I noticed a new book by Artscroll that has come out called Ascending Jacob's Ladder by Rav Yaakov Hillel who is a Rosh Yeshiva n Eretz Yisroel and a mekubal. It looked interesting so I bought it.
It is basically a collection of essays and lectures that he has given over the years.
Here is one idea in the book that I found interesting.
Many people are familiar with the machlokes between the Ba'al Shem Tov and others regarding hashgacha p'ratis. To put ity simply (and superficially) the Ba'al Shem Tov believes there is hashgacha p'ratis on every creation, even inanimate ones. Others disagree and say hashgacha p'ratis is reserved for people and inanimate objects are only bound by hashgacha klalit.
Rav Ya'akov Hillel writes an interesting p'shat in the Ba'al Shem Tov"S mehalech on pages 101-102.
"The truth is there is no contradiction, as the Rambam explains in Morei Nevuchim. There is hashgacha on everything created and everything that happens. What then is the difference between these two types of hashgacha [hashgacha pratit and hashgacha klalit] ...The kabbalists tell us something beyond this. They say that sometimes a soul can transmigrate and assume the form of a stone, water or an animal. If there is a soul in a leaf or a cat than anything that happens to that leaf or cat because it is part of the soul's tikkun is an act of hashgacha pratit. This is what is meant by those who say that whatever happens to even an animal or leaf is Divinely ordained, Otherwise an animal or leaf is ruled by hashgacha klalit."
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Hashgacha and Gilgul
I noticed a new book by Artscroll that has come out called Ascending Jacob's Ladder by Rav Yaakov Hillel who is a Rosh Yeshiva n Eretz Yisroel and a mekubal. It looked interesting so I bought it.
It is basically a collection of essays and lectures that he has given over the years.
Here is one idea in the book that I found interesting.
Many people are familiar with the machlokes between the Ba'al Shem Tov and others regarding hashgacha p'ratis. To put ity simply (and superficially) the Ba'al Shem Tov believes there is hashgacha p'ratis on every creation, even inanimate ones. Others disagree and say hashgacha p'ratis is reserved for people and inanimate objects are only bound by hashgacha klalit.
Rav Ya'akov Hillel writes an interesting p'shat in the Ba'al Shem Tov"S mehalech on pages 101-102.
"The truth is there is no contradiction, as the Rambam explains in Morei Nevuchim. There is hashgacha on everything created and everything that happens. What then is the difference between these two types of hashgacha [hashgacha pratit and hashgacha klalit] ...The kabbalists tell us something beyond this. They say that sometimes a soul can transmigrate and assume the form of a stone, water or an animal. If there is a soul in a leaf or a cat than anything that happens to that leaf or cat because it is part of the soul's tikkun is an act of hashgacha pratit. This is what is meant by those who say that whatever happens to even an animal or leaf is Divinely ordained, Otherwise an animal or leaf is ruled by hashgacha klalit."
It is basically a collection of essays and lectures that he has given over the years.
Here is one idea in the book that I found interesting.
Many people are familiar with the machlokes between the Ba'al Shem Tov and others regarding hashgacha p'ratis. To put ity simply (and superficially) the Ba'al Shem Tov believes there is hashgacha p'ratis on every creation, even inanimate ones. Others disagree and say hashgacha p'ratis is reserved for people and inanimate objects are only bound by hashgacha klalit.
Rav Ya'akov Hillel writes an interesting p'shat in the Ba'al Shem Tov"S mehalech on pages 101-102.
"The truth is there is no contradiction, as the Rambam explains in Morei Nevuchim. There is hashgacha on everything created and everything that happens. What then is the difference between these two types of hashgacha [hashgacha pratit and hashgacha klalit] ...The kabbalists tell us something beyond this. They say that sometimes a soul can transmigrate and assume the form of a stone, water or an animal. If there is a soul in a leaf or a cat than anything that happens to that leaf or cat because it is part of the soul's tikkun is an act of hashgacha pratit. This is what is meant by those who say that whatever happens to even an animal or leaf is Divinely ordained, Otherwise an animal or leaf is ruled by hashgacha klalit."
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Catagorizing the Shevatim
Someone pointed out to me an interesting question from the beginning of Parshas Shemos. The Torah groups the Shevatim into three pesukim. Posuk 1 is Reuvein, Shimon, Levi and Yehuda.
Possuk 2 is Yisascher, Zevulen and Binyamin. Posuk 3 is Gad, Asher, Dan and Naftali. Why are Yissascher and Zevulen who are B'nei Leah, put with Binyamin? They should be with Reuvein, Shimon, Levi and Yehuda.
I was told that Rav Yochanan Zweig answers that if we look at the numbers that went down to Mitzrayim, B'nei Leah excluding Yocheved numbered 32 and B'nei Rochel numbered 14. Furthermore, Yisacher and Zevulen had 9 between them. Now we know that after Leah had her first 4 kids, Rochel should also have had 4 children. Leah was zocheh to 2 more as a reward for giving up the dudaim. The extra 2 children she had was Yisacher and Zevulen. If you take the 9 people from Yisaacher and Zevulen away from Leah and give it to Rochel, they both wind up with 23. This is what the posuk is hinting to in the beginning of Shemos
Possuk 2 is Yisascher, Zevulen and Binyamin. Posuk 3 is Gad, Asher, Dan and Naftali. Why are Yissascher and Zevulen who are B'nei Leah, put with Binyamin? They should be with Reuvein, Shimon, Levi and Yehuda.
I was told that Rav Yochanan Zweig answers that if we look at the numbers that went down to Mitzrayim, B'nei Leah excluding Yocheved numbered 32 and B'nei Rochel numbered 14. Furthermore, Yisacher and Zevulen had 9 between them. Now we know that after Leah had her first 4 kids, Rochel should also have had 4 children. Leah was zocheh to 2 more as a reward for giving up the dudaim. The extra 2 children she had was Yisacher and Zevulen. If you take the 9 people from Yisaacher and Zevulen away from Leah and give it to Rochel, they both wind up with 23. This is what the posuk is hinting to in the beginning of Shemos
Parshas Shemos:Can A Woman Be A Mohel
My shiur last week discussed whether a woman can do mila, In Parshas Shemos we read how Tzippora gave her son a bris. The gemara in Avodah Zara (27a) has a machlokes whether a woman can be a mohel. Teh gemara asks, according to the opinion that a woman can't do teh mila, how do you understand the ma'aseh with Tzipporah? The gemara gives two answers, either a) Tzipporah asked someone else to do it b) Tzipporah started and Moshe finished the mila.
Machlokes Rishonim
How do we pasken? There is a machlokes Rishonim on this issue. Tosafos brings the opinion that a woman can not do the mila. This is also the shitta of the S'mak and Hagahos Mordechai. The Rif and Rosh (at the end of Perek 19 in Shabbo) and the Rambam pasken a woman could do the mila only if a man is not present. If there is a man around, the man should do the mila.
Mechabeir vs Rema
Both the Mechabeir and Rema (Y.D. Siman 264) pasken a woman could do the mila . However, the Rema adds on that the minhag is a woman should not do the mila. The Shach asks what is the Rema adding on to the Mechabeir. The Mechabeir would not disagree with the Rema.
The Aruch Hashulchan writes that the nafka mina between teh Mechabeir and rema is in acase where there is no male mohel in town but there is a male mohel in a different town. According to the Mechabeir one would not need to go to a different town to find a mohel and according to the Rema one should go to the other town because that is how the minhag evolved. Accordingto this the Rema would hold there is nothing wrong with a woman doing the mila, just teh minhag is that she doesn't.
The Sefer HaBris gives a different hesber based on the Ra'avyah. Teh Ra'avyah understands teh Rema that he is being machmir for the shitta that a woman is posul. Therefore, we don't use a woman because maybe she really can't do the mila. The Mchabeir would hold that m'ikkar hadin a woman is kosher to do the mila but it is better to use a man.
Tichilas B'P'sul V'Sofo B'Kashrus
The gemra in Avodah Zara suggested that Tzipporah started the mila and Moshe finished the mila. This leads to the question, can a posul (an akum) start the mila if a kosher mohel finishes the job. Both teh Shut Beis Ya'akov (ayin Pischei Teshuva) and the Ohr Sameiach (hilchos mila)address this question. The both bring a rayah from the gemara in AZ that you could do this. However, the Ohr Sameiach points out that it would not work on Shabbos. On Shabbos, machshirei mila that can be done before Shabbos are not allowed to be done on Shabbos. (l'moshol if the mila knife breaks on Shabbos you can't bring a new one if it involves carrying). Therefore, when a posul starts the mila it has the staus of machshirei mila since there is no mitzvah for the posul to do the mila. This machshirei mila could have been done before Shabbos (even though it would have been before day 8, since a posul mohel is doing the mila who cares when he starts it). Therefore, a posul can't start the mila on Shabbos.
The Sefer Habris brings a teshuva from the Yidei Moshe that disagrees. He says this question is based on the machlokes in Chullin whether "yesh l'shchitah m'tichila ad sof" or "aino ella l'sof". Since we pasken "yesh l'shchitah m'tichila ad sof", we need a kosher mohel to do the whole mila.
Obviously the Ohr Sameiach disagrees with the comparison. I'll leave this question hanging. How would the Ohr Sameiach answer the kasha from shechita?
Machlokes Rishonim
How do we pasken? There is a machlokes Rishonim on this issue. Tosafos brings the opinion that a woman can not do the mila. This is also the shitta of the S'mak and Hagahos Mordechai. The Rif and Rosh (at the end of Perek 19 in Shabbo) and the Rambam pasken a woman could do the mila only if a man is not present. If there is a man around, the man should do the mila.
Mechabeir vs Rema
Both the Mechabeir and Rema (Y.D. Siman 264) pasken a woman could do the mila . However, the Rema adds on that the minhag is a woman should not do the mila. The Shach asks what is the Rema adding on to the Mechabeir. The Mechabeir would not disagree with the Rema.
The Aruch Hashulchan writes that the nafka mina between teh Mechabeir and rema is in acase where there is no male mohel in town but there is a male mohel in a different town. According to the Mechabeir one would not need to go to a different town to find a mohel and according to the Rema one should go to the other town because that is how the minhag evolved. Accordingto this the Rema would hold there is nothing wrong with a woman doing the mila, just teh minhag is that she doesn't.
The Sefer HaBris gives a different hesber based on the Ra'avyah. Teh Ra'avyah understands teh Rema that he is being machmir for the shitta that a woman is posul. Therefore, we don't use a woman because maybe she really can't do the mila. The Mchabeir would hold that m'ikkar hadin a woman is kosher to do the mila but it is better to use a man.
Tichilas B'P'sul V'Sofo B'Kashrus
The gemra in Avodah Zara suggested that Tzipporah started the mila and Moshe finished the mila. This leads to the question, can a posul (an akum) start the mila if a kosher mohel finishes the job. Both teh Shut Beis Ya'akov (ayin Pischei Teshuva) and the Ohr Sameiach (hilchos mila)address this question. The both bring a rayah from the gemara in AZ that you could do this. However, the Ohr Sameiach points out that it would not work on Shabbos. On Shabbos, machshirei mila that can be done before Shabbos are not allowed to be done on Shabbos. (l'moshol if the mila knife breaks on Shabbos you can't bring a new one if it involves carrying). Therefore, when a posul starts the mila it has the staus of machshirei mila since there is no mitzvah for the posul to do the mila. This machshirei mila could have been done before Shabbos (even though it would have been before day 8, since a posul mohel is doing the mila who cares when he starts it). Therefore, a posul can't start the mila on Shabbos.
The Sefer Habris brings a teshuva from the Yidei Moshe that disagrees. He says this question is based on the machlokes in Chullin whether "yesh l'shchitah m'tichila ad sof" or "aino ella l'sof". Since we pasken "yesh l'shchitah m'tichila ad sof", we need a kosher mohel to do the whole mila.
Obviously the Ohr Sameiach disagrees with the comparison. I'll leave this question hanging. How would the Ohr Sameiach answer the kasha from shechita?
Monday, January 08, 2007
Parshas VaYechi:Mitzvah L'Kayeim Divrei HaMeis
This week’s shiur was on the topic of mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis. The Rishonim ask why Yosef needed to take a shevuah that he would bury Ya’akov in Eretz Yisroel. He should be obligated to listen to his father anyway. One of the reasons that Yosef would have to listen would be because of mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis.
D’Oreisa or D’rabanan
Is this a chiyuv d’oreisa or only a d’rabanan? The Shoeil U’Meishiv (Mahadura Tinyana Chelek 1 Siman 1) quotes R’ Yaakov Ibn Shu’an that the Ramban says there are ten things we learn from Ya’akov and one of these things is mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis. Therefore, R’ Yaakov Ibn Shu’an feels that this is a chiuv d’oreisa. The Shoeil U’Meishiv disagrees. There is a machlokes Rishonim whether you need a third party ( a shlish). According to Rabbeinu Tam that you need a shlish, Yosef could not have been obligated to listen because of mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis. The Maharsham (Chelek 2 Siman 224) also asks on this that it is against the Ramban. The Ramban in VaYechi only says Yosef had to listen because of kibud av. Why didn’t he mention the reason of mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis? Furtehrmore, the Maharsham says Tosafos in Kesuvos (86a) says it is only a din d’rabanan. The Shoeil U’Meishivb wants to say it is a taknah based on the idea of chesed shel emes.
How it Works
There is a machlokes Rishonim how this din works. The Machaneh Ephraim (Hil Zichiyah Siman 29) writes that Rashi (Gittin 14B) and Tosafos (Gittin 38a) both hold that it is a kinyan. In fact Rashi says that if Reuvein when he is healthy says to give Shimon $100, then if Reuvein dies Shimon immediately gets the $100 without any ma’aseh kinyan because of mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis. The Rashba (Gittin 38a) disagrees and holds mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis is just an obligation to carry out the wishes of the meis. The Ran and Ramban seem to agree with the Rashba. The nafka mina according to the Machaneh Ephraim is by yesomim ketanim. A katan would not have a chiyuv to carry out his father’s wishes but if it works a sa kinyan then he would have no choice since the m’kabeil gets it immediately. The Ketzos (248:5) also says it is not a kinyan because other wise you would have to explain how you can circumventthe dinei yerusha. (also ayin R’ Elchanan Kesuvos Siman 315)
There is another machlokes Rishonim whether you need a shlish, a 3rd party. Rabbeinu Tam (Gitttin 14a) holds you need a shlish but the Ramban and Ran hold you don’t. Al pi pashtus one would say this is toloi on th e above machlokes but I think I saw the Minchas Asher try and say it is two independent ideas. The Maharsham quotes a Teshuvas Rivash that the Ramban only holds you don’t need a shlish when the meis was a sh’chiv meira. If the meis was a healthy person, you even the Ramban holds you would need a shlish.
When Do We Say It
There is discussion in the poskin whether mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis. Is this solely a monetary issue or even applies to other areas. The Sh’vus Ya’akov (siman 165) says it is only a monetary issue but there is a lifnim m’shuras hadin to listen to the meis in non monetary issues. One of his proofs is from Ya’akov. Why did Yosef require a shevuah if there is a chiyuv of mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis? It must be that mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis only applies to monetary issues. The problem with this is that the Ramban clearly says the shevuah was to help Yosef convince Pharoah. The Maharshdam takes a middle road that there is a chiyuv by monetary issues and a mitzvah by non monetary issues. The Noda BeYehuda (Tenyana Siman 75) discuss this issue also and says if the request was not made to the person it affects there is no chiyuv to listen. The example was a father instructed his wife to marry their daughter to a certain person. Since the command was to the wife and not the daughter there is no mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis. (even if it was made to the daughter directly in this situation there is also no mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis.
D’Oreisa or D’rabanan
Is this a chiyuv d’oreisa or only a d’rabanan? The Shoeil U’Meishiv (Mahadura Tinyana Chelek 1 Siman 1) quotes R’ Yaakov Ibn Shu’an that the Ramban says there are ten things we learn from Ya’akov and one of these things is mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis. Therefore, R’ Yaakov Ibn Shu’an feels that this is a chiuv d’oreisa. The Shoeil U’Meishiv disagrees. There is a machlokes Rishonim whether you need a third party ( a shlish). According to Rabbeinu Tam that you need a shlish, Yosef could not have been obligated to listen because of mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis. The Maharsham (Chelek 2 Siman 224) also asks on this that it is against the Ramban. The Ramban in VaYechi only says Yosef had to listen because of kibud av. Why didn’t he mention the reason of mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis? Furtehrmore, the Maharsham says Tosafos in Kesuvos (86a) says it is only a din d’rabanan. The Shoeil U’Meishivb wants to say it is a taknah based on the idea of chesed shel emes.
How it Works
There is a machlokes Rishonim how this din works. The Machaneh Ephraim (Hil Zichiyah Siman 29) writes that Rashi (Gittin 14B) and Tosafos (Gittin 38a) both hold that it is a kinyan. In fact Rashi says that if Reuvein when he is healthy says to give Shimon $100, then if Reuvein dies Shimon immediately gets the $100 without any ma’aseh kinyan because of mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis. The Rashba (Gittin 38a) disagrees and holds mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis is just an obligation to carry out the wishes of the meis. The Ran and Ramban seem to agree with the Rashba. The nafka mina according to the Machaneh Ephraim is by yesomim ketanim. A katan would not have a chiyuv to carry out his father’s wishes but if it works a sa kinyan then he would have no choice since the m’kabeil gets it immediately. The Ketzos (248:5) also says it is not a kinyan because other wise you would have to explain how you can circumventthe dinei yerusha. (also ayin R’ Elchanan Kesuvos Siman 315)
There is another machlokes Rishonim whether you need a shlish, a 3rd party. Rabbeinu Tam (Gitttin 14a) holds you need a shlish but the Ramban and Ran hold you don’t. Al pi pashtus one would say this is toloi on th e above machlokes but I think I saw the Minchas Asher try and say it is two independent ideas. The Maharsham quotes a Teshuvas Rivash that the Ramban only holds you don’t need a shlish when the meis was a sh’chiv meira. If the meis was a healthy person, you even the Ramban holds you would need a shlish.
When Do We Say It
There is discussion in the poskin whether mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis. Is this solely a monetary issue or even applies to other areas. The Sh’vus Ya’akov (siman 165) says it is only a monetary issue but there is a lifnim m’shuras hadin to listen to the meis in non monetary issues. One of his proofs is from Ya’akov. Why did Yosef require a shevuah if there is a chiyuv of mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis? It must be that mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis only applies to monetary issues. The problem with this is that the Ramban clearly says the shevuah was to help Yosef convince Pharoah. The Maharshdam takes a middle road that there is a chiyuv by monetary issues and a mitzvah by non monetary issues. The Noda BeYehuda (Tenyana Siman 75) discuss this issue also and says if the request was not made to the person it affects there is no chiyuv to listen. The example was a father instructed his wife to marry their daughter to a certain person. Since the command was to the wife and not the daughter there is no mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis. (even if it was made to the daughter directly in this situation there is also no mitzvah l’kayeim divrei hameis.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Shehechiyanu On A New Talis
I bought a new talis teh other day and this naturally led to the question of whether you say a shehechiyanu and when do you say it.
The first issue is whether you say a shehechiyanu on a mitzva. The Rambam (berachos perek 11) lists 3 catagories of mitzvos where you say a shehechiyanu 1) mitzva done m'zman l'zman like sukkah and lulav b) mitzva that you acquire like tallis and tefilin c) mitzvah that is not tadir like pidyon haben and mila. (I am not sure exactly what the lomdus of the Rambam is). Tosafos (Sukkah 46A) writes that you need two requirements for a shehechiyanu on a mitzva. It has to be chashuv and bring you simchah and it has to be m'zman l'zman. Therefore, you don't say shehechiyanu on a new tallis or tefilin. (Again I am not sure what the lomdus in the machlokes is)
The Mechabeir paskens like Tosafos but he adds that since a talis is a new garment you can say shehechiyanu on the new talis for that reason. However, you would not say shehechiyanu on tefilin. The Magen Avraham agrees with this and the Taz is choleik and holds you would say shehechiyanu on tefilin (like the Rambam). Interestingly, although the EMchabeir holds like Tosafos, Tosafos himself rejects the idea that you say shehechiyanu on a talis because it is a new garment. According to Tosafos, you need the additional requirement of being m'zman l'zman.
As far as when to make the beracha, the Rema adds that you should make it when you put on the tzitzis. The Magen Avraham explains that really the shehechiyanu on a new beged should be made when you buy it. However, you don't make a shehechiyanu when you buy a beged which can't be worn right away. So if it needs to be tailored you make the shehechiyanu when you wear the beged (ayin Siman 223:4). Therefore, by a talis you can't wear the beged until the tzitzis are put on. Really the beracha should be made the first time you wear it. However, in order to be choshesh for the Rambam we make the shehechiyanu when we do the mitzvah of putting on the tzitzis.
Nireh Li, that l'ma'aseh it seems if one buys a talis in the store that has tzitzis then the shehechiyanu shoould be made when you buy it. If one didn't make the beracha at the time you bought it, it is clear you can make it when you wear it. The Pri Migadim actually says you can make it even after wearing it teh 2nd or 3rd time.
Finally, assuming you didn't make the beracha until you wear it, which beracha comes first, shehechiyanu or l'hisateif b'tzitzis? This is a machlokes haposkim. Teh Be'er Heitev quotes the Olas Tamid who says you make a shehechiyanu first. The Mishna Berura quotes the Pri Migadim as saying you make l'hisateif first. The Sha'arei Aharon points out that the problem with the Mishna Berura is that the Pri Migadim doesn't actually say this. In fact the Pri Migadim seems to imply you say the shehechiyanu first since he compares it to eating a new fruit and by the new fruit the Pri Migadim says to say shehechiyanu and then the berach aon the fruit. Furthermore, the Mishan Berura himself paskens by a new fruit to say shehechiyanu first. It is not clear why here would be any different. I think it could depend on whether you view the shehechiyanu as a hefsek but tzarich iyun on the Mishan Berura.
The first issue is whether you say a shehechiyanu on a mitzva. The Rambam (berachos perek 11) lists 3 catagories of mitzvos where you say a shehechiyanu 1) mitzva done m'zman l'zman like sukkah and lulav b) mitzva that you acquire like tallis and tefilin c) mitzvah that is not tadir like pidyon haben and mila. (I am not sure exactly what the lomdus of the Rambam is). Tosafos (Sukkah 46A) writes that you need two requirements for a shehechiyanu on a mitzva. It has to be chashuv and bring you simchah and it has to be m'zman l'zman. Therefore, you don't say shehechiyanu on a new tallis or tefilin. (Again I am not sure what the lomdus in the machlokes is)
The Mechabeir paskens like Tosafos but he adds that since a talis is a new garment you can say shehechiyanu on the new talis for that reason. However, you would not say shehechiyanu on tefilin. The Magen Avraham agrees with this and the Taz is choleik and holds you would say shehechiyanu on tefilin (like the Rambam). Interestingly, although the EMchabeir holds like Tosafos, Tosafos himself rejects the idea that you say shehechiyanu on a talis because it is a new garment. According to Tosafos, you need the additional requirement of being m'zman l'zman.
As far as when to make the beracha, the Rema adds that you should make it when you put on the tzitzis. The Magen Avraham explains that really the shehechiyanu on a new beged should be made when you buy it. However, you don't make a shehechiyanu when you buy a beged which can't be worn right away. So if it needs to be tailored you make the shehechiyanu when you wear the beged (ayin Siman 223:4). Therefore, by a talis you can't wear the beged until the tzitzis are put on. Really the beracha should be made the first time you wear it. However, in order to be choshesh for the Rambam we make the shehechiyanu when we do the mitzvah of putting on the tzitzis.
Nireh Li, that l'ma'aseh it seems if one buys a talis in the store that has tzitzis then the shehechiyanu shoould be made when you buy it. If one didn't make the beracha at the time you bought it, it is clear you can make it when you wear it. The Pri Migadim actually says you can make it even after wearing it teh 2nd or 3rd time.
Finally, assuming you didn't make the beracha until you wear it, which beracha comes first, shehechiyanu or l'hisateif b'tzitzis? This is a machlokes haposkim. Teh Be'er Heitev quotes the Olas Tamid who says you make a shehechiyanu first. The Mishna Berura quotes the Pri Migadim as saying you make l'hisateif first. The Sha'arei Aharon points out that the problem with the Mishna Berura is that the Pri Migadim doesn't actually say this. In fact the Pri Migadim seems to imply you say the shehechiyanu first since he compares it to eating a new fruit and by the new fruit the Pri Migadim says to say shehechiyanu and then the berach aon the fruit. Furthermore, the Mishan Berura himself paskens by a new fruit to say shehechiyanu first. It is not clear why here would be any different. I think it could depend on whether you view the shehechiyanu as a hefsek but tzarich iyun on the Mishan Berura.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)