From the Rav’s Desk: Pouring the Kiddush wine into a second cup, and drinking from the second cup

1. Question: [Thursday, 4th Shevat 5781]

I am accustomed when I make Kiddush to pour out some of the wine into another cup prior to drinking from it, as brought down in the Alter Rebbe in order to avoid the issue of Pagum for the listeners who will be drinking from my cup of wine. I then drink from the second cup that I poured into and not from the original cup that I said Kiddush on. Someone recently told me that this is not correct. Is there any issue with doing so?

Answer:

The person who brought up the issue is correct. Certainly, according to the final ruling of the Achronim, you are to drink from the original cup that the Kiddush was said on and not drink from the second cup. Also, when you pour out into another cup after the blessing, prior to your drinking [for the sake of the listeners drinking non-Pagum wine], you must make sure not to pour out too much wine into the second cup, as a Revius of wine must remain in your original kiddish cup at the time that you drink from it. [Accordingly, those who make Kiddush using a cup that contains only the minimum measurement of a Revius, must drink from it right away after they make Kiddush and may not first pour it into another cup, being that doing so would cause it to have less than a Revius at the time of the drinking.] Also, you should not choose to pour a Revius of wine into the second cup and drink from the second cup, as initially one is to always drink from the original cup that the kiddush was said on. Nonetheless, Bedieved, if one was not careful in this and poured the wine into a second cup and drank from that cup Malei Lugmav, then he fulfills his obligation [seemingly even if he did not pour a Revius into that cup, Vetzaruch Iyun].

Explanation: The law is that a Kos Shel Bracha must contain a Revius of wine. However, it is disputed amongst the Poskim as to whether this requirement for the Kiddush cup to hold a Revius of wine is only when one recites the original blessings of Kiddush but not by the actual drinking [and hence one may pour a nice amount into a second cup after the Kiddush, before drinking from it, even if a Revius will not remain when one drinks from the original cup] or if also when one drinks from the cup, the cup is required to contain a revius of wine. Practically, while the Michaber rules like the former approach, Admur and many other Poskim rule like the latter approach that the cup must contain a Revius also at the time of the drinking, as one is required to also drink from a Kos Shel Bracha, and a Kos Shel Bracha must contain a Revius of wine for it to be defined as such. Thus, it is not valid for one to pour the wine from the Kiddush Cup into a second cup and then drink from the second cup if the second cup does not contain a Revius, [and all the more so if it does not even contain Malei Lugmav, in which case he does not fulfill his obligation of Kiddush!]. Furthermore, one can argue that one should not pour it into a second cup and drink from the second cup even if one were to pour a Revius of wine into the second cup, being that it is not the original cup that one said Kiddush over and perhaps one is to initially drink from the same cup that the Kiddush was said over, and so indeed record the Poskim based on Kabbalah that one should always drink from the original cup of Kiddush. Accordingly, even when pouring to another cup for the sake of being Mitaken the wine, one should always drink from the original Kiddush cup, and always make sure that a Revius of wine remains in the Kiddish Cup when he comes to drink from it. Nonetheless, Bedieved, if one was not careful in this and poured the wine into a second cup and drank from that cup Malei Lugmav, then he fulfills his obligation [seemingly even if he did not pour a Revius into that cup, Vetzaruch Iyun].

Sources: See regarding the requirement for the Kiddish Cup to always retain a Revius of wine even after the kiddish, at the time of the drinking: Stringent opinion: Admur 271:20 “One is to be careful that a Revius remains in this cup in order to taste from this Revius, as there is no Kos Shel Bracha with less than a Revius.”; [See also Admur 190:5 “Pour out Me’at of the wine,” which perhaps hints to this idea] M”A 271:24 based on Tosafus Pesachim 105b, Aguda 84, Rosh Brachos 8:2 and he concludes “Certainly if the Beis Yosef would have seen this ruling of the Tosafus he would have ruled like him”; Machatzis Hashekel on M”A ibid in length for explanation of source of M”A ibid; Tosefes Shabbos 271; M”B 271:51; Poskim in Kaf Hachaim 271:69; Mishnas Yosef 4:35; Piskeiy Teshuvos 271:32 footnote 323;  For the lenient opinion in this matter see: Michaber 271:11 based on Rabbeinu Yerucham 12:1; Elya Raba 271:24 that it is better to drink from the second cup without a Revius as if drink from cup with Revius the wine poured out becomes Pagum; Nesiv Chaim on M”A ibid that according to conclusion of Gemara, one is not required to have a Revius also when one drinks from the cup; Achronim in Kaf Hachaim 271:69; Shaar Hatziyon 271:53 that even according to this opinion he must drink Malei Lugmav from second cup; See regarding Bedieved that one is Yotzei even if he drank from cup with less than Revius: Piskeiy Teshuvos 271:32 footnote 323 See regarding that on the other hand the cup is not required to be full until the top at the time of drinking, and this requirement is only when the blessing is said: See Admur 271:20; 190:5; 271:29-30; P”M 182 M”Z 4; See regarding that from the letter of the law one may pour the wine into another cup and drink from the second cup: Michaber 271:11; Admur 271:27 regarding if cup spilled; Piskeiy Teshuvos 271:32 footnote 325; See regarding that initially one is to drink from the actual cup that the Kiddush was said on: Implication of Admur 271:20 and M”A 271:24 who does not mention this option of pouring a Revius of wine into the second cup and drinking from the second cup, unlike Michaber ibid, See also Admur 190:5, 271:29-30; Kaf Hachaim 271:69 based on Kabbalah; Piskeiy Teshuvos 271:32 footnote 322 based on Admur and M”A ibid