Those people who made kiddush in synagogue — Rav said the obligation on wine they have not discharged, but the obligation to sanctify the day they have discharged. And Shmuel said 101a even the obligation to sanctify they have not discharged.
Rather, for Rav, why does the one who said kiddush in the synagogue also say kiddush in his house? In order to discharge the obligation on his son and the members of his household.
And for Shmuel, why do I need to say kiddush in the synagogue? To fulfil the obligation of guests, for they eat and drink and sleep in the synagogue.
And Shmuel is consistent in his reason, for Shmuel said: there is no recitation of kiddush except in the place where the meal is. They deduced from this: it is forbidden to travel during the meal from house to house, but from place to place within a single house is not forbidden.
Rav Anan bar Tachalifa said to them: Oftentimes I was standing in the presence of Shmuel, and he came down from the roof to the ground floor, and repeated kiddush.
And also Rav Hunah reasoned: there is no kiddush except in the place of the meal. For once Rav Huna made kiddush, and he knocked over the lamp, and so he carried his place setting to the chamber of Rabah his son, where there was a lamp, and he made kiddush and tasted some food. We can thus say he reasons: there is no kiddush except in the place of the meal.
And also Rabah reasoned: there is no kiddush except in the place of the meal. For Abaye said: For I was in the house of the master Rabah, and when he would make kiddush he said to us: taste something; for perhaps when you enter your apartments you’ll knock over your lamp, and you won’t make kiddush in the house where you eat, and with the kiddush from here you will not fulfil your obligation, for there is no kiddush except in the place of the meal.
For thus spoke Abaye: In all things did master Rabbah do like Rab did, except for these three things where he did like Shmuel: he permitted transferring tzitzit from garment to garment, and lighting from one Chanukah lamp to lamp, and he ruled that the halacha is like Rabbi Shimon in dragging — as it is taught, Rabbi Shimon says: a person may drag a bed, chair, or bench across a dirt floor on Shabbat, but only if it is not his intention to make a furrow. Like the stringent rulings of Rav did he Rabbah act, like the lenient rulings of Rav he did not act.
Returning to the topic of those who make kiddush in the synagogue: And Rabbi Yochanan said, Even the obligation on wine he has also discharged. Recall that both Rav and Shmuel agreed that the obligation on wine was not discharged by making kiddush in the synagogue; Rav said the obligation on the sanctification of the day was discharged while Shmuel said neither was discharged. So Rabbi Yochanan says both obligations are discharged by kiddush in synagogue.
Rabbi Yochanan is consistent in his reasoning, for Rav Chanin the sone of Abaye said that Rabbi Pedat said that Rabbi Yochanan said: one who changes wines 101b and one who changes places — it is not necessary for either of them to bless a second time. They challenged him from this teaching: One who changes places, it is necessary for him to bless a second time, one who changes wines, it is not necessary for him to bless a second time. This refutes Rabbi Yochanan, and he is refuted.
Rav Idi the son of Avin sat before Rav Chisdah, and Rav Chisdah sat and said in the name of Rav Huna: That which you said, that a change of place requires that one bless a second time, they did not teach that except when moving from house to house; but from place to place within a single house, no one need not make a second kiddush. Rav Idi the son of Adin said to him: that is what we learned in a baraita of of the house of Rav Hinak (and others say in a baraita of the house of the son of Hinak) like what you said. So rather, Rav Huna taught a baraita? That is what we should learn? Rav Huna had not heard that baraita.
And, too, Rav Chisdah sat and said in his own name: That which you said — a change of place requires one to bless again — was not said except in matters which do not require a blessing to be made after them in the same place, but things which do require a blessing after them in their place, they do not require a second blessing. What is the reason? He established the first place, to which he intends to return. Since he will need to return to the first place to make the after-blessing, his second place is considered subordinate to the first place, rather than a separate meal.
And Rav Sheishet said: both one of this category and one of this category require a second blessing. Regardless of whether one needs to return for the after-blessing, Rav Sheishet rules that one must make a second kiddush. They challenged him: The members of a fellowship that had reclined together to drink, and they arose to their feet to go out to greet a groom or greet a bride, when they go out, they are not required to make a blessing before they leave – i.e., the blessing to conclude the meal that they are interrupting, and when they return, they are not required to make a blessing at the beginning of the resumption of their meal. In what matters are we saying this? when an elderly person or an ill person is left behind so that there is at least one continuous presence connecting the two parts of the interrupted meal. But if they do not leave someone behind there – neither an elder nor an ill person – then when they go out, they are required to make a blessing in conclusion of the meal they are interrupting, and when they return, they are required to make a blessing at the beginning of the resumption of the meal.
This ends the baraita that is being cited to challenge Rav Sheishet. The gemara will now clarify the nature of the challenge.
When the baraita teaches “they arose to their feet” – it teaches that we are dealing with matters that require a blessing afterwards in their place. And the reason that they need not make that blessing is that they left behind there an elder or an ill person; he causes that, when they leave, does not require a blessing afterwards, and when they return, does not require a blessing before resuming. But if they do not leave behind there an elder or sick person, then when they leave it requires a blessing after eating, and when they return, it requires a blessing before resuming.
This is a difficulty for Rav Chisda!