For private communication, write to eliezer(no space)e at aol

Thursday, December 30, 2010

#2 Va'eira 6:7, Hamotzi and A Cool Hetter

The essential point of this post comprises six paragraphs.  They are all related, but you have to be patient.

The passuk says הַמּוֹצִיא אֶתְכֶם מִתַּחַת סִבְלוֹת מִצְרָיִם, who will take you from the burdens of Mitzrayim.   Since Hashem is talking to Moshe long before they left, the simple meaning of the passuk is that hamotzi is "who is going to take you out."  If so, then, הַמּוֹצִיא would be the wrong word to use in the bracha of Hamotzi, which thanks Hashem for the bread we are eating which He brought forth from the ground, not what He will do in the future.  Nonetheless, the Gemara in Brachos 38a/b says that lehalacha we do say Hamotzi and not Motzi, and we interpret our verse to mean "I will do something that will inspire future generations to remember that I took them out of Mitzrayim."

The gemara there says that someone told Reb Zeira that Reb Zevid's son was a talmid chacham and an expert in brachos.  Reb Zeira said "send him to me, and I'll decide if he's a talmid chacham."  When the young man came, Reb Zeira gave him bread and told to to eat it.  He said Motzi, not Hamotzi.  Reb Zeira said, "this person you call a baki in brachos?  Everyone knows that Motzi is a good nusach.  If he were a talmid chacham, he should have said Hamotzi, which would be a chiddush in halacha and an interesting pshat in the passuk in Va'eira."  Reb Moshe points out, (and I'm pretty sure he was quoting a Rosh which I can't remember at the moment,) that evidently it was expected that a talmid chacham, in a new place, would choose a non-standard novel nusach of Hamotzi just so that he would have the opportunity to say a shiur and show that he knew how to learn.

It is assur to talk or delay unnecessarily between netilas yadayim and hamotzi.  But the first Magen Avraham in OC 166 brings an opinion (Rabbeinu Tam) that on Shabbos, this problem is not as serious.  The issur hefsek before hamotzi is not like hefsek in davening, where the problem is zilzul, disrespect of the tefilla.  Here, the problem is that you might get involved in something else and distracted, and end up not eating at all.  On Shabbos, when you have a mitzva to eat, and there's a festive table set, there is no such concern, so go ahead and talk.  Actually, he's talking about making kiddush or havdalah before hamotzi, but (as is clear in the Aruch Hashulchan there) the logic pertains just as well to any talking.  We don't hold like that, though, le'halacha.

AND....  It so happens that the Shlah in the first volume toward the end of Kedusha brings from Tshuvos Maharshal that you can talk Divrei Torah between netillas yadayim and hamotzi because you are allowed to interrupt to talk about things that are needed for the meal, and divrei torah are certainly needed at the meal, as Reb Chanina ben Tradyon and Rebbi Shimon say in Avos 3:3-4
רבי חנניא בן תרדיון אומר, שנים שיושבין ואין ביניהן דברי תורה, הרי זה מושב לצים. אבל שנים שיושבין ויש ביניהם דברי תורה, שכינה שרויה ביניהם
רבי שמעון אומר, שלשה שאכלו על שלחן אחד ולא אמרו עליו דברי תורה, כאלו אכלו מזבחי מתים  אבל שלשה שאכלו על שלחן אחד ואמרו עליו דברי תורה, כאלו אכלו משלחנו של מקום ברוך הוא
But no, we don't hold like the Shlah, though, le'halacha.

But what about combining the two heteirim?  If someone wants to talk in learning before hamotzi on Shabbos, he has two svaros to be meikil- the Rabbeinu Tam/Magen Avraham and the Tshuvos Maharshal/Shlah.  Would such a thing be a lechatchila le'halacha? No.  Is it worth doing it just to shock and awe people, and then tell them why you did it, just as Rav Zeira expected Reb Zevid's son to do?  Yes.  

And it would be perfect for this week's parsha.  Wash, say ahl netilas yadayim, and say a dvar torah before hamotzi.  The Dvar Torah would be to explain that the nusach of Hamotzi is connected to this week's parsha, but at one time, most people said Motzi, not Hamotzi; but Reb Zeira held that a talmid chacham should use the non-standard so he could say a shiur about why he did so and the pshat in the passuk in Va'eira.  So you see that it's good to be somech on daas yachid in the bracha of Hamotzi in order to show a chiddush in Torah.  Normally, we're not allowed to talk before hamotzi, but we are going to follow Reb Zeira's advice and do so because here, there are two reasons why we can be meikil: Shabbos, according to the Magen Avraham/Rabbeinu Tam, and for divrei torah, according to the Shlah/Mahrshal.  Presto!  (For those that feel that I am playing fast and loose with the halacha, please do two things: first, please realize that we're not talking about hilchos mikvaos here; and second, see the second picture in the column on the right.)

Speaking of the dinim of hefsek and this week's parsha:  There's a sefer from the Dubner Maggid on the parshios.  In this week's parsha, he connects Yetzias Mitzrayim to the Rama's din in 119.  The Rama in 119 says that there's less of a problem of smichas geula l'tfila on Shabbos.  Normally, the requirement that we not interrupt is based on the psukim of ya'ancha next to Hashem sfasai tiftach, and since on Shabbos it's not a time of "tefilla to be saved from yom tzara", the psukim don't apply.  The Magid says that on Shabbos we daven for simcha, not to be saved from suffering, and that's pshat in not having a din of tefilla of yom tzara.

So while I wouldn't recommend relying on the Rama regarding geula/tefilla, I think there's a special mitzva to say a dvar Torah between Netilas Yadayim and Hamotzi on Friday night of Parshas Va'eira. 


Daniel said...

An involved dvar torah will most definitely cause hesech ha'daas and will consequently be worse than the casual word or request spoken between washing and the brocha of haMotzi.

The heter regarding speaking of things pertaining to the meal (e.g. הביאו מלח) is regarding between the beracha of haMotzi and the eating of the bread, atleast as far as I know. From your post it sounds like you're saying it's between washing and the beracha of haMotzi.

b said...

Between hamotzi and pas is much more chamur than between netila and bracha, and if tzorchei seuda are muttar during the former, they are certainly muttar during the latter.

Yes, of course divrei torah are the biggest hesech hadaas, as the gemara in Shabbos indicates by im hischilu ein mafsikim/mafsikin, but I'm just saying over the Shlah, and who am I to disagree with the Shlah?

b said...

Oh, I get your point, Daniel. You're saying that the Magen Avraham's hetter is based on the assumption that the hefsek is because you might forget to eat, while the Shlah's svara is based on the idea that there is a connection between the netila and the achila- teikef l'netila bracha, which is a machlokes the Aruch Hashulchan discusses in the beginning of 166. So you're saying that I can't combine the MA and the Shlah since they have totally different ideas of why hefsek is a problem. OK, I have to think about that.

Daniel said...

err, correct. But without seeing the Shela or the Magen Avraham inside (i'm downloading now the Shelah I think but I may need your further help in finding it) I believe the hesech ha'daat of the Magen Avrohom is a din in Ms' Yadayim and refers to losing cognizance of your hands and where they've been, which then in turn automatically will turn them back into שניות לטומאה because of גזרת חכמים סתם ידיים שניות. It has nothing to do with forgetting to eat the bread in my opinion (but again i haven't seen the M'A inside).

Daniel said...

I never really learnt the Shelah... how/where can i find this?

I downloaded this sefer but don't see any sha'ar kedusha...

b said...

The Shaar Hakedusha is in the Shaar Ha'osios, which is in the first volume of the Shlah.

Daniel said...

I believe I found it. Didn't see any heading for Sha'ar Kedusha but it's it's Sha'ar HaOtiot pg 118-119 in the following download

Confusing. Everything is stemming from a Zohar that a Tanna used to pray a unique tefilla before he'd begin eating...from that he extrapolotes one could daven an entire Shemone Esrei between Netila and Homotzi... and then he further quotes a Teshuva of Rashal that Divrei Torah in general arent a hefsek and hence a further extrapolation... I know nothing of the greatness of the Shelah but all I can say is that the logic here does not make sense to me... the continuity in the Shela is stange also though because he says he's going to quote the entire Rashal mentioned above and then quotes him without any mention of the heter to speak divrei torar but rather the need for salt on the table SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE WE CAN'T SPEAK TORAH THEN....

b said...

Yes, thank you, Daniel, that's the one. It is in the Sha'ar Ha'osiyos, which is divided into sub-she'arim, this one being Sha'ar Kedusha under the letter Kuf.

Barzilai said...

I delete comments that are neither useful nor clever. Expressed in a more positive manner, what I mean is that I delete comments that are both useless and obtuse. Sorry if this disturbs you.