Women and Zimun

There is a misconception that if three or more women eat a bread meal together there is no requirement of zimun. Further, many feel that those women that do zimun are a product of the 20th century feminist movement and have no basis in halacha.

 

The truth is that the Gemara in Brachos (45b) says that women may perform a zimun by themselves. The Rosh, in fact, rules that this gemara implies a requirement on women benching to also have a zimun. Tosfos and the Shulchan Aruch, however, learn that this is not a requirement  of women but merely an option. There is no one that says it is forbidden for women to have a zimun (obviously, as this would go against the gemara).

 

The Shulchan Aruch does rule that if there is already a zimun of men, women should join them and answer along. However, if there is only one or two men and three or more women, and the women decide to do a zimun, what should the men do?

 

Rav Shlomo Zalman (as quoted by his nephew in Halichos Beisah) rules that men should answer like they normally do.

 

Rav Dovid Feinstein Shlita, as quoted by Rav Dov Frimmer, rules that men can answer as outsiders and say "Barukh u-mevorach shmo tamid le-olam va'ed",which is what one answers to a zimmun if he didn't eat bread or cake (another Halacha very few people know, and we might discuss next week)

 

The concept that men should walk out and not answer at all, is attributed to a sefer Ha'Isha V'Hamitzvos and is unsupported.

 

So why don't the majority of women bench with a zimun now-a-days? Shouldn't they want to do it, even if merely optional?

 

Rav Moshe Feinstein, in discussing whether men have to wait for women when starting zimun, posits that since women are busy taking care of the the house and the children, they never really establish themselves as a permanent fixture in the meal. Thus, men should, however need not, wait for women for zimun. So too we can say that since women's eating is rushed, there is no requirement of zimun, for the requirement of zimun only sets in when having a permanence.

 

Rav Dovid Feinstein is of the opinion, (so I've heard) that since women used to not know the halachos of zimun nor could they read Hebrew, they never did it. And thus, it has become a minhag that women don't do zimun now-a-days, even though they can read Hebrew and be taught the halachos of zimun.

 

(Compiled with help from chaburas.org, Rav A. Zivotofsky, and Mail-Jewish)

 

Why no Al Hanissim in Al Hamichya?

On all jewish festivals there is a special insert we add into our bentching (ritzei, ya'aleh v'yavo and al hanissim). Usually, there is also a parallel insert into the al hamichya's we make. However, on Chanukah and Purim we only mention the holiday in benching and not in al ha'michya.

 

Why is that?

 

The following two answers are from Rav Flug, from YUTorah.org

R. Chaim Soloveitchik (cited in Haggadah Shel Pesach MiBeit Levi page 233) suggests that the reason why Chanukah and Purim are not mentioned in the Beracha Mei'ain Shalosh is based on the concept of the compensatory beracha for Birkat HaMazon. The Gemara, Berachot 49a-b, provides a solution for one who omits R'tzei or Ya'aleh V'Yavo from the Birkat HaMazon of Shabbat and Yom Tov.  If one realizes the mistake after completing the beracha of Uv'nei Yerushalayim, but prior to reciting HaTov V'HaMeitiv, one can recite a compensatory beracha at that point and there is no need to return to the beginning of Birkat HaMazon. This beracha is only available for the additions for Shabbat, Yom Tov and Rosh Chodesh.

R. Chaim explains that the Beracha Mei'ain Shalosh (aka Al Hamichya) is an abridged form of all of the berachot of Birkat HaMazon. Anything that is not a beracha is not included in the Beracha Mei'ain Shalosh. Although the additions for Shabbat, Yom Tov and Rosh Chodesh don't normally appear as independent berachot, they have the potential to exist as independent berachot in the form of the compensatory beracha. Therefore, the additions for Shabbat, Yom Tov and Rosh Chodesh are abridged and included in the Beracha Mei'ain Shalosh. The additions for Chanukah and Purim (i.e. Al HaNissim) do not have a compensatory beracha and do not exist as independent berachot. Therefore, they are not mentioned in the Beracha Mei'ain Shalosh. [Based on this logic, R. Chaim explains why the additions for Shabbat, Yom Tov and Rosh Chodesh in the Beracha Mei'ain Shalosh appear after Uv'nei Yerushalayim and not before. Although in the normal Birkat HaMazon, these additions appear before Uv'nei Yerushalayim, the compensatory beracha is recited after Uv'nei Yerushalayim. Therefore, one should view the Beracha Mei'ain Shalosh as an abridged form of Birkat HaMazon when the compensatory beracha is recited and the logical placement for these additions is after Uv'nei Yerushalayim.]

R. Yosef D. Soloveitchik (cited in Harerei Kedem Vol. I, page 302 and Iggros HaGrid (Berachos 3:13)), presents a slightly different answer than that of his grandfather, R. Chaim. He suggests that the additions of Shabbat, Yom Tov and Rosh Chodesh have a different status than the additions of Chanukah and Purim. On Shabbat, Yom Tov and Rosh Chodesh, the function of the additions is to mention the day. The inherent kedushas hayom of the day is mechayev hazkarah. On Chanukah and Purim, which have no kedushas hayom (all types of melacha are allowed), the function of Al HaNissim is to provide a detailed account of G-d's providence in the Hoda'ah section of the Amidah and Birkat HaMazon. Therefore, the additions of Shabbat, Yom Tov and Rosh Chodesh are independent portions of Birkat HaMazon. Al HaNissim is not an independent portion of Birkat HaMazon, rather an extension of the Hoda'ah section. It is merely an expansion of the bracha of hodaah. Thus, Beracha Mei'ain Shalosh, whose purpose is to provide an abridged version of Birkat HaMazon, abridges all portions of Birkat HaMazon by providing the main idea of each portion. The additions for Shabbat, Yom Tov, and Rosh Chodesh are independent portions of Birkat HaMazon and are therefore abridged and included in Beracha Mei'ain Shalosh. However, Al HaNissim is not an independent portion and it is not the main idea of the Hoda'ah section. Therefore, it is not mentioned in the Beracha Mei'ain Shalosh.
 

Pas Haba B'Kisnin at Dessert

Last week we mentioned that the bracha of Hamotzi only exempts food that are for the sake of the meal (ie foods used to satiate), however, snack foods require their own bracha. Thus, it would seem that any mezonos dessert (assuming you are eating it not to fill you up) would require a beracha.
 
However,Rav Akiva Eiger says this really all depends. As we have mentioned previously there is a three way debate as to what exactly is Pas Haba B'kisnin. Not to get into the details but Pas Haba B'kisnin is considered a snack food and would require a Mezonos unless you are eating it for a meal, in which case you would wash make Hamotzi and Bench. The three opinions of what Pas Haba B'kisnin are:
1. Rashba- dough with a pocket filled with sweets (honey, jam, fruit)- like a Hamintoshin or fruit pie.
2. Rambam- dough enhanced with ingredients other than flour and water- like chocolate cake or zomick's challah.
3. Rav Hai Gaon- dough cooked to a point where it is dry, brittle and crunchy- like breadsticks or crackers.
 
While we normally assume that all three of these opinions are correct and we make a Mezonos on them, unless eating them as a meal, in the case of eating them for dessert we rule differently. Since, we have a concept of Safek Berachos L'hakel -- since berachos only d'rabanan when in doubt we don't say them-- unless we are sure this dessert item is a snack food we don't make a beracha on it.
 
Thus, while according to the Rambam cake is Pas Haba B'kisnin and considered a snack food, the Rashba himself would hold that cake is pure "bread" and thus would be exempt from a beracha due to the Hamotzi said earlier in the meal. So unless the dessert item fulfills all three criteria mentioned above, we err on the side of caution and don't make a beracha. Of course, there are many desserts that do contain all three criteria (chocolate wafers)
 
The Mishna Brurah argues and says that since we assume all three opinions are right, we are in fact assuming that any food covered in one of those opinions is for sure a Mezonos and would require a separate beracha.  

 

There are those as a way of avoiding this question who will bench prior to having dessert.
 

Fruits Eaten During a Bread Meal

I would like to demystify and clarify a very confusion halacha that comes about almost daily, and that is the issue of eating fruit during a meal.

The Gemara in Berachos (41b) writes that any food eaten in the course of a bread meal does not require a bracha, provided the food is for the meal. However, food eaten during a bread meal, that is not eaten for the meal, does require its own beracha, even though you already made a Hamotzi on the bread.

The issue that is raised and highly debated is how do we define if a certain food item is "for the meal" or "not for the meal." Rashi learns "for the meal" as any food eaten with bread. Thus, one would be required to make a separate bracha on every food item at the table not eaten with the bread (chulent, kugel, salad, etc.)

Tosfos, as explained by Rabbenu Yona, argues and defines "for the meal" as meal type foods. Meaning, any food normally eaten in the context of a meal is exempt from a beracha if one already made a Hamotzi on bread. However, food which is not normally eaten as a meal type food ("snack foods") would require a beracha if eaten in a bread meal, even though you already made a Hamotzi on the bread.

While this Tosfos explains why we don't make separate berachas on chulent, salad, and kugel, the big issue that is discussed is what about fruit. Fruit, generally, is characterised as a "snack type food" and thus might require a beracha even if eaten during a bread meal.

In order to clarify when fruit does and does not require a bracha we can analyze the following three cases:
1. Fruit eaten as the main course- When eating fruit as the main course, you effectively turn the fruit from a snack-type food, to a meal-type food and no beracha is required (provided you already said Homotzi).
2. Fruit eaten as one of the courses- Since you are eating other courses, the fruit can not be called the meal-food and thus retains its status as snack-type and would require a beracha, even if you already said Hamotzi.
3. Fruit eaten to whet your appetite- Apparently Chazal felt that certain fruits (grapefruit is the big discussion) increase your appetite for other food items (I would love to know if this is proven scientifically), and thus are considered secondary to the meal and thus no berachas are required.

To conclude, it would seem that most of the time fruit is served in a meal, it is served in a case 2 scenario, where it is just one of the courses, and thus would require its own beracha. Fruit served for dessert for sure requires its own beracha, as it is definitely a snack food.

So an apple a day, not only keeps the doctor away, it provided another opportunity to thank Hashem for His kindness.

(Next week i'yh we will discuss if a beracha is required on Mezonos desserts)

V'sen Tal: Why December 4th?

Though both the mention of rain and request for rain are inserted in the winter, there is a difference between them. Mention of rain (mashiv haruach) is inserted during the rainy season, and the request for rain (v’sen tal u’matar l’bracha) is made at that time when we desire rainfall. We begin mentioning rain (mashiv haruach) on Shmini Atzeres. Though it would make sense to mention rain during the Succot festival (as that is the beginning of the raining season), we nonetheless refrain from doing so. This is because rain is considered a bad omen during the festival since it makes it impossible to fulfill the commandment of sitting in the succah. Therefore, the sages ruled that our praise for rain begin after the Succot festival (Shemini Atzeres). What is more, they decided that this would take place during the Mussaf prayer when all are present and it is possible to make an announcement reminding everybody to begin mentioning rain. The evening prayer was not chosen because not everybody attends it; the morning prayer was likewise ruled out because it is impossible to make an announcement before it, for it is forbidden to interrupt between the Shema (geulah) and the Amida (tefilla) (Beit Yosef, Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 112:1, 2). However, the sages delayed the request for rain fifteen days (v’sen tal), to the night of the seventh of Cheshvan. They did this in order that the last of the festival pilgrims be able reach home before the rains fall (Gemara Ta’anis 10a). This custom continues even after the destruction of the Holy Temple because any custom which recalls the great days when the Holy Temple stood is very dear to us, and we do not wish to discontinue it. Only after the Temple is rebuilt (speedily in our days!) will the Sanhedrin be able to change the time for requesting rain taking into account modern means of transportation. In Babylon, the sages ruled that the request for rain should be delayed for sixty days after the Autumnal Equinox. This was because they had plenty of water from the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and therefore did not need to make numerous requests for rain with the onset of the rainy season. According to the Shulchan Aruch all other lands outside of Israel (America) follow the practice of Babylon and begin requesting rain on the sixtieth day after the Autumnal Equinox However, we must ask the obvious question, the autumnal equinox is September 22nd, sixty days later is November 22nd, so how did we arrive at the custom to begin the recitation of v’sen tal on December 4th? The answer to this question requires a historical background. In the year 46 BCE, Julius Caesar established what became known as the Julian Calendar. This calendar had 12 months, and one year had 365.25 days. Every four years, the quarter-days appeared on the calendar as a leap year day. However, the actual length of a solar year is slightly less than this, approximately 365.24219 days. In the short run, this difference is negligible, but over time it adds up ( you end up a day behind approximately every 150 years). This eventually caused a problem with regard to the seasons, which depended on the solar year and were gradually failing to fall out at the proper time. To fix this situation, Pope Gregory XIII, in 1582, instituted the Gregorian calendar. Two changes were made with the change in calendar. The first is that 10 days were "lost," meaning that October 4th that year was followed by October 15th (which makes sense as approximately 1500 years had passed, they were 10 days behind). With regard to our issue, v'sein tal u'matar that year was said on December 1st instead of November 22nd. The second change that was made was more subtle, but is perhaps more important. The rule for leap years was altered slightly, with every century year NOT divisible by 400 losing its leap-year status. Thus, 1600 was a leap year, but 1700, 1800, and 1900 were not. This had the effect of changing the average length of a year to 365.2425 days, a difference that is much less noticeable over time (a margin of error of roughly 3 days in 10,000 years). As a result, the date for v'tein tal u'matar was bumped up one day in each of those three years (1700, 1800 and 1900) ( We didn’t bump up in 2000 because that is divisible by 4 and thus was a leap year), bringing us to our current date of December 4th (thus, after 2100, the date will become December 5th). The only exception to be aware of is that v'tein tal u'matar is added beginning from December 5th in the Diaspora when the following Gregorian year is a leap year. This is due to the fact that the Jewish year begins several months earlier and factors in the extra day from the beginning (This relates to the fact that the Jewish calendar is based on both the solar and the lunar ones). In southern hemisphere countries, such as Argentina, Brazil, and Australia, where the rainy season coincides with Israel’s summer, Torah authorities rule that the request for rain be made in the "Birkat Hashanim" blessing according to the custom of the Land of Israel. This is because the Land of Israel is the focal point of creation and all other lands are subordinate to her. However, if in these southern hemisphere countries there are places where rain causes damage in the summer, it is impossible for the people there to request rain in "Birkat Hashanim." They should therefore recite the summer version all year round, and request rain in the "Shomeah Tefillah" blessing. The reason that they are not able to request rain in "Birkat Hashanim" during their rainy season is that they must follow the practice of the Land of Israel. And they cannot request rain in "Birkat Hashanim" during Israel’s rainy season because rain is deleterious for them at this time. Therefore, they request rain for themselves during their rainy season in the "Shomeah Tefillah" blessing. Furthermore, it is a good idea for people in these places to request rain for Israel during Israel’s rainy season in the "Shomeah Tefillah" blessing. What it amounts to, then, is that they recite the summer version of "Birkat Hashanim" all year round, and in "Shomeah Tefillah" they request rain in their rainy season for themselves and rain in Israel’s rainy season for the Land of Israel. (compiled with help from chaburas.org)