The Parameters of the Mitzvah of Sefiras Ha-Omer

There are two major machlekos rishonim that come up in discussions of the parameters of the mitzvah of sefiras ha-omer. The first machlokes is whether sefiras ha-omer is one mitzvah or 49 mitzvos. In this machlokes, Tosefos, the Rosh and the Shibbelei HaLeket hold that each night is its own mitzvah, while the Behag holds that the entire 49-day period constitutes one long mitzvah. The second machlokes is whether one can fulfill the mitzvah of sefirah during the daytime. In this machlokes, the Rambam and the Behag allow a person to count by day, while Tosefos and the Shibbelei HaLeket hold that if he does so, he is not yotzei (the Rosh advises him to count without a bracha). The popular practice is to be machmir in both machlekos individually by counting without a bracha, if necessary. The kula at the conjunction of the two (i.e., relying on a daytime counting to continue a 49-day count) is, at first glance, sefeik sefeika, but is also the result of either of the opposing combinations of shittos of Tosefos/Shibbelei HaLeket and the Behag.

Mori v'rabbi HaRav Shlomo Wahrman, in Oros HaPesach (78), suggests that the two machlekos are connected, based on a Meiri in Rosh HaShanah (6a). The Meiri explains the apparent contradiction between bal te'acheir (delaying the offering of a neder), in which he's oveir every day on which he is delinquent, and bal talin (delaying the consumption of said korban), in which he's oveir only once, by noting that for the latter issur, the time of the consumption of a korban is a single uninterrupted period, while for the former issur, the time for the offering of a korban is interrupted by the end of each day. Hence, while he's oveir on each new day on bal te'acheir when the issur becomes relevant again, the issur of bal talin never loses its relevancy, so that once he's oveir immediately following the deadline of the korban's consumption, he never incurs any additional violations.

So, too, the Behag holds that the permitted time for counting the omer is not interrupted by nightfall. Hence, it can be viewed as being one long mitzvah, whose interruption by a missed day breaks it up. Tosefos and the Shibbelei HaLeket, on the other hand, hold that there are 49 distinct periods for the performance of the mitzvah of sefiras ha-omer, and each is independent of the others.

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)?

Grab-bag

1) The Shulchan Aruch says that the preferred lashon for sefirah is BaOmer (the TaZ concurs) while the Shlah and the Arizal (as well as the Mishnah Brurah) prefer LaOmer. Hence, it is interesting that, although the Arizal was the one who popularized the observances of Lag BaOmer, he did not call it by that name.

2) Is one yotzei if he counts "Today is the 2nd day of the omer", instead of "Today is two days to the omer"?

3) How do the laws of hastara for a sotah differ from the laws of yichud, if at all? My question is based on the gemara in the beginning (2-3?) which mentioned an opinion that the lashon of kinui is used by the sotah because it causes animosity between the women and other men, in that they might not know that her husband was makneh her, and therefore will be put off by the fact that she will not be mistateres with them, anymore, which implies that prior to her kinui, such hastarah was mutar.

4) The haftara of the 2nd day of Pesach, which I leined, ends precisely at an apex, as beginning with the very next passuk, the kingdom of Yehudah begins to plummet, through the downfall of Yoshiyahu, the persecutions under Yehoyakim, the timidity of Tzidkiyahu, the churban, the assassination of Gedaliah, and the subsequent abandonment of the land against Yirmiyahu's warnings. I later quipped to the gabbai that I was contemplating concluding on an Eichah riff. It might have been a good idea, if for no other reason that than of a "mah nishtanah" to arouse the sleepy congregants into wondering what the context of this nevuah was.