opinion. Continue to subsection Lamed-Heh: “It is explicitly established in Eruvin (Mixtures) that, for a kos shel berachah (cup of blessing), it is not essential for the person making the blessing to drink it; someone else can drink it.” That means that when it comes to a kos shel berachah, it does not matter who drinks it, as long as someone drinks the required shi'ur (measure).
The Gemara says this regarding Yom Hakippurim (the Day of Atonement). Abaye held that one should recite Shehecheyanu (Who has kept us alive) over the cup. The Gemara asks: “How does he do it? If he recites the blessing over it and drinks, once he has said the blessing of time, he has accepted Yom Kippur, and it is forbidden for him to drink.” The Gemara says to say Shehecheyanu and give it to a child.
Rashi explains that when we say the person making the blessing must taste it, that does not mean specifically the person making the blessing; the same applies to someone else. In other words, when it says that someone must drink from a cup of blessing, it does not mean that the person making the blessing must drink. Someone has to drink, which is why it can be given to a child. The reason is that it is a disgrace for a cup of blessing to go unused, with no one benefiting from it immediately. It is a disgrace for the blessing to go without being received. According to Rashi, then, the Gemara is saying that you do not have to drink it, but someone does have to drink it.
What did the Geonim say? They said that kiddush is different. Why is kiddush different? The Gemara in Eruvin clearly says that for a cup of blessing you do not have to drink it yourself; you can give it to someone else. How could the Geonim say that kiddush is different? Where do they get that idea?
They say in Pesachim (Passover): “If the person making kiddush drinks a cheekful, he has fulfilled his obligation; if not, he has not.” This suggests that the person making kiddush has to drink and benefit from the wine in the amount of a cheekful. The Geonim therefore read the Gemara in Pesachim very literally: the person making kiddush must drink a cheekful, and if he does not, he has not fulfilled his obligation.
The Aruch HaShulchan says that this is not understandable. The same language is used for a cup of blessing: the person making the blessing must taste it. Yet there, someone else is allowed to drink it. So the wording about the cup of kiddush is not necessarily specific to the person making kiddush. If someone else can drink from the cup of blessing, then the same should apply here.
The Rashbam explains: “The person making kiddush drinks a cheekful, provided that none of the other people at the table has tasted it. But if one of them tasted it, they have all fulfilled their obligation, even though they did not all taste it.” So clearly, the Rashbam says that as long as somebody else tasted it, it is acceptable; the person making kiddush does not have to taste it. This is also the opinion of most of the authorities.
So although the Aruch HaShulchan explains the Geonim, he says that most authorities do not agree with them. According to this, if someone made kiddush, he can say, “Baruch atah Hashem mekadesh hashabbat” (Blessed are You, Hashem, who sanctifies Shabbat), give the cup to the person next to him, and have that person drink a cheekful. Everyone has then fulfilled the obligation of kiddush. Obviously, he can drink it himself, too. According to some opinions, the amount can even be combined among the people at the table. We will see whether we can rely on that opinion. But a cheekful sounds like the minimum.
Continue: “The reason that the cheekful cannot be combined from the drinking of two people is that less than a cheekful does not provide complete benefit, and we require one person to receive complete benefit.” That is where they get the measure of a meluah lugmav: it is a measure of hana'ah (benefiting from the wine). Of course, even a drop provides some benefit, but that is not enough. If one person drinks .7 and another person drinks .9 or whatever it is, together that is a tzeruf (combination), but it is not the required measure of benefit. One person has to drink the measure.
But the Ritva, one of the Rishonim (early authorities), wrote in Eruvin, in the name of Tosfot (Additions), that the drinking of several people at the table can combine to make a cheekful. The reason is simple: there is certainly benefit even from a little wine. Even someone who drinks a little wine, less than 1.7 ounces, has hana'ah. You cannot say that there is no hana'ah. That is why we recite a blessing even over the smallest amount: even if you drink a drop of wine, do you not say borei peri hagefen (Creator of the fruit of the vine)? Why? Because there is benefit. So the Ritva says there is no problem if the amount is split among several people, because it is forbidden for a person to partake without a blessing.
The Aruch HaShulchan says, “le'aniyut da'ati (in my humble opinion), there is clear proof that the amount can be combined.” Even where the Torah explicitly requires eating, the amount can be combined when many people participate in the mitzvah. The Torah says to eat, and even where the Torah clearly says that something must be eaten, we see that it can be done by combining what several people eat. Where do we see that? With Lechem hapanim, the showbread.
In the parashah of Emor it says, “Ve'achluhu bemakom kadosh” (And they shall eat it in a holy place). Every act of eating is a kezayit (olive-sized measure), so, as is known, one must eat a kezayit of Lechem hapanim. Nevertheless, the Sages say at the beginning of the fourth chapter of Yoma (The Day) that each kohen received a portion the size of a bean, which is less than a kezayit. How could that be, if one has to eat a kezayit? It must be that together they ate a kezayit.
Just as combining portions worked for the showbread, the same law applies to kiddush: combining portions could work. Rashi explains there, “It must be that all their eating combines.” Don't be so sensitive, Joe. He's a big boy, he doesn't get offended like you. He's okay, he's leafy. There is another proof from that passage. The modest kohanim withdrew and did not eat at all. But the Torah commanded that it be eaten. How could some of them not eat? It must be that once the kohanim as a group were included, the Torah’s intention was not that each individual had to eat. Rather, the bread had to be eaten among them, and they fulfilled their obligation through what the others ate.
If so, kal vachomer (all the more so) for kiddush, where, according to most authorities, the cup is miderabbanan (rabbinic-level)—Bob's cheese. Even if it were de'oraita (Torah-level), there is no explicit mitzvah that it be eaten in the same way as the showbread. So the Aruch HaShulchan clearly seems to hold that combining portions works.
Now let us open the Shulchan Aruch (Prepared Table). We need to read two halachot. “Kol hashoneh shtei halachot” (one who studies two laws) every day is assured that he is a child of Olam Haba (World to Come). Open section Reish-Ayin-Alef. We will read Yud-Gimmel and Yud-Daled. We have almost finished this section.
Yud-Gimmel says that one must drink from the cup of kiddush a cheekful: that means an amount that, when moved to one side of the mouth, looks like a cheekful. It is most of a revi'it. There is no trick here: you have to drink most of a revi'it.
Yud-Daled says that if the person making kiddush did not taste it, but one of the people at the table tasted a cheekful, he has fulfilled his obligation. That is against the Geonim. Then it says that the drinking of two people cannot be combined to make a cheekful. That is against the Ritva. Maran (our master) clearly says that you cannot combine the drinking of two people; one person has to drink it. He does not follow the Aruch HaShulchan’s proofs from the showbread and the other examples.
Nevertheless, it is a mitzvah min hamuvchar for everyone to taste. So what is the point of passing the cup around? It is a most preferred mitzvah for everyone. The Mishnah Berurah explains that “everyone should taste” means merely tasting; only one person needs to drink a cheekful. If you do not have enough for tomorrow, do not let everyone drink. But if you have enough, pass the cup around. Even after one person has drunk a cheekful, pass it around.
Then the Shulchan Aruch says, “Some say that since they all tasted a cheekful between them, they have fulfilled their obligation, and everyone's drinking combines to make the measure.” Whose opinion is that? It is the Ritva’s. He says that you can combine the amount. But that is brought as “some say,” not as the plain ruling.
The Shulchan Aruch then brings the Geonim’s opinion that if the person making kiddush did not taste it, he has not fulfilled his obligation, and it is proper to be concerned about their opinion. The Mishnah Berurah explains that this is the preferred practice: ideally, choose someone who will drink when making kiddush. Do not choose someone to make kiddush if you are going to give the cup to the person next to him, because according to the Geonim you have not fulfilled the obligation. Ideally, try to have the person making kiddush drink; after the fact, of course, we can be lenient.
The Geonim said this specifically about kiddush. Regarding havdalah (separation) and other cups, they agree that it is enough for someone else to taste. That is specifically how they understood the Gemara in Pesachim, regarding the person making kiddush.
Let us see what the other authorities say about this. Open the Ben Ish Chai. In the second year of Bereshit, section Kaf-Gimmel, he says: “Ideally, the person making kiddush should taste a cheekful, and it is a most preferred mitzvah to drink a revi'it.” Where did that come from? Did we miss it? Who said you have to drink a revi'it? I thought it said a cheekful.
Go back to the Mishnah Berurah, section Yud-Gimmel, subsection Samech-Dalet. It says that one must drink, and if not, one has not fulfilled the obligation. You need an important measure that settles a person's mind, namely, a cheekful. You do not need to fill your mouth completely. That amount is enough even if the cup is large. I do not care how many revi'it measures the cup contains. You do not have to drink most of the cup; you just have to drink most of a revi'it.
For an average person, that is the measure. For a very large person, the measure of a cheekful is larger. Jack, your cheekful is bigger than that of an average person. Nevertheless, he does not need to drink more than a revi'it. He also discusses that a revi'it is almost the volume of two eggshells, the possibility that eggs have become smaller, and the requirement to drink it without a long pause—no more than the time it takes to drink a revi'it, or the time it takes to eat a peras.
There are those who are stringent. Where is that opinion? Is it ayin-bet? I know that after the fact—Yes, he is taking that opinion, because he is saying that kiddush is Torah-level and that one wants to drink the larger measure. Did we not already learn that some say the measure doubled because the egg became smaller? So the Ben Ish Chai is saying that ideally one should try to drink a revi'it.
The Ben Ish Chai continues: “After the fact, if the person making kiddush did not taste it, but one of the people at the table tasted a cheekful, they have all fulfilled their obligation. It is a most preferred mitzvah for everyone to taste.” Nowadays, we are not concerned about illness when drinking from a cup another person has used, provided it is clear that the person who made kiddush is healthy and does not have an illness. So the Ben Ish Chai’s innovation is that ideally he wants you to drink a revi'it.
Let us see what else we have. We have Chacham Ben Tzion and Chacham Ovadiah’s works. The important halachah is how much one must drink for kiddush. Halichot Olam says that the cup has to hold a revi'it, so these little cups and shot glasses are no good. How much does one have to drink? A cheekful, which is most of a revi'it—42 grams. It does not mention the Ben Ish Chai’s view here that one should drink a full revi'it.
Ideally, it is proper for the person making kiddush himself to drink. If he did not taste it, but someone at the table tasted a cheekful, after the fact they have all fulfilled their obligation. It also says that if the person making kiddush or someone else at the table tasted a little wine, even if nobody drank a cheekful, after the fact they have fulfilled their obligation of kiddush. We saw this halachah in Shabbat. This is a major innovation in this rabbi’s view. We will have to ask Rabbi Bitton where he got it. Chacham Ovadiah sounds as though at least a cheekful has to be drunk by him or by the person next to him. This source says that after the fact it is acceptable even if nobody drank a cheekful, not even by combining their drinking, and it quotes Chacham Ben Tzion. Unless you say that Chacham Ovadiah’s opinion was not clear at the time.
It then says that it is a most preferred mitzvah for everyone at the table to taste the wine. When the head of the household is sitting with his family, the custom is for the family members to taste from the cup. Some wipe the place from which the person drank, so they will not drink where his saliva touched. If you are sitting with people who are not family members and are careful not to drink from a cup someone else used, pour some of the wine into several cups. That way they do not have to drink from the same cup. You want to have a revi'it in the cup, though.
Someone suggested pouring the wine before the person drinks. No—drink from the cup first, and then pour. That is Kargarnejad's idea. Now it says that even someone who did not taste the wine has fulfilled the obligation of kiddush. People say, “I did not drink the wine,” but you do not have to drink it; someone else has to drink the wine for you, both at night kiddush and during the day. The tasting by the people at the table is not essential; it is only for the affection for the mitzvah.
Let us look at Chazon Ovadiah. The people at the table do not have to taste it. Section Reish-Ayin-Vav was not the right place; perhaps it is in the second volume. Let us look at Chacham Ben Tzion, at the end. It says that the person making kiddush must taste a cheekful, which is most of a revi'it. If he did not taste it, he has not fulfilled his obligation. But if one of the listeners tasted a cheekful, they have fulfilled their obligation. It is a most preferred mitzvah for all the listeners to taste some amount from the kiddush cup, for the affection for the mitzvah.
It then discusses the point that tasting is required by law. The Rav of Batei Yehudah wrote that, by law, the people at the table need to taste at least a little. As a mitzvah, each one would have to taste a cheekful? What kind of cup would that be? Not like the Taz? That is not what the great authorities indicate. The Gerit wrote in Erech HaShulchan that it is a most preferred mitzvah for everyone to taste, meaning just a little, not that each one needs a cheekful. The same is demonstrated from the words of Maharam Chalawah.
Although we have said that it is a mitzvah for everyone at the table to taste from the kiddush cup, Maran wrote that a person should not drink from the cup and give it to his fellow, because it is dangerous, as is taught in the testament of Rabbi Eliezer the Great, who strongly warned against it. Perhaps the person has some illness. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach discussed this in Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah, in connection with Friday evening. Maran also wrote that after drinking from the wine, one should wipe the place where the mouth touched the cup. This suggests that with an ordinary healthy person there is no concern. Kaf HaChaim writes that wiping the place where the mouth touched applies when you know the person. If he were sick, what difference would wiping the cup make? The illness would already be in the wine. It must mean that you know the person is not sick, but you are fussy and do not like drinking where someone else's saliva touched.
Zivchei Tzedek, Rav Abdallah Somech, discusses the custom of the world: after the person making kiddush tastes the wine, he gives the cup to everyone in the household. Why are we not concerned about what Maran says? He says that they taste after the person making kiddush wipes the place where his mouth touched the cup. If you are not an istinis, it is okay. So that is the issue: affection for the mitzvah, as we read in the Ben Ish Chai.
What about the custom of placing a few cups around when there are four or five families? The person making kiddush holds one cup, and the others hold cups too. Is the cup each person is holding considered a cup of kiddush? In a hotel, he could use it. He hears the blessing, and he is holding a cup. Is that cup, ideally, part of the kiddush? That is what we do on Pesach the first night: everybody has a cup. Of course, he has fulfilled the obligation of kiddush. The question is whether that counts as drinking from the wine for the affection for the mitzvah.
Does he have to drink a cheekful from his own cup, or does he have to drink from the person’s cup? He does not have to drink anything to fulfill the obligation, because he fulfills it through the person making kiddush’s cheekful. But if he drinks from his own cup for the affection for the mitzvah, what is that cup? Is it a cup of kiddush, or just a random cup? We have to look into the question.
People sometimes hold a few cups around. Maybe Menuchat Ahavah (Rest of Love) discusses it. Could it simply be to make everyone feel involved, a feel-good factor? Maybe. But is the cup someone is holding considered a cup of kiddush? Let us say the person making kiddush does not drink anything and someone else drinks from one of those cups. Is that considered the wine of kiddush? At synagogue, everybody gets a small cup of grape juice. Does anyone drink from the actual cup? Perhaps there is a reason to say that it counts, but I am not saying that is certain.
Would even the Geonim agree? Surely not, you might say, because they say the person making kiddush has to drink. The Geonim's case is one cup with no one else having a cup in front of them: he has to drink and cannot give it to someone else. But if everybody has a cup in front of them, all of them are making kiddush. He is a person making kiddush through hearing, shome'a ke'oneh (hearing is like answering)—which means he is making kiddush on that cup. On Shabbat morning in synagogue, when they give out grape juice or wine, it is a mitzvah to taste. But they are not tasting from the actual cup; they have their own. Is that just for the affection for the mitzvah? If they have to drink from the actual cup, that is a cup of kiddush. But if someone pours the wine into another person's cup, they are drinking the wine, not the cup. So, as with the fountains, where they pour the wine around the table, they are drinking from the wine. I want to know, though, whether someone holding a separate cup is included. We have to check that question.
Let us see what Rabbi Moshe HaLevi says. What is the practical difference—is it for the affection for the mitzvah or not? That is the question we are discussing. This source says one must drink a cheekful from the cup of kiddush, which is most of a revi'it. A person with a larger-than-average mouth needs to drink at least a revi'it, and should drink it in one shot. Ideally, the person making kiddush should drink it himself. If he cannot, he can give it to someone else. After the fact, even if none of the people at the table drank most of a revi'it individually, but they all drank together, they have fulfilled their obligation. He says that after the fact one can rely on combining their drinking, because some say it works—the Ritva’s opinion.
Nevertheless, if you know in advance that no one at the table can drink most of a revi'it, you should make kiddush over bread. That is another innovation. Chacham Ovadiah is not lenient about combining the amounts. He does not accept this combining business.
Now, what does it say in section Tet-Zayin, subsection Yud-Zayin? “The people at the table should not taste before the person making kiddush tastes, if they need his cup because he pours from it into their empty cups or into blemished cups. But if they have their own cups of wine, which are not blemished, they may drink before the person making kiddush drinks. There is no need to pour from the person making kiddush’s cup into the wine cups in front of the people at the table.” Is this the laws of blessings or the laws of kiddush? It is the laws of Shabbat—the same thing we are discussing.
What does that mean? It says, “The people at the table should not taste”—that means even if they have cups of their own for drinking. Tell me what it means. Let me continue reading: “It is a most preferred mitzvah for everyone at the table to taste from the kiddush cup, even though the person making kiddush has already drunk the required amount. This is the practice. However, they should not taste before the person making kiddush tastes.” I guess that could happen if he pours some wine into someone else’s cup and they drink before he does, or if they take the cup out of his hand. But this source does not discuss that case either.
In practice, we are coming out that one should drink a revi'it, or most of a revi'it. Now, what does Chacham Ben Tzion hold regarding combining the amounts for kiddush? He asks: if no one in the household can drink the measure of a cheekful, can each person drink a little and combine it together? Menuchat Ahavah says yes: after the fact, they have fulfilled the obligation. Chacham Ben Tzion says that ideally the person making kiddush should drink a cheekful; if he cannot, one of the people at the table should drink it. If no one can drink a cheekful, it is preferable to make kiddush over bread.
What did Yalkut Yosef say? He says that even if they all did not taste a cheekful, they have still fulfilled the obligation. But that is another case. I want to know specifically about combining the amounts. If I am not mistaken, Chacham Ovadiah was against combining them. It does not say it here; we will have to see. In practice, Menuchat Ahavah is lenient about combining them after the fact.
So the levels are: the person making kiddush drinks; another person drinks; or they combine the amount. Maran did not accept combining as the plain ruling. He brought “some say,” but that is all. Chacham Ben Tzion says that if that is what you have to rely on, it is better to make kiddush over bread. But who says that combining works after the fact? They say that it does. After the fact, one could fulfill the obligation, but ideally one should not rely on it. Menuchat Ahavah also says that after the fact it works. If you know in advance that no one person will be able to drink it, Chacham Ben Tzion says you should also make kiddush over bread.
That is an important halachah. What is the innovation? After the fact, even if no one person drank the amount, they may have fulfilled the obligation. But if you know in advance that one person cannot drink the whole amount, make kiddush over bread. Ideally, one person among those at the table should drink it. Combining the amount is one opinion, but we do not want you to rely on it ideally. Is it not better for everyone to drink some than to use bread? No, bread is better. That is what he is saying: Chacham Ben Tzion says bread is better than combining the amount, because Maran did not really accept that opinion. He brought it as “some say,” but he does not rule according to that opinion.
He writes that in section Yud-Daled of the Shulchan Aruch, he brings a dispute about whether the drinking can be combined, since the people are not considered to have joined together. The plain ruling is that it cannot be combined, and he brings “some say” that it can. It is clear that this is only after the fact. Therefore, at night, the ruling is to use bread. I guess in the daytime you're stuck; you can't make it on bread, so then you'd have to rely on combining the amounts. Nevertheless, if someone can drink a cheekful, you should give him the kiddush even if he is not the head of the household. If your 95-year-old great-grandfather is honored to make kiddush but cannot drink a cheekful, let the 13-year-old grandson make kiddush. It may not be as respectful, but he can drink the required amount.
The Mishnah Berurah, in subsection Samech-Tet, writes in the name of the Shulchan Aruch that the person who drinks should be one of the people at the table who intended to fulfill the obligation of kiddush. If someone else drank, without intending to fulfill the obligation, and that person made a blessing on his own, it seems from the Shulchan Aruch that they do not fulfill their obligation through his tasting.
The Mishnah Berurah says: “One of the people at the table—since they heard the blessing at the beginning, and he intended to fulfill their obligations, their tasting is effective for all of them. But if someone else drank, someone for whom the blessing was not intended, and that other person made a new blessing, it seems they do not fulfill their obligation through his tasting, and it is as though the cup had already spilled.” The Mishnah Berurah wants to say that it may only help if the person was included in the intention. A person who was doing his own thing may not help everyone.
Chacham Ben Tzion says that this is not determined by the Shulchan Aruch. Although the Shulchan Aruch wrote “one of the people at the table,” he does not mean that if the drinker is not one of them, it does not help. Rather, if the person is not one of them and did not intend to fulfill the obligation, he has to recite borei peri hagefen himself. That is different from the people at the table. When one person makes the blessing, they fulfill their obligation by hearing it, even if he himself did not fulfill his obligation through this kiddush.
That is very interesting: you can fulfill your obligation even if the person who drank did not fulfill his own obligation of kiddush, as long as he drank a revi'it from the cup and recited borei peri hagefen. The proof is that we establish that someone who has already fulfilled his obligation can fulfill it for someone else, and we have not seen any authority say that the person making kiddush’s drinking of a cheekful does not help the listeners.
Let us say I already made kiddush. I can fulfill someone else’s obligation of kiddush, and I can drink even though I have already made kiddush. My kiddush is for you; I am not fulfilling my own obligation with this kiddush. Still, my drinking can fulfill the obligation for others. I would not say, “You already made kiddush, so give it to someone who has not yet heard kiddush.” I made kiddush at synagogue, and now I go home and make kiddush for my wife. I fulfill her obligation, and I drink the wine. It is not the case that because I already made kiddush, she has to drink. Rather, they fulfill their obligation even though the person who drank has already fulfilled his own obligation.
He adds that, for the blessing after meals, combining the listeners’ drinking to make a cheekful does not help, because the cup for the blessing after meals is for the sake of joy, and therefore one person has to drink the entire cheekful. In any case, it does not have to be the person making the blessing who drinks; someone else can drink. But there, even after the fact, it is a...