May one say Havdala and have another person drink the wine?[1]
It is permitted for one to say Havdala over wine and have someone else who listened to the blessing, drink a Revius[2] of the wine.[3]
Giving the wine to drink to a woman: It is best not to give the wine to a woman to drink if other adults are available.[4] If however one did so he has fulfilled his obligation.[5]
Giving the wine to drink to one who has already heard Havdala:[6] One may even initially give the wine to a person who has already heard Havdala. [The above follows the ruling of Admur in 190/4. In however 295/4 Admur rules in parentheses the Havdala wine must be drank by someone who is fulfilling his obligation with this Havdala, otherwise no one fulfills their obligation. This is a direct contradiction to the ruling in 190/4, and so makes mention Ketzos Hashulchan[7] and Tehila Ledavid[8]. Practically they rule like 190/4, as we wrote above. Others[9] however conclude based on this contradiction that initially one may only give the Havdala wine to one who is fulfilling his obligation with this Havdala[10]. In a case of need or Bedieved, they agree that one fulfills his obligation.]
Giving the wine to a child to drink:[11] One may give the Havdala wine even to a child to drink [whether male or female[12]], if the child has reached the age of Chinuch for blessings.[13] The wine however may not initially be given to a child who has not reached the age of Chinuch for blessings.[14] Bedieved if one did so he has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation of Havdala.[15] [The above follows the ruling of Admur in 190/4. In however 295/4 Admur rules in parentheses the Havdala wine must be drank by someone who is fulfilling his obligation with this Havdala, otherwise no one fulfills their obligation. It may thus not be drunk by children. This is a direct contradiction to the ruling in 190/4, and so makes mention Ketzos Hashulchan[16] and Tehila Ledavid[17]. Practically they rule like 190/4, as we wrote above. Others[18] however conclude based on this contradiction that initially one may only give the Havdala wine to one who is fulfilling his obligation with this Havdala[19], or to a [male] child which has reached the age of Chinuch for Havdala[20]. In a case of need or Bedieved, they agree that one fulfills his obligation with a child drinking as written above.]
How much does the child have to drink?[21] When giving wine of Havdala to a child, the child must drink Malei Lugmav, which is enough wine to fill one of his cheeks.
Summary
It is not necessary that the person who said Havdala to drink the wine. However the wine is to initially be drunk by someone who listened to the Havdala and fulfilled his obligation. In a case of need the wine may be drunk by any Jew, even children. The wine is not initially to be given to a woman to drink although if one did so he fulfills his obligation.
Q&A
If one is unable to drink wine is it better for him to say Havdala and have another person drink the wine rather than have someone else repeat Havdala for him?
This matter requires further analysis.[22]
If one cannot drink wine and there are other Chomer Medina drinks available should he say Havdala over the wine having another person drink it, or should he simply use other beverages and drink it himself?
It requires further analysis as to what is the better choice. To have someone else drink the wine or that he drink Chomer Medina. Both the saying of Havdala on wine, and the drinking of the wine oneself rather than giving it to another are matters of Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar.[23]
[1] 190/4; 271/25
[2] 190/6; In order so he can say a Bracha Achrona however from the letter of the law Metzad Havdala only Maleh Lugmav is required as it says there, and in 271/25
[3] 190/4: By Kiddush and Havdala one may say even the blessing of Hagafen for another person to drink.
271/25: By Havdala one may even initially say Havdala and have another one of the Mesubim drink from it.
So rules also Kaf Hachaim 299/32
Other Opinions: Elya Raba rules one may only say Havdala and have someone else drink the wine if the other person does not know to say the blessing [of Hagafen] himself or for the sake of a child. [Brought in Kaf Hachaim ibid] It is however clear from Admur that it is allowed even for an adult that knows to say the blessing.
[4] As it is accustomed for woman not to drink the Havdala wine. This is besides the fact that in 295/4 Admur requires one who is fulfilling his obligation of Havdala to drink the wine, and it is disputed whether women are obligated in Havdala. [See next two cases for an analyses of this ruling].
[5] As rules Admur in 190/4. See next Halachos.
[6] So is implied from 190/4 that no mention is made that the drinker must be someone who needs to be Yotzei the Mitzvah, as well as that the main issue regarding the Bracha is the Hagafen which one can say for someone else.
[7] 97 footnote 6
[8] 295/1
[9] Kitzur Halachos ibid
[10] As rules Admur in 295/4. They explain the contradiction by saying in 295/4 Admur is referring g to the law in Lechatchilah, that Lechatchilah only one who fulfills his obligation is to drink it, and this itself he placed in parentheses due to doubt. However Bedieved even in 295/5 Admur agrees one fulfills his obligation, and therefore Admur there wrote the law in a future tense rather than past, as he wrote “one is unable to fulfill his obligation” rather than “one did not fulfill his obligation”. [Vetzaruch Iyun on the veracity of this inference]
[11] 190/4; See Kitzur Halachos 295 footnote 5 and Miluim p. 109-112 for an extensive elaboration on this subject and its contradiction with 295/4. Some of his conclusions have been brought later on. His conclusion there however does not agree with our first ruling written here.
[12] As the issue here is the child being the age of Chinuch for blessings, and not of him being the age of Chinuch for Havdala, in which case it is questionable whether women or girls are obligated.
[13] From the aspect of Havdala the wine may be given to any Jew, even a one day old baby, and through doing so one has fulfilled his obligation. As the institution of the Sages was that any Jew benefit from the Kos Shel Bracha. Nevertheless initially one is only to give the wine to a child which has reached the age of Chinuch, as the blessing of Hagafen may only be said for a child which has reached the age of Chinuch, according to the first opinion in 190/4. [ibid]
[14] As according to the first opinion in 190/4 the blessing of Hagafen for this child is a blessing in vain. [ibid]
[15] This applies according to all, as all agree so long as a Jew, even a baby, has drunk the wine he has fulfilled his obligation. [See previous footnotes]
[16] 97 footnote 6
[17] 295/1
[18] Kitzur Halachos ibid
[19] As rules Admur in 295/4. They explain the contradiction by saying in 295/4 Admur is referring to the law in Lechatchilah, that Lechatchilah only one who fulfills his obligation is to drink it, and this itself he placed in parentheses due to doubt. However Bedieved even in 295/5 Admur agrees one fulfills his obligation, and therefore Admur there wrote the law in a future tense rather than past, as he wrote “one is unable to fulfill his obligation” rather than “one did not fulfill his obligation”. [Vetzaruch Iyun on the veracity of this inference]
[20] As opposed to a child which has reached the age of blessings. Vetzaruch Iyun on their source for allowing a child which has reached the age of Havdala, in accordance to Admur in 295/4, as either way such a Katan is not fully obligated as is an adult. Furthermore, in 190/4 Admur differentiates between an older child and younger child, while here in 295/4 he simply writes one may not give it to children, implying any child, even if he has reached the age of Chinuch. Hence seemingly according to 295 /4 one may never give it to any child, and one who desires to be stringent like that opinion, is to only give the wine to another adult male which is fulfilling his obligation.
[21] 190/4
[22] Perhaps it is better for him to say Havdala and have another drink the wine, than to have someone else do it for him if that other person has already heard Havdala. The reason for this is because one is not allowed to have someone else which already heard Havdala say Havdala for him if he can say the blessings himself. [As rules Admur in 296/17] On the other hand if one gives another person which already heard Havdala to drink he is entering himself into the contradiction between 190/4 and 295/4 regarding if one who is fulfilling Havdala must drink the wine.
[23] As rules Admur in 190/4 (in the first long parenthesize) regarding drinking the wine himself, and as rules Admur in 296/8 regarding Chomer Medinah.
Now, with regards to the ruling of Admur in 272/25 regarding that by all Kos Shel Brachos other than Kiddush one need not drink the wine himself seemingly this is simply coming to say that Bedieved/Shaas Hadchak one is Yotzei even according to the Geonim in these cases and not that there is no inyan at all for the actual person to drink. Rather it still remains a Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar for him to drink it and it is just that if he does not all agree that he is Yotzei. One must say this as otherwise this ruling would be in contradiction to the ruling in 190/4
Leave A Comment?
You must be logged in to post a comment.