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.

A response to "The Symbolic Violence of Vegetables"

Miriam Segura at Reshimu noted how so many of the prayers said over the symbolic foods at the Rosh HaShanah meal express violent sentiments, that our enemies be cut off, wiped off, and otherwise destroyed, and wonders why such extreme measures are called for, instead of a more peaceful resolution.

In a comment there, I suggested:

I believe that the two readings of the verse from Tehillim that you cite do not represent Beruriah decisively besting her husband (Brachos 10a), but rather represent two different worldviews. Beruriah challenged R' Meir's practice of praying for the death of his tormentors, remarking that he could as easily pray for them to do teshuva, but R' Meir's worldview appears to be a more realistic one.

It's often tempting to attribute our enemies' opinions to foolishness and lack of thought, in that if only they would listen to our arguments, they would immediately defect to our side, but the truth is often less rose-tinted; our enemies also have complex ideologies, even acknowledging that in many cases they were developed from a bottom-up perspective, and cannot be expected to easily change their ways (desired, yes; expected, no). Moreso, this attitude change cannot easily be prayerfully requested from God, Who as a rule does not instill fear of God in people. Hence, we and R' Meir choose the more realistic violent alternative in our prayers for our enemies; we cannot afford to infinitely wait for the waning of their recalcitrance. Avraham was as willing to take up the sledgehammer as the tent hammer and the sword as the chalaf.

Nonetheless, many of our tefillos at the Rosh HaShanah meal can still be viewed through idealistic Berurian lenses following the footsteps of the commentators on Yonah, who note that his prophecy of an upheaval in Nineveh was accomplished as well by the sackcloth and prayer that turned it into a more righteous society as it would have been by the fire and brimstone that would have turned it into Sodomite ruins. So, too, if our enemies see the error of their ways, the fact that they are no longer besieging our gates would indeed constitute a removal, completion, or any other of the terms we utilize in expressing our hopes for them.

Rosh HaShanah 2 - Kavod Tzibbur

The Mishnah Berurah (585:2) states b'shem the Birkei Yosef (b'shem the Ridbaz), the Mateh Avraham, and the Derech HaChaim that the tzibbur need not stand up during the teki'os dimyushav said before Mussaf, even though the ba'al tekiah must stand due to an asmachta learned out from sefirah, due to kavod tzibbur, in cojunction with the fact that they'll be standing anyway for the teki'os dim'umad said during musaf (and it probably doesn't hurt that the whole concept of standing for teki'as shofar is only an asmachta, and not m'akeiv).

Are there any other cases where kavod tzibbur is invoked as a reason to be outright lenient on the tzibbur, as opposed to merely a reason to arrange otherwise neutral activities in such a way so as to be as efficient as possible (e.g., on Yom Kippur, the kohen gadol recites the section from P' Pinchas ba'al peh, so as not to burden the tzibbur while they roll from the previously read section in P' Emor - see Yoma 70a), or a reason not to add in too many mi-shebeirach tefillos?

Tangentially, is kavod tzibbur identical to tircha d'tzibbura?

Aseres Y'mei Teshuvah 1 - Shemoneh Esrei thoughts

Earlier today, I was thinking about the 6 additions that we added to the Shemoneh Esrei of the last week.

In the first two brachos, each of the additions are of similar structure to the proceeding line. The addition to the first bracha is a prayer that we be remembered and written within the Book of Life. This follows an acknowledgement that HaShem remembers the kindnesses of the Forefathers in bringing a redeemer to their descendants. The bracha as a whole is known as Avos, emphasizing its purpose as providing an opening for us to even dare approach HaShem in prayer, by using the names of our righteous fathers as a passkey of sorts. Were it not for this "in", we would never be able to muster the pure gall to approach the King of Kings and to lay forth our requests, or even to praise him. Since the bracha already asks HaShem to recall our fathers' righteousness, we proceed to ask Him to remember us for life. The two types of memory, though, are of disparate types, as one is a passive memory of the past, while the other is an active memory of the present, more akin to a p'kidah. The addition, then, is the only request ever included in the first three blessings, which makes it somewhat odd.

The addition to the second bracha is a statement acknowledging HaShem's mercy. This follows a statement acknowledging HaShem's might. Both statements begin with the phrase "Mi Chamocha", "Who is like you?", acknowledging God's uniqueness. Once we have been granted permission to approach HaShem in prayer, we begin by praising His all-powerfulness, which is the reason why prayer unto Him is worthwhile from a practical standpoint. During these days, we also add in praise for his great mercy.

In the third blessing, the emendation is not an addition, but rather is a change, in that we switch the word "Keil", God, for "Melech", King, which emphasizes his specific interaction with us during these days. The theme of this blessing is God's "holiness", as well as that of His name and that of those who praise Him. This is the only time that we excise the word "Keil" from the Shemoneh Esrei. We do not make the change in the first blessing by "HaKeil HaGadol", ostensibly because the phrase was used by Moshe. Nor do we make the change by "Keil Elyon" immediately following, perhaps in order to keep the phrases parallel (I'm not sure if its use by Malkitzedek is significant). The word also appears in Shome'a Tefillah (ki Keil shome'a tefillah v'sachanun ata), Modim deRabbanan (Baruch Keil ha-hoda'os), and the end of the bracha of Hoda'ah (ha-Keil yeshu'aseinu v'ezraseinu selah), but is not changed in any of these.

The only change during the middle blessings is a switch from "Melech oheiv tzedakah u-mishpat" to "Ha-melech ha-mishpat", which seems to be a change from the theoretical to the practical for these days.

The blessing of Avodah is the only one of the 6 primary blessings that is not altered during these days.

In the bracha of Hoda'ah, we add in a prayer that we be written for good life (compare to the first blessing, in which the prayer was to be written in the *book* of *life* (with no mention of the word "good")). I have no idea how this fits in to the concept of thanksgiving, as the addition is a linchpin connecting a summation that God's name shall be exalted for all of the goodness that we mentioned in Modim and a generalization that all living things shall praise God. The insertion of this request line would bother me a lot less if we were consistent in inserting some sort of request in all 6 primary blessings.

In the last bracha, we conclude with a plea that we be remembered and written in the book of life, blessing, peace, and prosperity. The last blessing, about peace, is also a somewhat general request, so the insertion, changing the focus from a general request to a recording in the book, makes sense.

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.

Vayeira 1 - We are the Mustard

(a dvar Torah that I wrote for the UPenn Hillel dvar torah newsletter last year for P' Vayeira).

At the end of the episode of the Binding of Isaac, Abraham renames the location of the event “HaShem Yir’eh” - “God shall watch over”. The Rabbis tell us that this mountain is the eventual site of the Temple in Jerusalem. However, we never hear the name “HaShem Yir’eh” being used again, as all future references to this place refer to it as Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a combination of the name given by Abraham and the name that had been given to it centuries earlier by Shem, (the son of Noah), “Shalem”, meaning “complete” (Bereishis Rabbah 56:16). If Jerusalem already had a name that had been given to it by Abraham’s ancestor Shem, why did Abraham need to change it? What is the significance of this double name?

The author of the Meshech Chochmah, R’ Meir Simcha HaKohen of Dvinsk, (1843-1926), notes that the two names reflect the different foci of these two great men. Shem was born during the years leading up to the Flood, where the primary problems in the world were social crimes, such as robbery and sexual perversion, and even the animals were implicated in sin. Ultimately, the only solution to this world gone awry was for everything to restart with a clean slate. During the year that Shem spent on the ark with his father and brothers, he was the sole provider of sustenance for the animals aboard, and he therefore had an opportunity to repair their corrupt nature. Once the period of the Flood ended, Shem founded the city of Shalem and an academy. The city was a monument to the peace and wholesomeness that he hoped would pervade all living species’ interactions with one another, and the academy was devoted to disseminating these ideals.

Abraham, on the other hand, was born in a time when the world had a different set of problems. Although people were generally able to live in peace during Abraham’s time, they had become ensnared by the intellectual perversion promoted by the priests of idolatry and the rulers who sponsored them. Although he is known as one who excelled in acts of kindness, Abraham’s agenda was not solely peaceful coexistence; to the contrary, the Midrash relates how he was arrested because of his dangerous ideas of monotheism that threatened to topple the existing social structure. The battle that Abraham fought was one for the truth - acknowledgment of god’s presence in the world. This is inherent in the name “HaShem Yir’eh”, which refers to the revelation and recognition of god’s interaction with the world.

The name Jerusalem is therefore a reference to the city’s two distinct roles in the world. Firstly, it is a city for all the nations of the world, the intellectual descendents of Shem, whose ideal was peaceful coexistence. When Solomon built the Temple in Jerusalem centuries later, he acknowledged this fact, expressing his hopes that this edifice would be a house of prayer for all nations. The Seven Noahide Laws also reflect this reality, as they are entirely bereft of ritual, but rather consist of six prohibitions that are especially crucial to a properly functioning society, as well as the requirement to institute a system of courts to enforce the rule of law.

However, the city also has a special additional connection to the Jewish people, the intellectual descendents of their father Abraham. Abraham recognized that, while peace and social harmony were very important ideals, their primary purpose was as prerequisites to a greater message, that of knowledge of the Divine. Besides being charged with the basic social laws of Noah and Shem, the Jewish people were given a second layer of responsibilities, which comprise the full body of the Torah. The Torah consists of a wide variety of laws, many of which are rituals whose importance can only be deduced by virtue of the special Divine decree that mandated them. It is precisely these laws that set the Jewish people apart from the other nations, causing them to suffer hatred and xenophobia over the span of history.

At the same time, though, it is these laws that have caused the Jewish people to have a disproportionate effect on world civilization. Primo Levi expresses this realization in his autobiographical The Periodic Table: “I am the impurity that makes the zinc react; I am the grain of salt or mustard”. Jerusalem symbolizes our relationship to the nations of the world. On the one hand, we seem on the surface to be more alike than unlike, in that we devote ourselves to fulfillment of the legal obligations upon which society is built; on the other hand, though, our mission often drives us into a frontal collision with societal norms and with the values that a given civilization has adopted. It is our duty to remain loyal to the trail blazed by Abraham, and not to complacently value peace and assimilation over all else.

High Holy Days

What is the origin of the phrase High Holy Days, as opposed to the more accurate translation "Awesome Days"?

I spoke to several people who are knowledgable about language, and came out with the following information. German uses the phrase "Hohe Feiertage", which means "high celebration days". Yiddish, interestingly, does not appear to have any similar phrase in it - nor do any other languages, to the knowledge of my source, have equivalent terminologies referring to the yamim nora'im. Hence, the phrase most likely jumped over from German, but the origins of the phrase are still unclear.