[Don’t forget to see the Halacha
Encounters below!]
“Hashem Yilachem Lachem V'Atem Tacharishun”- “Hashem will wage
your war and you will remain quiet.” Hashem told us at Krias
Yam Suf that there was no need for us to even daven! And to Moshe
Rabbeinu, Hashem asked, “ Mah Titz'ak Eilai Daber El B'nai Yisrael
Vayisa'u” – “Why do you cry out to me?” Hashem said to Moshe
Rabbeinu, “Speak to the B'nai Yisrael and let them go forth.” Rashi
explains, “Eilai Hadavar Talooi V'lo Alecha.” Hashem was telling
Moshe Rabbeinu that it was not for him to accomplish, (with his
Tefilla) rather Hashem alone was responsible for saving the new
nation.
The Alei Shur (Vol. 2, pg. 580) remarks that this is the only
time in the Torah when Hashem reveals that Tefillah does not
play a role. The Vilna Gaon explains that Krias Yam Suf was a
revelation of a very lofty spiritual attribute Hashem uses in
His world to which our Tefillos can never reach. This middah
of “Keil Elyon” whose essence is that of Hashem acting solely
to reveal His Glory in the world, reveals His absolute love for
Klal Yisroel.
It seems from this explanation that Klal Yisroel had no part
in bringing the neis of Krias HaYam. This seems however, to contradict
the way the Vilna Gaon's Talmid muvhak, R' Chaim Volozhin, explains
the phenomenon.
The Nefesh Hachayim explains the aforementioned pasuk as follows:
when Hashem asked Moshe, “why do you cry out…,” He was telling
him that it is all up to the Bnei Yisroel to bring the neis about.
If they would be at the highest point of Emunah and Bitachon
and go without fear into the Yam, then they would cause a hisorirus
l'maleh which will bring about the neis. How does this contradict
the words of R' Chaim Volozhiner's Rebbe, the Gaon? There is
no contradiction, says the Aley Shur. Here we see the power of
Bitachon-even something Tefillah cannot accomplish, Bitachon
can!
How did Klal Yisroel get to such a lofty level of Bitachon?
Witnessing the ten makos which Hashem inflicted upon the Mitzrim
on their behalf, and feeling Hashem's care and protection, Bnai
Yisroel naturally developed a great feeling of reliance and trust
in Hashem.
Matan Torah and the presence of Hashem in the Mishkan were the “marriage” between
Hashem and the Jewish people. The makkos were Hashem's way of
building this relationship by showing His love for the Jewish
people; winning our favor so to speak. After feeling this care
and love from Hashem we were expected to return and place our
Bitachon in Hashem-which we did. This brought us to a greater
miracle and revelation. We can extend these lessons into our
own lives. Each of us in our own lives can feel Hashem's help
and care if we think about it, and use this awareness of Hashem's
closeness to place our trust in Him.
Rabbi
Shapiro is a full time member of the Kollel.
Halacha Encounters
How to Make
Salad on Shabbos
Rabbi Ephraim Friedman
Bracha Achrona on Fruit
With Tu B'Shvat upon us, I would like to address a number of
points regarding the halachos of brochos on fruit.
We are aware that although apples and grapes have a common brocha
rishona (borei pri haeitz), they differ with regard to brocha
achrona. One who eats a k'zayis of apple recites afterwards borei
nefoshos. The same is true of oranges, pears peaches and most
fruit of the tree. However, one who eats a k'zayis of one of
the five fruits for which Eretz Yisroel is praised (i.e. grapes,
figs pomegranates, olives and dates) must recite afterwards a
brocha achas ma'ain shalosh. The text of the brocha is identical
to the al hamichiya recited after eating cake, pasta or other
grain products, except that the phrases ‘al hamichya v'al hakalka;a'
at the beginning of the brocha and ‘al ha'aretz v'al hamichya'
at the end are replaced by ‘al haeitz v'al pri haeitz' and ‘al
ha'aretz v'al hapeiros' respectively. In a similar vein, one
who drinks wine or grape juice recites a brocha achas ma'ain
shalosh, inserting ‘al hagefern v'al pri hagefen' and ‘al haaretz
v'al pri hagafen' at the appropriate junctures.
If one erroneously recites borei nefoshos after eating grapes
or any of the five fruits listed above or after drinking wine,
he has not fulfilled his obligation even b'dieved and he must
still recite the correct brocha.(Mishna Brura 202:42 and 55 and
208:62) However, in the reverse situation, one who recited al
haeitz after eating an apple or pear or any fruit of the tree
has fulfilled his obligation of brocha achrona. Furthermore,
one who eats both an apple and grapes or figs (etc.) recites
only al haeitz on all the fruit he ate and omits borei nefoshos.
The reason for this is simple. The brocha of al haeitz being
of higher stature adequately fills one's obligation of brocha
achrona on any fruit of the tree, just that one must eat at least
a k'zayis of one of the five special fruits to be entitled to
recite it.
A somewhat prevalent error is reciting al hamichya in place
of al haeitz or al hagefen. If this occurs a distinction must
be drawn between the halacha with regard to dates and wine, and
with regard to the other special fruits. One who recites al hamichya
after eating grapes, figs, pomegranates or olives is not yotzei
and must still recite al haeitz. With regard to eating dates
and drinking wine, the halacha is different. The Shulchan Aruch
(O.C 208:17) states explicitly that if one recites bircas hamazone
(bentching) – or even just the first brocha of bircas hamazone – after
eating dates or drinking wine, he has fulfilled his brocha achrona
obligation. The reason for this is that these two foods satiate
the one who partakes of them more than other fruits, and in this
way resemble bread. Based on this halacha, a number of achronim
pasken that reciting al hamichya upon dates or wine would also
be valid, given the similarity of this brocha to bircas hamazone.
(L'vush 208:17, Be'er Haitev 208:23, and others) So, if, for
example, after reciting havdalah and drinking a revi'is of wine,
one mistakenly recites the brocha of al hamichya in place of
al hagefen, he will have fulfilled his obligation. On the other
hand, if after eating a k'zayis of raisins (which are the same
as grapes with regard to hilchos brochos) – or figs on Tu B'Shvat
one were to recite al hamichya, he would not be yotzei and would
be required to then say al haeitz.
Let's take this a step further. We know that one who eats cake
and drinks wine together (e.g. at a kiddush on Shabbos morning)
must recite a two-fold brocha achrona. That is, he incorporates
both al hamichya and al hagafen into one combined brocha, and
thereby fulfills his obligation with regard to both the cake
and the wine. Certainly, if one mistakenly mentioned only al
hagefen and not al hamichya, he would, at that point, be required
to repeat the brocha, this time mentioning only al hamichya.
What if he made the opposite mistake, mentioning only al hamichya
and omitted al hagefen? We're established that one who recites
al hamichya after drinking wine is yotzei b'dieved. It would
seem seem to follow, therefore, that in this case as well the
al hamichya would cover him for both the cake and wine and he
would not need to recite any other brocha.
Indeed, this is the psak of the Kaf HaChaim (208:78) and certain
other Poskim. (See Piskei T'shuvos Vol. II, 208:19, note 157)
However, a number of Gedolei HaPoskim – amongst them HaGaon Rav
Tzvi Pesach Frank zt”l (Har Tzvi O.C. Vol. I, 105) and HaGaon
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Minchas Shlomo Vol. I, 91:6) – conclude
that this is not the correct halacha. They explain that al hamichya
will function as a brocha achrona on wine only when the individual
drank wine alone and mistakenly recited al hamichya afterwards
in place of al hagefen. In this situation, rather than rendering
the al hamichya a brocha l'vataleh and requiring the individual
to recite another brocha achrona, we will allow the al hamichya
he recited to cover the wine as explained above. When, however,
the individual ate cake as well, since the al hamichya will in
any event work to cover the cake and not be considered l'vatalah,
we limit its effect to the cake (for which it is the proper brocha
achrona) and require a new brocha achrona on the wine.
The Minchos Shlomo draws support for this p'sak from a halacha
in Shulchan Aruch O.C. 299:8. The Shulchan Aruch states there
that if one recites havdalah over wine on Motzei Shabbos and,
without reciting a brocha achrona, washes his hands, partakes
of a meal and bentches, he must still recite a brocha achrona
for the wine he drank. Apparently, even bircas hamazone will
not cover wine (which was not part of the meal) unless it is
specifically recited for that purpose. It would follow that the
same would be true of al hamichya.
One final point of clarification. The brocha of al haeitz is required
after eating fruit of the five species mentioned above regardless
of whether or not the specific piece of fruit which was eaten actually
grew in Israel. The fact that Eretz Yisroel is praised for producing
these particular species gives the entire species an elevated status
with regard to brochos. There is however one slight textual modification
for fruit of these types which actually grew in Israel. The concluding
phrase of the brocha for such fruit is “al haaretz v'al peiroseha'
in place of ‘al ha'aretz v'al hapeiros.' Similarly, with regard
to wine produced from Israeli grapes, many substitute the phrase ‘al
ha'aretz v'al pri hagafen' with ‘al ha'aretz v'al pri gafnah'.
______________________________
Rabbi
Freidman is the Moreh Hora'ah of Beis HaMedrash Mikor HaChaim
and learns afternoons and evenings in the Kollel.
Now
Available Online!
The Five Minute Hilchos Tefillah Shiur is
available in Real Audio format on the Chicago Community Kollel
website at: http://www.cckollel.org/halachashiur-fs.html
Come and hear
over 60 5-minute shiurim on
the laws, customs and deeper meanings of our daily Tefillos.