SheHechiyyanu on a New Fruit

There's a popular perception - which often comes into play on the second night of Rosh HaShanah - that one says a SheHechiyyanu on any fruit that one has not eaten in a year (however one defines such). I'm not sure where this idea comes from.

The Shulchan Aruch (OCh 225:6) states that any fruit that does not newly come into season each year (or part thereof), even if one has not eaten from it for a long time, does not carry with it the bracha of SheHechiyanu. Piskei Teshuvos (225:17-18) lists several rules governing the bracha on a new fruit:

- One does not say a SheHechiyyanu on a fruit, vegetable, or legume (!) that grows during all seasons of the year, even if it was seasonal until only modern times, but has now had its season extended through advanced technology, such as greenhouses, and is thus available in the market year-round, even if sometimes it is more expensive or uncommon.

- Seasonal fruits and vegetables that are stored in refrigerated containers, and that can thereby be acquired in the market year-round, are ineligible for the bracha of SheHechiyyanu, unless the fresh fruit that is available only during part of the year is clearly superior in taste or appearance than the refrigerated.

- One does not say the bracha on fruit that is pickled, preserved, or otherwise processed in any way through which it would not be recognizable that the fruit came from the new crop.

- Seasonal fruits that are out-of-season in one country but are imported from another country in which the fruits are now in-season are eligible for the bracha if 30 days have passed since he last ate this species of fruit. However, if the overall availability is such that the fruit is available throughout the year with no interruption, it has the same status as an aseasonal fruit.

These regulations would appear to make saying the bracha of SheHechiyyanu on a fruit more complicated.

Pirkei Avos - Kol Yisroel

What is the origin of the practice of reciting the first piece of the first mishnah of Perek Cheilek prior to learning the week's chapter of Pirkei Avos?

The Rema miPano (cited at the beginning of Peirushei HaRishonim Al Avos) gives an interesting explanation of the practice's origins. The "last chapter" of Pirkei Avos, Perek Kinyan Torah, was appended to the 5 actual chapters of Maseches Avos in order that the resulting 6 chapters can be read on the 6 Shabbosos that fall out between Pesach and Shavu'os, being that the first Shabbos of sefirah always falls out during the chag, and thus does not receive a special chapter of learning.

When the first day of Pesach falls out on Shabbos, though, the first of the seven Shabbosos of sefirah falls out on Isru Chag in Eretz Yisroel, necessitating the addition of another section of learning for the extra Shabbos. The Rema miPano states that the practice developed in Eretz Yisroel in such situations to learn the gemara at the beginning of Perek Cheilek on Shabbos Isru Chag Pesach, based on the mesorah that t'chiyas ha-meisim, which is discussed in this sugya, will occur on Pesach (this is also the reason why we recite the haftarah of the dry bones from Yechezkel on Shabbos Chol HaMoed Pesach). Eventually, this practice evolved by several temporal and spatial degrees to the extent that the first piece of the mishnah is now read everywhere on every Shabbos before learning Pirkei Avos.

Standing for the Chosson and Kallah at a Wedding

What is the origin of the practice to stand for a chosson and kallah at their wedding? The topic recently came up on a discussion list that I subscribe to, and the following has been pieced together from that discussion and other archived discussions found using Google.

One reason often given is because "chosson domeh l'melech", that a groom is compared to a king. The source for this is the end of Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 16, which states:

"A groom is similar to a king. Just as a king does not go out in public alone, so, too, a groom does not go out in public alone. Just as a king wears garments of honor, so, too, does a groom wear garments of honor during the seven days of rejoicing. Just like everyone praises a king, so, too, everyone praises a groom during the seven days of rejoicing. Just like the king's face shines like the sun, so, too, does a groom's face shine like the sun, as it says (Tehillim 19): 'He made a tent with them (the heavens) for the sun, which is like a groom going forth from his canopy'."

A rebbe of mine noted that this axiom is only said regarding a groom, though - and moreso, there is no halachic concept of a queen who can demand the same level of honor and awe that a king can (as described in the 2nd perek of Sanhedrin). This being the case, he argued that the parallel custom to stand for a bride has no basis.

Another reason often given is based on Bikkurim 3:3, which states that the craftsmen of Yerushalayim would stop their work and stand to greet the people who were bringing Bikkurim. In the Yerushalmi, R' Yosei b"r Bun states that the reason for showing them this honor is because they are going to do a mitzvah. This idea may also be the reason why we stand at Vayevarech David, due to the practice of giving tzedaka at that point during davening, but I'm not sure if there are any other situations where we stand for those who are going to do a mitzvah. The mitzvah involved would presumably be p'ru ur'vu, as I don't believe that marriage itself constitutes a mitzvah. This being the case, the practice would, again, apply only to a chosson, as the kallah doesn't have a mitzvah of p'ru ur'vu.

One poster noted that thirty years ago, no one stood for the chosson (or kallah), which may mean that it's a new practice altogether. Another poster observed that in Europe, the minhag was always to stand for the entire chuppah (and, indeed, some say that one is m'chuyav to stand for the entire sheva brachos under the chuppah, either as a din of kavod la-melech or because the nisu'in are considered to be a davar she-bikdusha, similar to Borchu, Kaddish, and Kedusha, which all require standing, so that the question of when to stand and when to sit never came up, further evidence that this may be a minhag amerika'i

Regardless of the validity of and reason behind the practice to stand for the chosson and kallah, it should be noted that there is a mitzvah d'oraisa to stand for the elderly (mipnei seivah takum), so that the people who are sitting along the aisle should *certainly* stand when the grandparents of the chosson and kallah pass within 4 amos of them in circles where the practice is for them to walk down the aisle (assuming that they are, indeed, above the age of 70).

Update, 8/12: The excerpt from R' Zev Cinamon's new sefer "BeYom Chasunaso" cited by Chaim B. in a comment, scanned by Dr. Yitzchak Levine. Sounds like a fascinating sefer.

Garlic and Sugar at a Pidyon ha-Ben

Ariella at Kallah Magazine Blog asks the reason behind the minhag to distribute garlic and sugar to the attendees of a pidyon ha-ben.

The question intrigued me, so I did a google search. Apparently, there's a well-known (aren't they all?) dictum that one who joins in the mitzvah of Pidyon HaBen is considered as if he has fasted 84 fasts. Shem MiShim’on (by R’ Shim’on Pollack) Yo”D 29 states that he doesn’t know where this idea comes from, but he has an arichus that tries to explain it. This being the case, by taking garlic and sugar, which are foods that go a long way, people can spread the mitzvah out to many other people. There may also be a symbolism in the sugar of sweet things to come and in the garlic of warding off evil spirits.

This information is provided as is, without endorsement.

The use of cholanis in the mi-shebeirach for the cholim

There's a discussion over at the End The Madness message board about use of the word "cholanis" in the mi shebeirach for the cholim. (The thread is located in the Madness Watch forum, under the title "New Degree of Separation"). In a comment there, I posted:
__
In a discussion of the matter at mail-jewish (38:48) , someone quoted the Meiri on Kesubos 51b who explains that a cholanis is borderline sick (cholah v'ainah cholah) while a cholah is someone who's outright sick. On MJ 38:41, someone noted that Siddur Tefillah Yesharah (aka the Berditchever siddur) uses the word cholanis in the mi shebeirach, perhaps out of a desire not to say that someone is outright sick and therefore needs a greater yeshuah in order to be healed.

One can ask why they use the nonparallel terms of choleh and cholanis; perhaps cholani is never found in divrei Chazal, so the authors of this version of the mi shebeirach did not feel comfortable inventing it. (On a side note, I'd be curious to know when the original text of this mi shebeirach was composed, in order to determine how much of an innovation the word change from cholah to cholanis (or vice versa?) really was).

Rosh HaShanah 1 - Nuts!

Josh at ParshaBlog discusses the custom not to eat nuts on Rosh HaShanah. One of the reasons given by the Rema (OC 583:2) in the name of the Maharil is that nuts cause an excess of mucus and phlegm which can disturb one's davening.

I asked my source on arcane medico-halachic topics if he knew anything about this, and he said that he wasn't aware of any classical medical literature describing this connection, but there exists alternative medical literature that connects nuts to an excess of mucus, despite its counterintuitive nature that monounsaturated fats of the variety found in nuts usually prevents the formation of mucus.

Update: The ADDerabbi has a very interesting explanation based on the similarity of a walnut to the human brain (a la Galen) and the idea that the phlegm (as opposed to the blood and black and yellow biles) was associated with rationalism and logic, which are antithetical to prayer and which are connected with the Etz HaDa'as, which Adam ate from on this day.

Mordechai Manowitz of Bar Ilan also deals with this question, and suggests that just as many of the reasons for the positive simanim are because of the names of the foods, so too is the reason for not eating nuts because of the name - in German, the word for nut is nus, which is pronounced like the Hebrew word for "flee". He supports this contention based on the Chida, who explains a minhag in some places not to eat fish based on its being spelled in Nechemiah with an intermediate aleph, thereby being spelled like the word "da-ag", to worry.

Hataras Nedarim

Steg asks why the formula for hataras nedarim calls the judges "dayyanim mumchim", expert judges, if even hedyotos are eligible to serve as judges for this type of court action (In a comment there, I noted that a beis din of three judges would by definition *not* be one of mumchim, as a mumcheh can be mattir a neder on his own (this technique is also referred to as she'eilas chacham)).

On the topic of hataras nedarim, I'd like to make mention of a couple of other issues. Firstly, does the hatarah work if one does not understanding the Hebrew words that one is saying? Being that this is a court action and not a ritual, I would think that it would be more important for a person to know what they are saying, rather than stumbling over Hebrew words that they are unfamiliar with, as is also the halacha for bittul chameitz (Kol chamira).

Secondly, how does it work for twenty people to be reciting the formula for hataras nedarim all at the same time? Shouldn't the judges be able to hear what each person is saying?

Granted, the whole issue of being matir a neder without specifying the neder being hutar is sort of strange, especially in light of that there's not even an attempt to find a loophole (petach) through which the neder can be undone (unless this latter is only a din by the hatarah done by a single mumcheh), but if we're taking the effort to engage in a pseudolegal ritual, it would seem like we should make the effort to do things as realistically as possible.

Last year I forgot to do my hataras nedarim until 5 minutes before Kol Nidrei, so walked over to three guys sitting in shul, convened a beis din, summarized the long introductory paragraph in 30 seconds (making sure that I hit every important detail), and went with that. I don't see any possible issue with doing it this way.

Shabbat Shuvah

In Igros Moshe (1:147), R' Moshe Feinstein discusses the proper formulation of the haftarah for Shabbos Shuvah, which appears in many chumashim as coming from Hoshe'a 14:2-10 (Shuvah Yisroel), Yo'el 2:15-27 (Tik'u shofar b'Tzion), and Micha 7:18-20 (Mi Keil kamocha nosei avon, etc.). He rejects the practice of reading all three sections, explaining, rather, that the proper haftarah is Hoshe'a and either Yo'el or Micha.

He then goes further to explain the reason for the two options. The section from Hoshe'a is the main part of the haftarah, beginning with an exhortation to do teshuvah. The only problem, though, is that the haftarah ends on a negative note (14:10):

מִי חָכָם וְיָבֵן אֵלֶּה, נָבוֹן וְיֵדָעֵם כִּי-יְשָׁרִים דַּרְכֵי יְהוָה, וְצַדִּקִים יֵלְכוּ בָם, וּפֹשְׁעִים, יִכָּשְׁלוּ בָם

"Whoever is wise, let him understand these things; whoever is understanding, let him know them: For the ways of Hashem are upright, and the righteous shall walk in them, but sinners shall stumble in them."

For this reason, we have to append an additional short passage from later in the book of T'rei Asar in order to end on a positive note. The best candidate for this would be the three-verse stand-alone section from Micha. However, this would not be a feasible option in shuls that read the haftaros from a Navi scroll, as the two sections are separated by the 25 chapters that comprise the books of Yo'el, Amos, Ovadiah, Yonah, and Micha, and to roll the scroll to this extent in the middle of the haftarah would constitute a tircha d'tzibbura. Therefore, shuls in this circumstance read the section of Yo'el, which is only one or two columns shifted over, and which, although it is considerably longer that the section from Micha, does not require "dead-time" in the middle of the haftarah.

As a bonus, the section from Yo'el when added to the section from Hoshe'a makes the haftarah longer than 21 pesukim, which is the theoretical minimum length for a haftarah (except when the topic of the chosen section of Navi ends before this minimum is reached, which happens surprisingly often).

Wedding ring

No, not yet (although I'm going to be an eid kiddushin on Sunday, which started my thought process).

The reason why a ring used for kiddushin is traditionally (halachically?) made of simple gold with no adornment is so that the woman would easily know the value of the ring, to avoid the possibility of mekach ta'us [kiddushin, actually, but typing the more accurate phrase was causing me problems in Blogger, for some reason] if she's mistaken about the value of a gem attached to the ring. This makes a lot of sense during the olden days, when currency was worth its weight in the metal under consideration - the woman can see the ring and know that the ring is worth that volume of gold. Nowadays, though, she would not necessarily know the value of gold in dollars. Do we care about this? Would it be worthwhile to look up the value of gold beforehand in dollars (and, of course, the density of gold), so that she's under no delusions as to the ring's value? If all that would be needed is for her to acquiesce to the kiddushin for anything more than a p'ruta, why the hakpada against an ornamented ring?

This assumes that the value of the ring is equivalent to a chunk of gold of the equivalent weight. Do we, then, not account for the cost of the labor of the goldsmith?

Sh'liach Mitzvah money

The ADDeRabbi has an interesting post on Sh'liach mitzvah money, in which he notes its likely origin in the ma'amar on Pesachim 8a that "Shluchei mitzvah einan nizokin", messengers sent to do a mitzvah do not come to harm, but questions some of the methods in which this custom is observed nowadays, most notably how it is only applied in the case of people traveling to Eretz Yisroel.

In a comment on the post, I noted:
My impression was that, when it comes to the priorities of giving tzedakah, the aniyim of one's own community come before the aniyim of anywhere else, with the exception of aniyei E"Y, who are on the same level of priority. If this is true, a Jew in NY could use someone traveling to E"Y to be his shaliach to give tzedaka there, but if the traveler is going to Los Angeles, he could not do so, because the sender's obligation would be to distribute the money in his own town, rather than in another town.

Granted, I haven't heard of people nowadays being makpid not to support aniyim of cities in Chu"L outside their own, but perhaps this could still explain the reason why, when the "laws" of sh'liach mitzvah money were codified, only travelers to E"Y were included.

Alternatively, perhaps the practice of sh'liach mitzvah money was initiated at a time when the community there was experiencing significant financial struggles (i.e., any time before the late 1800s). If this is the case, perhaps the practice of sh'liach mitzvah money, which as you mentioned is only tangentially based on the gemara in Pesachim, was innovated specifically to save the Jews living in E"Y at the time.

In a later comment, I asked for the earliest mention of this practice in the halachic literature.

Several posters challenged my post's implication that one who goes against the order of priorities is doing something wrong. One noted that the order of priorities is not an order of precedence, per se, but rather is ultimately translated into a fractional disbursement of one's funds (and further noted that aniyei E"Y are on a second level between aniyei ircha and aniyim of other cities). Taking these into consideration, one can still posit that if one is sending money anywhere, it makes more sense to be sending it to E"Y than to a city in Chu"L.

Upon further thought, though, the practical origin of the practice suggested by my second answer seems to me to be more likely than the halachic origin suggested by my first answer (It seems to me that this is a k'lal which can often be successfully applied in understanding contemporary Jewish practices whose origins are unclear). Ben Bayit in a comment there noted that the Gra and Chida are recorded in the "pinkas Eretz Yisroel" kept by the Jewish community of Amsterdam to have been given funds for their personal use in traveling to (back to, for the Chida) E"Y and for disbursement in the community there.

Acharei-Kedoshim 1

A couple of notes on my last post:

1) The Arizal actually popularized Hilula d'Rashbi (the yahrtzeit of R' Shimon bar Yochai), which falls out on Lag BaOmer, but is not an inherent part of the chag (the latter being defined as the day that the students of R' Akiva stopped dying, or some variant thereof). Although, based on my limited experience with kabbalistic matters, there probably is some connection that is brought down between the two.

2) I asked a rav about the usage of an ordinal number rather than a cardinal number for sefirah, and he said that it was not an issue.

New matters:

1) Why does a yoledes have to bring a korban chatas? Rashb"i on Niddah 31b says it's as a kapara for the oath that she made during the travails of her labor never again to have marital relations, to which Rav Yoseif brings up several challenges that are not dealt with by the gemara there (i.e., she was m'zidah, her sh'vuah can be hutar through going to a rav and thus does not need a korban, the korban prescribed for her is not the usual korban for a sh'vuah). Tzarich iyyun.

2) Why is the shiur for hotza'ah of milk on Shabbos only a sip (g'mi'ah) and not a revi'is (like by other liquids) or some derivative thereof (like undiluted wine, for which the shiur is enough to be diluted into a revi'is). The gemara emphasizes that the purpose of the milk is for drinking (or, interestingly (?), another portion of the sugya refers to it as eating), not for any other purpose, such as medicinal.

3) If we allow that mayim acharonim is still in effect nowadays, according to the psak of the Shulchan Aruch, how does barely sprinkling the fingers accomplish this? There are two reasons given for mayim acharonim to my understanding: Melach s'domis (leaving aside issues of metzius), which would ostensibly require a thorough washing b/c of sakanah, and a drash from this week's parsha (for the requisite tie-in) which learns out mayim rishonim and mayim acharonim from the dual lashon of v'hiskadishtem vih'yisem kedoshim (20:7). The latter reason would appear to juxtapose the two, and thereby equate the two into chiyuvim that require a revi'is (maybe this is the basis of the Gra, who holds that even mayim acharonim require a bracha), while for the former reason, one would have to say that only the fingertips would have come in contact with the melach s'domis, which I originally thought didn't sound so compelling, but seems to make sense.

Update, 7/3: This past Shabbos, I was asked that, if the reason for mayim acharonim is merely because of sakana, what's the reason for removing or covering the used water during bentching (presumably because of ru'ach ra'ah). This would seem to indicate that there's some aspect of vih'yisem kedoshim in the chiyuv, also, which then reintroduces the question of why we (meaning the various shuls in which I've eaten seudah shlishis) only wash the finger tips. Unless there's something tamei in general with used washwater/bathwater (and that being the case, a swimming pool that is not a valid mikveh)?

Maror

Is there any basis whatsoever for a seder plate having spots for both "maror" and "chazeres"? (Even leaving aside that the Mishnah Brurah paskens that chazeres is the best type of maror to use).

Update:

It was shown to me that this instruction appears in the commentary on the haggadah by the last Lubavitcher Rebbe. He gives two reasons for using both types: firstly, a lack of absolute certainty that chazeres is what we think it is, so that it makes sense to hedge our bets, and additionally due to kabbalistic reasons connecting horseradish to the straight-up maror and lettuce to koreich.

Subsequently, another source was shown to me that attributes the presence of both horseradish and chazeres on the seder plate to the Arizal. Rabbi Sholom Dovber Schneerson (the Rebbe Rashab) explains that the Arizal's arrangements of items on the seder plate highlights their connection to the eser sefiros:

z'roa - chesed - kindness, epitomized by Hashem's z'roa netuya in taking us out of Egypt.
beitzah - gevurah - strength - egg is cooked until it becomes hard.
maror - tif'eres - empathy - maror is a method through which we empathize with the Jews who suffered in Egypt.
These three constitute one subset of sefiros and are grouped into one triangle.

charoses - netzach - endurance - mortar symbolizes permanence
karpas - hod - humility - grows close to the ground
chazeres - y'sod - foundation? - chazeres joins together with matza in koreich
These three constitute a second subset of sefiros and a second triangle.

Malchus - dignity - is represented by the seder plate itself, and the three matzos placed below symbolize the three sefiros elyonos, chochma, bina, and da'as.

This, at least, answers my question regarding the source of the practice. Note to self: "When in doubt, attribute it to the Arizal" works surprisingly often.