Thursday, February 16, 2006

Shtickle Torah

As a general rule we hold that in order for one person to be motzi other person, both people (the giver and the receiver) need to be on the same obligatory status. There are, however, a number of instances where even though one has already fulfilled his obligation to do something (and is subsequently patur from doing it again), this person can still take others out from their obligation. The prototypical case would be Kiddush – that even though one has already said it, he could say it again (and again and again), if necessary. This theory should apply to Havdalah as well. It should be noted that it is a bit of a discussion regarding whether one could make for his wife (or other women) after one had previously fulfilled his obligation – this is because of the discussion as to whether women are obligated in Havdalah at all. But, for our purposes, lets say our case is that someone made in one house, goes somewhere else, and being the gadol that he is, is asked to say it again. As previously mentioned, our theory (of multiple sayings being okay) should apply here as well, and from the lashon of the Mishna Berura, this is the case:

…” וכ"ש אם יש אחד מבני הבית אפילו קטן שהגיע לחינוך שלא שמע עדיין הבדלה יוכל להבדיל בשבילו אף שהוא בעצמו יצא כבר ידי חובת הבדלה בבהכ"נ כגון שנתכוין לצאת וכמו לענין קידוש לעיל בסימן רע"ג ס"ד ועיין מה שכתבנו לקמיה לענין להוציא נשים:”

The inference from the Mishna Berura is that since one is able to say it for an older (but not Bar Mitzvah) child, who is less obligated than an adult, all the more one should be able to say it for an adult, even though one was already yoztei.
This inference of the Mishna Berura is codified in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch:

“מי שהבדיל כבר יכול להבדיל בשביל בניו שהגיעו לחינוך להוציאן ידי חובתן, ומכל שכן בשביל גדול”…
Up until this point, it seems clear that our original hava minah, that one could say havdalah as many times as one wants/needs, holds up (even L’chatchila). However, comes the Shulchan Aruch haRav and says the following, which seems to reject our kol she’kain before of children to adults:
“ש"ץ המבדיל בבית הכנסת אף שנתכוין לצאת ידי חובתו וכן אחרים ששמעו ונתכוונו לצאת ידי חובתם יכולים לחזור ולהבדיל בבתיהם להוציא בני ביתם הקטנים שלא היו בבית הכנסת אבל הגדולים שלא היו בבית הכנסת הואיל והם יכולים להבדיל בעצמם אין למי שיצא כבר ידי חובתו להבדיל להם אלא יבדילו בעצמם “
It is clear from this Shulchan Aruch haRav that he is not entirely saying the concept of “af al pi she’yatzah, motzi” is a bad one, or that it doesn’t apply here. Obviously, he does hold it to be valid to some degree, as he does not hold that another recitation for a minor is a bracha levatala. I believe the inference from the SAHR to be that this concept of “af al pi she’yatzah motzi” only works in a B’dieved situation.
It would make sense that the SAHR would hold like this across all situations that “af al pi she’yatzah, motzi” applies to. That being said however, it seems that this L’chatchila/B’dieved hypothesis is only by havdalah, as the SAHR does not mention any such issue by Kiddush (our prototypical case). The question is, why?
R’ Ovadyah Yosef in his work “Yabia Omer”, in a discussion on havdalah, discusses our inyan when he says:
” ובשו"ת שאגת אריה (סי' יג) הביא סברת כמה ראשונים דס"ל דהא דאמרי' כל הברכות
אע"פ שיצא מוציא היינו בדרבנן, אבל בדאורייתא אם יצא אינו מוציא…”
If you think about it, this Shagas Aryeh makes perfect sense as to why the SAHR only brings down the “af al pi she’yatzah, motzi” by Havdalah and not regarding Kiddush. By Kiddush, which according to most, is only Rabbinic (certainly the daytime Kiddush, and even the nighttime Kiddush, according to most, assuming that one say V’yechulu in tefilah), it makes perfect sense, because according to the Shagas Aryeh “af al pi she’yatzah motzi” applies 100% to rabbinic commandments. But, by havdalah, as there is a big hock regarding whether it is Torah or rabbinic in nature, the SAHR’s psak makes perfect sense: in a perfect world, let’s be machmir and say that the other person should say it himself, BUT, in extenuating circumstances, we could be makeil, assume that havdalah is rabbinic in nature, and say that “af al pi she’yatzah, motzi” works. Amazing.
UPDATE: Please do not give much weight to this shtickle Torah. Someone has shown me where, in fact, the SAHR does say that Yatza Motzi isn't ideal by Kiddush as well, which is a major chink in my armor. While I have thought up responses to this problem as well, this is not the place to delve into this further. Basically, I was bullied into posting that d'var on my blog, so yeah. Essentially, what started out as me trying to cutely piece together a couple of halachic works was really me getting involved in a major Shas sugya, that of which I am not familiar. If nothing else, though, the opinions quoted are at least interesting.

1 Comments:

Blogger Jack Davidov said...

Very nice shtickle Torah. How do you put Hebrew font into a post? Is it really true that most Poskim hold that Friday night Kiddush is only D'rabbanan? I always thought that you could only rely on the Vayechulu within davening bidyeved.

11:33 AM, February 16, 2006

 

Post a Comment

<< Home