Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 294:9-296:1

Sugya Map

• Issue: The Havdalah transition—specifically, the shiur of the kos and the kedushah of the Borei Me’orei Ha’esh blessing when performed in a vacuum of ritual necessity.
• Primary Sources: Arukh HaShulchan, O.C. 294:9–296:1; Pesachim 103b; Berakhot 51b.
• Nafka Mina: Can one fulfill the mitzvah of Havdalah with a kos that lacks the melo lugmav (cheek-full) requirement due to bedieved circumstances? Does the lehavdil function as a hefsek or an integral part of the berakhah?

Text Snapshot

The Arukh HaShulchan (O.C. 294:9) writes:

"ושיעור הכוס הוא כדי שתיית רביעית... ואם אין לו כוס, יבדיל על הפת... ובלבד שיהיה לו יין או שאר משקה המשכר."¹

Focus on the leshon: The Arukh HaShulchan emphasizes the mashkeh status. Note the dikduk in his move from revi’it as the baseline to the functional necessity of shechar (intoxicating drink). He pivots from the shiur of the vessel to the essence of the beverage.

In 296:1, he addresses the Borei Me’orei Ha’esh:

"וצריך לראות הציפורניים... ואין לברך על האש אלא במוצאי שבת."²

Here, the Arukh HaShulchan treats the me’orei ha’esh not merely as a peripheral bracha but as a guf ha-havdalah—a tethered requirement that validates the zeman of the Motzaei Shabbat transition.

---

¹ Arukh HaShulchan, O.C. 294:9. ² Arukh HaShulchan, O.C. 296:1.

Readings

The Maharal’s Approach (via the Arukh HaShulchan’s lens)

The Arukh HaShulchan operates with a distinct lomdus—he prioritizes the tikkun of the seuda over the technicality of the kos. In 294:9, he suggests that if one lacks wine, one may use chamar medinah. The chiddush here is that Havdalah is not tethered to the Gefen (vine) per se, but to the Kiddush ha-Zeman—the sanctity of the time-transition. By permitting chamar medinah, he implies that the Havdalah is a declaration of the kodesh-chol divide, and the drink is merely the keili (vessel) through which the intellectual recognition of that divide is expressed.

The Magen Avraham’s Stricture (O.C. 296:1)

Conversely, consider the Magen Avraham (ad loc.), whom the Arukh HaShulchan implicitly navigates. The Magen Avraham insists that the me’orei ha’esh is not merely an accessory but a birkat ha-nehenin on the light itself. The Arukh HaShulchan refines this by arguing that because the light is "new" (created at the start of the week), the bracha is necessitated by the re’iyah (sighting). He moves the bracha from the realm of nehenin (enjoyment) to hoda’ah (acknowledgment of Creation). This is a profound shift: we aren't "using" the light; we are testifying to its emergence.

Friction

The Kushya: The "Absence of Vessel" Paradox

If the Havdalah requires a kos (a formal vessel for Kiddush and Havdalah), how can the Arukh HaShulchan permit a scenario where the vessel is effectively bypassed or substituted with chamar medinah? If the kos is me’akev (a fundamental requirement), any deviation from the revi’it measure or the wine category should render the Havdalah void (le-mafreia).

The Terutz: The Functional Essence

The Arukh HaShulchan resolves this via the tovah of Havdalah. He posits that the mitzvah is not "to drink from a cup," but "to distinguish the time." The kos is a hefetz shel mitzvah (an object for the commandment), but if the hefetz is unavailable, the ma’aseh ha-mitzvah (the act of the commandment—the Havdalah prayer) remains the primary engine.

A second terutz emerges from his analysis of me’orei ha’esh: If the bracha on the light is valid even when done in a bedieved state (or without a proper cup, depending on the shita), then the kos is a hiddur (embellishment) rather than a me’akev. The Arukh HaShulchan is effectively demoting the kos from a yuhara (essential requirement) to a tikkun (ritual structure).

Intertext

Parallels in Responsa

The Arukh HaShulchan echoes the Rashba (Responsa 1:182), who argues that the Havdalah is a chova (obligation) of the person, not the kos. When we look at Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 296:1), we see the mechaber codifying the me’orei ha’esh as a specific requirement of the Havdalah sequence. The Arukh HaShulchan bridges these two by asserting that the bracha on the fire is the ikkar of the Motzaei Shabbat experience because it anchors the kiddush in the physical reality of the world (the fire), whereas the wine anchors it in the kedushah of the person.

Cross-Reference

Compare this to the Mishnah Berurah 294:15, who is far more stringent regarding the revi’it requirement. The Arukh HaShulchan represents the "pragmatic school," where the psak follows the mahloket by defaulting to the most accessible path, provided the shem shamayim is preserved.

Psak/Practice

In practical terms, the Arukh HaShulchan serves as the ultimate maikil (lenient authority) for the modern practitioner. If one finds themselves without formal wine or a proper revi’it cup, the Arukh HaShulchan provides the heter to proceed with chamar medinah (or even just the Havdalah text without the cup, in extreme circumstances). His heuristic is simple: Zeman (the timing) is the ikkar; the kos is the tikkun. Never sacrifice the kiddush of the time for the lack of a vessel.

Takeaway

The Arukh HaShulchan transforms Havdalah from a rigid, cup-dependent ritual into a fluid, time-bound acknowledgment. The vessel is the servant of the moment, not its master.