Home

Discussion on the Daf - Brachot
  Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33  Next  Last >>
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Judaism


View latest: 24h 48h 72h


naturalmom5




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Feb 19 2020, 11:04 pm
Brochos 47


The disagreement in the Amoraim if tefillah’s ikar is from the Torah /
Regarding a mitzvah d’rabbanan that doesn’t have ikar roots from the
Torah the psul of a mitzvah accomplished through transgressing an
aveirah isn’t applicable

- לקח טוב להגרי"ע -

The Sefer Lekach Tov uses a different approach to answer for the why in our sugya
the Gemara asks that freeing the slave should constitute a mitzvah accomplished through
transgressing an aveirah, yet in Gittin this question is omitted. His answer is also built
around the difference mentioned in the Nodeh B’Yehuda that the sugya in Brachos is
brought b’shem Rav Yehuda while in Gittin it is cited b’shem Shmuel.
Initially, he questions what our Gemara raises that freeing a slave should
Constitute a mitzvah accomplished through transgressing an aveirah. We know in Sukkah that
Shmuel holds one can be yotzei with a stolen lulav on the second of Yom Tov and he
doesn’t worry that it should constitute a mitzvah accomplished through transgressing an
aveirah. Tosafos there explains it is because he holds this psul isn’t applicable to
mitzvos d’rabbanan. Now, tefillah is also m’drabbanan. As such it is hard to understand
how the Gemara thought the psul should be relevant in our sugya.
He continues it is clear from the Gemara earlier that Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan
disagree concerning whether tefillah is considered m’doraisa or m’drabbanan. We see
this from how they argue concerning what the din should be when someone has a safek
whether or not they already davened. Shmuel holds that he shouldn’t go back and daven
again, while Rebbi Yochanan says that it would be best if we davened all day. To
explain, Shmuel holds that one isn’t allowed to daven more than the 3 tefillos that Chazal
decreed for us to recite every day. The Meforshim explain that this is because such a
person transgresses bal tosif m’drabbanan by doing more than what the Chachamim told
us to. On the other hand, Rebbi Yochanan disagrees and holds one does not transgress
bal tosif through adding to his tefillos. On the contrary, it would be best for a person to
daven all day. We now need an explanation for where their point of disagreement lies.
He moves on to say that their argument hinges on the disagreement found between
the Rambam and Ramban concerning whether tefillah is m’doraisa or m’drabbanan.
The Rambam holds that the ikar mitzvah is m’doraisa and the Chachamim made a takana
to daven 3 times a day. On the other hand, the Ramban holds that the ikar mitzvah itself
is m’drabbanan. Now, we see both from the Rash and Shnos Elyah that wherever
something in the Torah wasn’t given a finite shiur, the din follows that one fulfills a
mitzvah m’doraisa through every additional part he adds on. This is like we find by
Talmud Torah where no specific shiur was given for the mitzvah. As such, one fulfills
this mitzvah even through learning one halacha a day. However, every additional halacha
that one adds one is an additional fulfillment of the same mitzvah. As such, one has an
opportunity to keep such a mitzvah every moment.
As a result, the same should apply if we say tefillah is a mitzvah min hatorah.
Because no shiur was given for tefillah, the truth is that one can fulfill his obligation
even through only davening once. However, it also comes out that every additional
tefillah is another fulfillment of this same mitzvah. According to this it makes sense that
when the Chachamim came and made a takana to daven 3 times a day, their intention
was to add on to one’s chiyuv d’oraisa and not chas v’shalom to decrease it. As such,
one who desires to do so would be allowed to daven all day. Doing so would allow him
to fulfill this mitzvah every moment. This is what Rebbi Yochanan meant when he said
the best thing would be for a person to daven all day. On the other hand, we see Shmuel
argued that one who does so transgresses bal tosif. We can say that this is because he
holds like the Ramban that the mitzvah of tefillah is completely m’drabbanan. Therefore,
one transgresses bal tosif when adding on to their words. At the end of the day, we see
Shmuel must hold tefillah is only m’drabbanan.
With this it is easy to understand why only the Gemara in Brachos asked the
question that freeing a slave even for tefillah should still constitute a mitzvah
accomplished through transgressing an aveirah. This is because the halacha follow Rebbi
Yochanan over Shmuel. As such, it comes out l’halacha that tefillah is m’doraisa. The
sugya in Brachos was asking its question according to this halacha. Because tefillah is
m’doraia there is good reason to question that davening through freeing a slave should
constitute a mitzvah accomplished through transgressing an aveirah. On the other hand,
in Gittin the Gemara was going in the opinion of Shmuel. He holds that tefillah is merely
m’drabbanan, and an aveirah is incapable of invalidating a mitzvah m’drabbanan.
Therefore, there is no reason there for the psul to apply. This differentiation capably
explains why the question was specifically asked in Brachos and not in Gittin
Back to top

naturalmom5




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Feb 20 2020, 9:43 pm
Brochos 48

Fascinating stories..

I was a bit offended by the first teretz the Gam gives, that women are very talkative.

Arvus is a very interedting subject


Someone who has not eaten at all may help others with
their obligation of birchas hamozon mide’oraysa because
of arvus / When it comes to a mitzvah de’oraysa, one who
has already fulfilled his duty may help others do so
- רש"י, תוס ', רא"ש , בה "ג , טורי אבן, שאגת אריה -


[א [Tosfos in our sugya and the Rosh wrote that from what it
says that one cannot help others with their obligation unless one
has eaten a kezayis (an olive-size) of bread, it implies that once he
has eaten a kezayis, he may help others with their obligation of
birchas hamozon, even if they ate until they were satisfied. And even
though a person who ate a kezayis only has an obligation
miderabonon, while one who ate until satisfaction is obligated
mide’oraysa, he may nevertheless help him with his obligation of
birchas hamozon.

The reason for this is because essentially even one who has not
eaten at all may help others who have eaten until satisfaction, as it
says in Gemara Rosh Hashanah one who has fulfilled his obligation
in a certain mitzvah may help others to fulfill their obligation. Rashi
explains there that this is because all Jews are responsible for each
other when it comes to fulfilling mitzvos. Therefore, since everyone
is obligated to say birchas hamozon when they eat bread, one should
be able to help another with his obligation, even if one has not eaten
at all. However, miderabonon, one may not do so unless he has eaten
a kezayis of bread. They instituted this so that he would also be able
to say, “…that we have eaten from His bounty.” And so, he is able
to help others even though he has only eaten a kezayis, and is only
obligated miderabonon.

From the words of Tosfos and the Rosh it emerges that a person
may help another fulfill his obligation even though he is not presently
obligated, because of arvus, and even for an obligation mide’oraysa,
as they wrote that he even help one who ate to satisfaction. Similarly,
the She’iltos rote concerning Kiddush on Shabbos, that even if
one has fulfilled his obligation he may help others, because all Jews
are responsible for one another. The Ha’amek She’eloh there
comments that the She’iltos holds this to be true even for a mitzvah
mide’oraysa.And so it would appear to be also the opinion of the Tur
and Shulchan Aruch and their commentaries, that one who has
already fulfilled his obligation of Kiddush on Shabbos may help
others fulfill their obligation, even though it is a mitzvah mide’oraysa.
And also the Pri Megadim says the law of arvus will help both for
mitzvos mide’oraysa and miderabonon.

However, Rashi there and Tosfos quote the Behag who says that
when they said that one who eats a kezayis of bread may help
someone who is obligated to say birchas hamozon, that is only if the
other person also only ate a kezayis. But, if they ate till they were
satisfied, and are obligated to bensh mide’oraysa, then one who only
ate a kezayis cannot help them. Tosfos there argues with this.
The Turei Even explains the opinion of the Bahag is that the
Gemara’s statement, even one who has fulfilled his obligation can
help someone else fulfill his, was said only about mitzvos derabonon,
but not about mitzvos de’oraysa, since the Gemara there in Rosh
Hashanah deals with hallel and megillah, which are both
miderabonon

And this is implied in Rashi there who says that
when we say about Kiddush that one who fulfilled his obligation may
help others, that is the brachah of mekadesh Yisrael, which is Kiddush
of Yomtov, but he did not say the Kiddush of Shabbos, as that is
mid’eoraysa, and there, one who has fulfilled his obligation cannot
help others. So, he was forced to say Kiddush of Yomtov.
Back to top

farm




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Feb 21 2020, 1:27 am
Regarding your comment about women being talkative offensive, you know we will eventually get to the Gemara about 10 portions of ‘sicha’ coming down to the world and 9 fell on women (and 10 portions of wisdom- 9 fell on yerushalayim, etc). Personally I don’t find that offensive. It is what it is.
I actually was more bothered by the explanation that they were jabbering as an excuse to look at him longer (which I found cute and realistic- can totally imagine a group of high school girls prolonging a conversation with a cute guy who’s passing by) but then one tanna/amora/? rejects that explanation saying that if that is so, it means bnos yisroel are zonos. I had a hard time making that connection from ‘normal’ flirting to a zona.
Back to top

imorethanamother




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Feb 21 2020, 1:29 am
Questions for daf 47:

It says we don’t include women, children, or slaves in a zimun. But then it gives exceptions for children and slaves (to be counted in the ten). Why nothing for women?

I mean, even a kenaani slave is counted?! He’s not Jewish! Totally don’t get that.

Also, would the edict that a slave is not counted in a zimun just mean a kenaani Albert or an eved ivri. Because then, the whole discussion about how you’re allowed to free your slave for a mitzvah makes no sense for an eved ivri. If an eved ivri is exempt from mitzvos, isn’t it a greater mitzvah to free him so he can do mitzvos?
Back to top

amother




Mustard
 

Post  Fri, Feb 21 2020, 1:49 am
imorethanamother wrote:
Questions for daf 47:

It says we don’t include women, children, or slaves in a zimun. But then it gives exceptions for children and slaves (to be counted in the ten). Why nothing for women?

I mean, even a kenaani slave is counted?! He’s not Jewish! Totally don’t get that.

Also, would the edict that a slave is not counted in a zimun just mean a kenaani Albert or an eved ivri. Because then, the whole discussion about how you’re allowed to free your slave for a mitzvah makes no sense for an eved ivri. If an eved ivri is exempt from mitzvos, isn’t it a greater mitzvah to free him so he can do mitzvos?


An eved ivri is fully Jewish and is not exempt from any mitzvos. It is an eved knaani, who is not really Jewish, and is therefore exempt from all mitzvos aseh she’hazman gramma - same as a woman. When it refers to an eved here, it is referring to an eved knaani. An eved ivri would of course be included in a zimun.

BTW - An eved ivri is generally more like an indentured servant, who serves for a specified period of time (six years) than like a real slave, while an eved knaani is an actual slave, who is owned outright - with all that entails . . .
Back to top

malki2




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Feb 21 2020, 6:38 am
imorethanamother wrote:
Questions for daf 47:

It says we don’t include women, children, or slaves in a zimun. But then it gives exceptions for children and slaves (to be counted in the ten). Why nothing for women?

I mean, even a kenaani slave is counted?! He’s not Jewish! Totally don’t get that.


Also, would the edict that a slave is not counted in a zimun just mean a kenaani Albert or an eved ivri. Because then, the whole discussion about how you’re allowed to free your slave for a mitzvah makes no sense for an eved ivri. If an eved ivri is exempt from mitzvos, isn’t it a greater mitzvah to free him so he can do mitzvos?


The Gemara said that this is pritzus. That’s the answer. And an eved kenaani is considered partially Jewish.
Back to top

amother




Mustard
 

Post  Fri, Feb 21 2020, 8:04 am
It seems from the Gemara, that women are obligated or (at least) permitted to form a zimun. Some big Rishonim (e.g. the R’Osh) and Achronim (e.g. the G”rA) held that women are mechuyav. Do any of you do so, when you have the requisite number of women, but not enough men? (I would love to, but it’s not done at all in my community, and I try not to do things that will raise eyebrows, make some kind of statement, cause a minor scandal, etc. . .)
Back to top

malki2




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Feb 21 2020, 8:12 am
amother [ Mustard ] wrote:
It seems from the Gemara, that women are obligated or (at least) permitted to form a zimun. Some big Rishonim (e.g. the R’Osh) and Achronim (e.g. the G”rA) held that women are mechuyav. Do any of you do so, when you have the requisite number of women, but not enough men? (I would love to, but it’s not done at all in my community, and I try not to do things that will raise eyebrows, make some kind of statement, cause a minor scandal, etc. . .)


How often do you break bread with two or more women anyways and no men? But there’s no issue with it at all. I know that in Gateshead Sem they used to do it.
Back to top

amother




Mustard
 

Post  Fri, Feb 21 2020, 8:22 am
malki2 wrote:
How often do you break bread with two or more women anyways and no men? But there’s no issue with it at all. I know that in Gateshead Sem they used to do it.


It comes up more often with three (or more) women and only one or two men.

I know there’s no issue with it. R’Shlomo Zalman (and others) even say that the man/men should answer. Still - it’s not at all done in my community (and I’m guessing not in yours either), so doing so might be construed as making a statement that I am not looking to make . . .
Back to top

naturalmom5




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Feb 21 2020, 9:10 am
For that matter, mustard do you wash mayim ahronim

For some reason I never see women washhing, I havent found a source for this

The Mishna Br and most poskim say they should

Some say we dont have sodomite salt today or other reasons but that applies to men and women equally

Maybe its like reclining by the seder
Back to top

amother




Mustard
 

Post  Fri, Feb 21 2020, 10:01 am
naturalmom5 wrote:
For that matter, mustard do you wash mayim ahronim

For some reason I never see women washhing, I havent found a source for this

The Mishna Br and most poskim say they should

Some say we dont have sodomite salt today or other reasons but that applies to men and women equally

Maybe its like reclining by the seder


I wash mayim achronim in the kitchen, if I can so unobtrusively, but if it’s passed around the table, I just pass it on.

FWIW - I recline at the Seder, also.
Back to top

malki2




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Feb 21 2020, 10:27 am
naturalmom5 wrote:
For that matter, mustard do you wash mayim ahronim

For some reason I never see women washhing, I havent found a source for this

The Mishna Br and most poskim say they should

Some say we dont have sodomite salt today or other reasons but that applies to men and women equally

Maybe its like reclining by the seder


I wonder if this arose due to women being more dainty than men by the meal. Perhaps they did a better job at keeping their hands clean. I read that in Victorian times, women were encouraged to eat before the meal so they would just pick daintily at the food during the meal.
Back to top

imorethanamother




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Feb 21 2020, 11:28 am
I used to do mayim achronim. No one really pays attention to it being passed around anyway. I don’t anymore, not sure why.

With regard to an עבד עברי being exempt from מצוות, he absolutely is. Wasn’t that in the beginning of berachos? An עבד is exempt from tefillin, shema.

Unless.... every time the Gemara mentions a slave it’s a עבד כנעני?! So per Halacha and religious obligation, women most closely resemble a non-Jewish slave? It can’t be.
Back to top

malki2




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Feb 21 2020, 11:32 am
imorethanamother wrote:
I used to do mayim achronim. No one really pays attention to it being passed around anyway. I don’t anymore, not sure why.

With regard to an עבד עברי being exempt from מצוות, he absolutely is. Wasn’t that in the beginning of berachos? An עבד is exempt from tefillin, shema.

Unless.... every time the Gemara mentions a slave it’s a עבד כנעני?! So per Halacha and religious obligation, women most closely resemble a non-Jewish slave? It can’t be.


Only עבד כנעני is exempt. עבד עברי is a full-fledged Jew. The only difference is that his master can marry him off to a שפחה כנענית. In halachic obligations, an עבד כנעני has the same obligations as a woman in that he is patur from the time-related Mitzvot Aseh.
Back to top

naturalmom5




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Feb 21 2020, 11:32 am
Brochos 49

If one ate an amount that brought to satiation in longer
than kedai achilas prass, and a kezayis within kedai achilas
prass / Eating in an irregular way
- מנחת חינוך, משנה ברורה , שערי תשובה -

[In the Minchas Chinuch there, after saying that to be obligated
to say birchas hamozon mide’oraysa one needs to eat and be
satiated, he asks, will it be sufficient if one ate one kezayis within
kedai achilas prass, thereby fulfilling eating, and the rest that he ate
until satisfaction could be even over longer than kedai achilas prass,
or, does the food that he ate until satisfaction also have to be within
kedai achilas prass? He leaves the question unanswered.
However, the Mishnah Brurah in the Shaar Hatziyun there
writes that if he ate one kezayis within kedai achilas prass, and
the rest until satiation he ate slowly, either way, he is obligated
mide’oraysa. As far as an action of eating, the kezayis that he
ate within kedai achilas prass suffices for that. And as far as
requiring satiation, which does not need to have the requirements
of eating, the rest that he ate until satiation is alright, even though
it was not within kedai achilas prass. So, the case which the
Minchas Chinuch was in doubt whether one would be obligated
to say birchas hamozon mide’oraysa, the Mishnah Brurah was
certain that it would be obligated.

Similarly, when one ate in an irregular way, the Minchas
Chinuch wrote, since eating is written in connection with
birchas hamozon, it must be eaten in a normal way. And if one
ate in an irregular way, even if he was satiated he is not
obligated to bentch. He is unsure if the amount that he eats to
reach satiation must also be done in a normal way, or if it is
sufficient that one kezayis be eaten in a normal way, and the
rest irregularly. But according to the Mishnah Brurah if one ate
one kezayis normally, and the rest until satiation he ate
irregularly, he is certainly obligated to bentch, since he ate and
was also satiated.

The Shaarei Teshuvah quotes the Teshuvos Radvaz, who
says that a sick or elderly person who ate a kezayis and was
satiated from it, is obligated to bentch mide’oraysa. The way he
wrote it implies that this is specifically if he ate a kezayis, except
that his nature is to be satiated even from that, he is then
obligated to bentch mide’oraysa. But, according to the
abovementioned Chassam Sofer, it could be that even if he was
satiated from less than a kezayis, the halachah would be the
same, since according to him, one does not need to meet the
requirements of eating, if he was satiated.
Back to top

amother




Mustard
 

Post  Fri, Feb 21 2020, 11:58 am
imorethanamother wrote:
I used to do mayim achronim. No one really pays attention to it being passed around anyway. I don’t anymore, not sure why.

With regard to an עבד עברי being exempt from מצוות, he absolutely is. Wasn’t that in the beginning of berachos? An עבד is exempt from tefillin, shema.

Unless.... every time the Gemara mentions a slave it’s a עבד כנעני?! So per Halacha and religious obligation, women most closely resemble a non-Jewish slave? It can’t be.


When the Gemara is talking about an eved being exempt from mitzvos - it is absolutely talking about an eved knaani. An eved ivri is a full-fledged Jew, with the same religious obligations as any other Jewish man.

Yes, an eved knaani most closely resembles a Jewish woman with regard to religious obligations due to a hekaish between them (לה and לה).
Back to top

imorethanamother




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Feb 21 2020, 1:30 pm
malki2 wrote:
Only עבד כנעני is exempt. עבד עברי is a full-fledged Jew. The only difference is that his master can marry him off to a שפחה כנענית. In halachic obligations, an עבד כנעני has the same obligations as a woman in that he is patur from the time-related Mitzvot Aseh.


All these slave laws are mystifying. I don't get why an עבד כנעני is suddenly a Jew. What if he doesn't want to keep the mitzvos? Why would he do such a thing? Why would I marry an עבד עברי to a non-Jew, which is its own problem, but also that is also somehow a Jew even if she doesn't want to be, deep down? I thought we don't force converts, and this absolutely sound like they're being forced.

And if an עבד עברי has to keep all mitzvos, then I don't get what the point of him is at all. Does he also get to learn all day, because that's also a mitzvah? And if somehow an עבד עברי can find the time to don tefillin and say shema, then I don't get how it would be equally difficult for a woman to do so. Like way to go, treating our slaves better than our women.
Back to top

malki2




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Feb 21 2020, 1:51 pm
imorethanamother wrote:
All these slave laws are mystifying. I don't get why an עבד כנעני is suddenly a Jew. What if he doesn't want to keep the mitzvos? Why would he do such a thing? Why would I marry an עבד עברי to a non-Jew, which is its own problem, but also that is also somehow a Jew even if she doesn't want to be, deep down? I thought we don't force converts, and this absolutely sound like they're being forced.

And if an עבד עברי has to keep all mitzvos, then I don't get what the point of him is at all. Does he also get to learn all day, because that's also a mitzvah? And if somehow an עבד עברי can find the time to don tefillin and say shema, then I don't get how it would be equally difficult for a woman to do so. Like way to go, treating our slaves better than our women.


I owe you and Mustard an answer on the other thread (sorry, I had 3 kids throwing up last weekend) so maybe I’ll include the response to this in my answer.
Back to top

amother




Mustard
 

Post  Fri, Feb 21 2020, 3:42 pm
imorethanamother wrote:
All these slave laws are mystifying. I don't get why an עבד כנעני is suddenly a Jew. What if he doesn't want to keep the mitzvos? Why would he do such a thing? Why would I marry an עבד עברי to a non-Jew, which is its own problem, but also that is also somehow a Jew even if she doesn't want to be, deep down? I thought we don't force converts, and this absolutely sound like they're being.


An eved knaani has to agree to go through a quasi-geirus and keep all mitzvos that are kept by women. That’s a condition of his servitude to a Jew. If he doesn’t agree to it, he will be sold to a Non-Jewish master.

Re: Mating (rather than marrying) an eved ivri with a shifcha knaanis in order to breed more slaves for the master, I have no answer - especially, since it is only done if the man already has a Jewish wife. According to many (most?) shittos, this is only done to an eved ivri, who was sold by Bais Din, due to theft and not to one who sold himself due to extreme poverty. Still seems to punish his (Jewish) wife more than him . . . (Especially, since there is always the chance he will come to love and opt to stay with his shifcha knaanis, ala this week’s Parsha. . .)
Back to top

naturalmom5




 
 
 
 

Post  Sun, Feb 23 2020, 6:19 pm
Brochos 50


Birchas Hazimun Mide’oraysa or Miderabonon


Even if it is mide’oraysa it does not affect birchas hamazon /
If one is uncertain if he said the birchas hazimun / Is one who
did not eat until satiation allowed to lead the zimun? / Human
dignity / The difference between a zimun with three or ten
- ראב "ד, לבוש , רשב "א, פנ"י, פמ "ג , משנ"ב , חזו"א -


[א [Before discussing the details how to set up a zimun, let us preface
with some general background about birchas hazimun.
The source for birchas hazimun is learnt earlier 1, when the
Mishnah says, “Three who ate together are obligated to make a
zimun,” and the Gemara asks, “where do we know this from?-Rav
Asi says, from the verse, ‘Proclaim Hashem’s greatness with me, and
let us elevate His Name together.’ Rabi Avahu says, from here, ‘When
I call out Hashem’s Name, proclaim our L rd’s greatness.’” Later on
the Gemara says, “Our Sages taught, from where in the Torah do we
know the obligation to bentch? - As it says, ’And you shall eat, be
satisfied and bless…’ ‘and you shall eat,’ refers to birchas hazon, ‘the
L rd, your G d,’ refers to birchas hazimun, ‘for the land,’ refers to
birchas ha’aretz, ‘ the good (land),’refers to the brachah of bonei
Yerushalayim, and ‘that He gave to you,’ refers to the brachah of
hatov vehametiv.”

The Poskim argue if birchas hazimun is mide’oraysa or
miderabonon. The Tur writes in the name of the Raavad that it is
mide’oraysa, and the Levush writes that it is mide’oraysa, as it is
learnt from a passuk. Therefore, an androginus (a person whose
gender is unclear) is obligated to take part in a zimun, as a stringency
for a safek de’oraysa.

The Pnei Yehoshua writes, when it says [in the braysa] that we
learn [birchas hazimun] from ‘the L rd, your G d,’ and Rebbi says
from…, that it to say, the tanna kamma (first opinion in the braysa)
holds that since birchas hazimun is learnt from ‘the L rd, your G d,’
it is mide’oraysa, but according to Rebbi, who says that it is not learnt
from a passuk, it is only miderabonon. The passuk, ‘Proclaim
Hashem’s greatness with me…’ is regarded as an allusion to it, even
though the topic of birchas hamazon is not dealt with there.

The Pnei Yehoshua goes on to write, that even according to the
tanna kamma, who says that birchas hazimun is mide’oraysa and not
just an allusion, nevertheless, if one bentched without making a
zimun, he does not have to bentch again with a zimun, as the birchas
hazimun is not an integral part of bentching, but rather, a preface to
it. Therefore, if one has bentched already, we do not tell him to bentch
again, because he missed the zimun.

The Rashba writes about the Gemara, “Rava said, when we ate
by the Reish Galusa, we would bentch in groups of three. And why
not in groups of ten?-if we would do that, the Resh Galusa would hear
and be upset… ” Since the Resh Galusa would become upset, that
would be disrespectful towards him, and Chazal say that human
dignity is so important that it overrides a prohibition miderabonon, and
zimun is miderabonon. And so, notes the Pri Megadim the Rashba
holds that birchas hazimun is miderabonon, even for ten men whwould mention Hashem’s Name, unlike the opinion of the Levush.

The Pri Megadim writes that even though the Gemara learns
birchas hazimun from psukim, nevertheless, the obligation is only
miderabonon, as the psukim are only allusions to it. But, he cites the
opinion of the Levush, who says that zimun is mide’oraysa, and writes
that the difference will in the case when one is uncertain if he said
birchas hazimun. According the opinion that it is mide’oraysa, he
must repeat it, but according to the opinion that it is miderabonon, he
need not repeat it. He explains that obviously this uncertainty must
occur before a person bentches, as afterwards, birchas hazimun is
superfluous. The Pri Megadim writes that birchas hazimun is
miderabonon according to most poskim. And the Shaagas Aryeh
also writes that certainly birchas hazimun is miderabonon, and the
passuk is just an allusion to it.

The Shulchan Aruch writes that if friends were eating together,
and while some of them ate until satiation, others only ate a kezayis,
it is more correct that one of those who ate until satiation says the
zimun and helps the others with their obligation, since his obligation
to bentch is mide’oraysa. However, the Mishnah Brurah writes in
the name of the Achronim that this is talking specifically when the
one saying the zimun is going to be helping all of them with their
obligation to bentch, but if everyone is going to bentch by themselves,
after one says the zimun, then, they do not have to be particular about
this. And then, even one who only ate a kezayis may say the zimun
lechatchilah for the others. The Shaarei Tziyun writes there in the


name of the Pri Megadim that this is because according to most
poskim birchas hazimun is only miderabonon.

However, the Chazon Ish writes that since the abovementioned
Tur does not argue with the Raavad, this shows that he also agrees
that birchas hazimun is mide’oraysa. He proves this from the earlier
Gemara which asks, “Till where is the birchas hazimun? Rav
Nachman says, until ‘let us bless,’ and Rav Sheshess says, until the
end of birchas hazon. They thought, since according to everyone, the
brachah of hatov vehametiv is not mide’oraysa…” this implies that
only hatov vehametiv is not mide’oraysa, but birchas hazimun is.
Additionally, the Chazon Ish challenges what the Mishnah Brurah
wrote in the name of the Pri Megadim, that most of the poskim hold
that birchas hazimun is miderabonon. He writes, who are they?
And what the Rashba wrote, that birchas hazimun is miderabonon,
and therefore they were allowed to forgo making a zimun with ten when
they were eating by the Resh Galusa, as a prohibition miderabonon may
be deferred for a matter of human dignity, says the Chazon Ish, there
is no proof from this. The Rashba was saying that the additional
obligation of ten men over three, to mention Hashem’s Name, is only
miderabonon. Therefore, they were allowed to forgo this by the Resh
Galusa, as it is only miderabonon. However, we cannot prove from the
Rashba that birchas hazimun itself is only miderabonon. 
Back to top
  Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33  Next  Last >> Recent Topics

Page 29 of 33 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Judaism

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Discussion on the Daf - Shabbat
by Aylat
57 Yesterday at 6:36 am View last post
Discussion on Nach Yomi
by amother
39 Wed, Mar 11 2020, 10:39 pm View last post
Do people pay R MM Weiss if they go to his Daf Yomi Shiur?
by amother
11 Sun, Feb 02 2020, 11:30 pm View last post
Anyone going to start daf yomi?
by amother
191 Wed, Jan 29 2020, 8:37 pm View last post
Daf yomi resources
by amother
8 Sun, Jan 26 2020, 6:17 pm View last post

Jump to: