Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

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?

share|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

The quoted gemoro says:

א״ל בתחלה קבעוה בתפלה העשירו קבעוה על הכוס הענו הזרו 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 (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.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.