Based on my question here and the sources given by Double AA here it would seem logical that if ata chonantanu was the original havdala (and that is why we would say it even if we had already heard havdala over wine) then if one said that, they would not be obligated to hear havdala over wine.
Why is this not the case?
Answer
The quoted gemoro (Brachot 33a) says:
א״ל בתחלה קבעוה בתפלה העשירו קבעוה על הכוס הענו חזרו וקבעוה בתפלה והם אמרו המבדיל בתפלה צריך שיבדיל על הכוס At first they fixed havdolo in the prayer. When the people grew richer, they fixed it over a cup (of wine). When the people grew poor again, they fixed it in the prayer. And they said (I assume later when they had wine) someone who says havdolo in prayer, has to make it also over a cup.
Rava (Brachot 33b) explains that this was meant to mirror the model of Kiddush where we recite a blessing of Kiddush in prayer and repeat the Kiddush with wine at home. See also here.
No comments:
Post a Comment