Wednesday, July 11, 2007

kiddush during tosefes shabbos

Before I forget about it, AddeRabbi has an interesting thread going about davening mincha after plag and ma’ariv early for those who make early Shabbos. I just want to throw out on a related note that the gemara (brachos 27b) relates that Rav was mekabeil Shabbos by davening early and the gemara raises the question of whether Rav also said kiddush early or not (the conclusion is that he did; it is permissible to say kiddush before nightfall). Food for thought: if Rav was mekabeil Shabbos early, why would the gemara entertain the thought that it is not permitted to recite kiddush during this time of tosefes Shabbos?

10 comments:

  1. anon19:47 AM

    Doesnt this just get back to the point that tosefes may not be for all purposes of kedushas ha-yom but just for issur melecaha? THe achronim discuss this in the sugya in the last perek of yoma, in part based on what is the makor of the din of tosefes. In addition, some rishonim learn the whole hagdarah of the din of tosefes is to avoid the safek (Riaz in Yoma, also discussed by Ran in Beitzah, and implied by Rabenu Chananel in Sukah). In that case, it would preferable (or perhaps not permissible) to make kiddush during a time when it is only a "safek" -- especially given that kiddush friday night is deoraysa. Of course, this last point is far from muskam (the achronim point out that the Rambam who appears not to hold of tosefes shabbos at all still allows kiddush early per the gemara in berachos). But all of this would at least support a hava amina of the gemara.

    ReplyDelete
  2. anon19:49 AM

    Just to clarify -- the rishonim who say that tosefes is to avoid safek imply that the zeman of tosefes is not before shekiyah but rather during bein ha-shemashos.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just to clarify, you are proposing two different answers(?):
    1) tosefes is an issur melacha but not an extension of the kedushas hayom (BTW, discusse this one before: http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2006/04/tosefes-yt-extension-of-kedushas-yt-or.html)
    2) the geder of tosefes is simply to avoid a safeik; saying kiddush during that zman would add to the safeik. (I was not aware of this Riaz - good catch).
    To flip the issue from a question of how tosefes works to a question of how kiddush works, perhaps the hava amina is debating (assuming tosefes is only derabbanan) whether a kiyum d'oraysa of kiddush can be fulfilled during a derabbanan extension of Shabbos (see http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2006/04/mechuyav-derabbanan-being-motzi.html for a discussion of the Mordechai's shita that this works).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mike S.12:05 PM

    Well, if Rav davened Ma'ariv early, at least using the nusach we use, did he not fulfill the d'oraita mitzvah of kiddush when he said vayechulu in the Amidah? The obligation of kiddush al ha Kos is d'rabbanan also.
    (Although this requires choosing a shita in the well known machlocket of whether the Rabbinic requirement of Kiddush al ha Kos removes the kiyum d'oiraita from the davening. IIRC the whole issue is reviewed nicely by Minhat Chinuch.) In that case the Gemarra is clearly stating that one can fulfill the mitzvah of kiddush early, so we need not even ask about the obligation D'rabbanan for Kiddush al haKos.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Chaim,

    yeah, I was proposing two answers. (Derech agav, I though perhaps Rashi's two peshatim on Vayechal Elokim ba-yom ha-shevii related to whether you understood tosefes as a safek. Ve-ein kan mekomo).

    The minchas chinuch, I believe, discusses the Mordechai and that whole issue re: kiddush and a few other contexts. I remember (I think - this goes back a bit) R'Mayer Twersky suggesting that being mekayem zachor es yom hashabbos kekadsho does not require the kedushas ha-yom -- one can make kiddush samuch le-shabbos, even if it is stll techinically Friday and that is still remembering it "be-kenisaso" - i.e., right before it starts -- as opposed to what we do is right after shabbos starts.

    ReplyDelete
  6. >>>being mekayem zachor es yom hashabbos kekadsho does not require the kedushas ha-yom

    Believe this is the hesber of the Rambam's shita, as he does not have a din of tosefes but does hold one can say kiddush early, but I don't think it fits the Mordechai.

    Mike S. - lets say the gemara's safeik is only about kiddush derabbanan al hakos. How does that help?

    Along these lines, I thought another possibility might be according to the shita that holds seudas shabbos can only be eaten after dark, could kiddush be recited early, or would this be a chisaron of not having kiddush b'makom seudah (IOW, can you say kiddush early and continue the meal after dark, eating a k'beitzah of pas then, or would this not be a proper kiyum of kiddush b'makom seudah)?
    (The last point may be stretching things a bit thin).

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Rav devoted one of his Yahrzeit shiurim to this whole subject.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mike S.8:02 PM

    Chaim B: If the Gemarra's kushya is only about Kiddush al a kos, then from the fact that Rav could fulfill his D'oraita obligation by early t'fila would seem to establish, a fortiori, that he can fulfil his obligation d'rabbanan early.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In a related issue i was wondering lately if the correct way to do this according to the Rambam and probably his understanding of the gemara, to say the shemona Esreh only followed by kiddush before the zman. but Kryat shema and the berachot later either during the meal or immediately after (probably the former). That would fit nicely with Shmuel in Brachot 27b Rambam in Tefilah 3:7 where he finishes off ubilvad sheykra kryiat shema beonata achar tzet hakochavim (which includes the brachot) and Shabbat 29:11.


    If i am correct there is no smichut Geula litfilah at ma'ariv (see RYBS on Psukei dezimrah where he argues that Kadish before Shmone Esreh at Ma'ariv is for that reason).

    Just a thought!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I recall my rebbe R' Sacks in Passaic once discussing why no one suggests making Shabbos early and just not davening ma'ariv until night, but l'da'avoni I do not remember the reasoning.

    ReplyDelete