Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 136

Wed, 21 Oct 2015

• 1. Re: Shehecheyanu on Matza (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Shehecheyanu on Matza (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Shehecheyanu on Matza (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Shehecheyanu on Matza (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Shehecheyanu on Matza (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Shehecheyanu on Matza (Simon Montagu)
• 7. Re: Mitzvah Kiyumit (Isaac Balbin)
• 8. Re: Shehecheyanu on Matza (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Shehecheyanu on Matza (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Shehecheyanu on Matza (Zev Sero)
• 11. Shehecheyanu on Matza (Akiva Miller)
• 12. Re: Mitzvah Kiyumit (Daniel M. Israel)

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:52:50PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
:                                     The shehechayanu on the first
: night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it.

Actually, R' Zevin's argument defending the Avudraham was that the
shehechiyanu at Qiddush is on the chag, including all its mitzvos. Which
is how he distinguished that shehechiyanu from the one made on Purim
when reading megillah. Since Purim isn't a chag meriting a shehechiyanu,
there is no parallel "umbrella", and one needs to have each of the
mitzvos of the day in mind.

Is the shehechiyanu actually on the sukkah? What's the source for that? I
raised a third possibility -- that the shehechiyanu (like the birkhas
hamitzvah) includes /building/ the sukkah. Not the cheftzah itself.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

On 10/19/2015 02:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Actually, the SA (OC 641:1) says what I deduced from R' Zevin's
> defense of the Avudraham -- that the berakhah is on making the
> Sukkah, not on having the sukkah qua the object.

I wrote: "The shehechayanu on the first night is also on the *sukkah*,
not on the mitzvah of sitting in it."    How is what you wrote not
100% consistent with that?

Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly
say shecheyanu on possessing anything?  Shehecheyanu is by definition
on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having
them.  And this shehecheyanu is, in addition to the chag, on the new
sukkah that one has built (or otherwise acquired).   Technically, I
suppose, one who builds a permanent sukkah would, in subsequent years,
say shehecheyanu before leisheiv basukkah even on the first day; but
that is a very unusual case.



-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On 10/19/2015 02:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote:


> As for berakhos on posessing things... the berkahah is on the first
> time you enjoy your new suit, not when you buy it. The thing here is
> that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu.
>

Not true.  The chiyuv is when you buy it.  You actually say it when you
put it on.  Same with fruit -- the chiyuv is actually chal as soon as you
see it, even *before* you buy it, but you say it when you eat it.  And
that is precisely why the bracha on acquiring a sukkah is said when you
first use it.

> The thing here is that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu.

Irrelevant; it's not on the mitzvah but on the sukkah.


> This distinction, between a shehechiyanu enjoying on a new keli and
> shehechiyanu on a mitzvah one hasn't done in a while, was what
> brought me to discussing R' Eisenman's between-minchan-and-maariv
> about guns. I wanted to cast the gun in the role of sukkah, RRYE was
> treating it like a suit.

But the shecheyanu on the sukkah is exactly like shehecheyanu on a suit.

I would raise a different objection to shehecheyanu on a new gun: we
should not say it for the same reason we don't say it on new shoes,
but much more so.  A gun is inherently a keli of destruction, which
is unfortunately necessary in the current era when there are predators
(both human and animal) that need destroying.  But just as we pasken
that even today a weapon does not have a din of an adornment, because
le'asid lavo when it's no longer necessary it will not be worn, so
also it's not something whose acquisition should fill us with joy.



-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly
: say shecheyanu on possessing anything?  Shehecheyanu is by definition
: on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having
: them...

Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC
233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy
when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah,
since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu.

In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't make
the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at Qiddush. But
he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act of making it.

The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he
isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum
sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah.
Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it.
Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing.

In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham that
the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then serves
as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag. Not directly
on the joy of having a sukkah nor on the heksher mitzvah of building it.

And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the sukkah
the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas asiyah, then
he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. Which implies a machloqes
between the Avudraham, who assumes that the berachah is on the chag,
and the Ran.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 10/19/2015 05:24 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : Of*course*  it's not on*possessing*  a sukkah; how could one possibly
> : say shecheyanu on possessing anything?  Shehecheyanu is by definition
> : on new things; one says it on*acquiring*  possessions, not on having
> : them...
>
> Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC
> 233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy
> when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah,
> since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu.

Sure you would.  A sukkah is a major possession, that one is happy to
acquire.  It's a nice place to sit and enjoy, just like a house.  And
it's definitely on the acquisition; shehecheyanu is by definition on
a chidush, not on a static state of affairs, however happy one is about
it.  One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought
ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if
there was a serious danger of losing it during the year.


> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't
> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at
> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act
> of making it.

I.e. acquiring it.  If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought
it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?!


> The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he
isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum
sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah.

Exactly.   But it's on the acquisition of the cheftzah, which is a
chidush, not on the timeless fact of owning it.


> Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it.
> Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing.

Exactly.  Therefore the SA is saying the same thing.

> In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham
> that the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then
> serves as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag.

He is talking about the normal shehecheyanu, which is said on both of
the first nights.  That shehecheyanu includes the *mitzvos*, including
yeshiva basukkah.  It doesn't include the joy over having built (or
otherwise acquired) this lovely structure.   In *addition* to that,
however, the shehecheyanu on the first night does include that extra
joy.  Since, unlike the joy over fulfilling the mitzvah of sitting
in the sukkah, that joy isn't bound to the yomtov, and in principle
the shehecheyanu ought to have been said *before* yomtov, therefore
once we've said it on the first night there is no reason to repeat it
on the second night.   Even if the first night is "chol" and the second
night is "yomtov", the shehecheyanu on the first night was still good
for this joy.   So on the second night the shecheyanu *doesn't* include
it, and is therefore said before leisheiv basukka.


> And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the
> sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas
> asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush.

No, he doesn't say that at all.   You seem to have seriously misread
him.   Of *course* one always says shecheyanu at kiddush on both nights,
because it's primarily for the chag.



-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

>  One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought
>>
> ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if
> there was a serious danger of losing it during the year.


This ties in to a question that has been on my mind this week. Of course
not everybody says sheheheyanu on Atzma`ut, not even everybody who says
Hallel, but plenty do, and I heard in the name of Rav Goren in a shiur this
week: "You say sheheyanu on a shirt and you don't say it on the medina?"

But the logic doesn't work, or rather only worked in 1948: nobody says
sheheheyanu on the shirt's anniversary, and we don't say sheheheyanu on the
anniversary of any of the other nissim done for Am Yisra'el (except the
ones with a hag or a mitzva associated with them). I wonder how Rav Goren
vesi`ato would respond.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151020/13e1be9e/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB asked about the sources from R Eitam Henkin HY'D on mitvah kiyumis etc

See http://bit.ly/1L8Jk1G [link to page on eitamhenkin.wordpress.com -micha]
And his Techumin article

Via my iPhone with economy & solecism

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:50:24PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: As I wrote in my previous post, this is the sequence prescribed by the
: Maamar Mordechai (and cited l'halacha by Beur Halacha 483 "Ad Shegomer" and
: Kaf HaHayyim 483:8), who reasons that "birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu" -
: Shehecheyanu is part of Kiddush. It seems clear to me that according to
: Maamar Mordechai, Beur Halacha, and Kaf HaHayyim, matza is *not* relevant
: to Shehecheyanu. Furthermore, this sequence of brachos is exactly parallel
: to the way most say Kiddush on the second night of Sukkos (placing Layshev
: BaSukkah *after* the Shehecheyanu), and is specifically designed to include
: the holiday in the Shehecheyanu, and to *omit* the sukkah itself from the
: Shehecheyanu.

Doesn't this flow from the discussion I posted?

Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied to the
chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the mitzvos of the
holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is most directly about the
YT. So, we are advised to keep the mitzvos of the night in mind, but
if not, they are covered indirectly anyway and do not get their own
berakhah.

Unlike Purim, which has no chag, and therefore there is no inclusive
umbrella.

: This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we say
: Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very end,
: specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on the holiday,
: but on the sukkah too.

Which I was arguing is on building the sukkah, hekhsher mitzvah.
Because according to the Avudraham (as per R Zevin's diyuq) a berakhah
on sukkos would perforce to include sukkah and 4 minim. If there weren't
part of mitzvas sukkah that weren't part of the Chag haSukkos, which
would be left berakhah-less.

Let me now add my own, unsourced, 2c:

To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq says
"ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of "shemirah" would mean it's
a lav. So baking matzos doesn't get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu,
and I don't know of anyone who has a parallel discussion to that we had
abour making a berkhah on building a sukkah.

Whereas building a sukkah does require at least inclusion in the "leisheiv
basukkah" of the first time you sit there and a shehechiyanu. The first
night of sukkos (barring rain) -- which covers the building regardless
of any commemorated sefeiqa deyoma.

Therefore, matzah on both nights of the seder parallel only the 2nd
night of Sukkos (if you were able to sit in the sukkah the first night),
the night on which building a sukkah does not require a berakhah, but
we commemorate the possibility (sefeiqa deyoma) that sitting in the
sukkah would.

...
: Halachipedia (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Bedikat%20Chametz)
: offers three different answers at footnote 101:
:> Bear Hetiev says it's included in Shehecheyanu of Yom
:> Tov, Pri Megadim M"Z 431:2 says it's not a mitzvah of
:> Simcha, Meiri says there's no Shehecheyanu on Bedika
:> which is just done to prevent you from a prohibition.

Bi'ur chameitz is a lav hanitoq la'asei, not merely the action required
to avoid a lav. We wouldn't be making an "al bi'ur chameitz if it were
"just done to prevent you from a prohibition." So I'd love to know where
to see this Me'iri inside, because so far, lo zakhisi lehavin.

In any case, I would see buying a gun for the sake of keeping Jews safe
closer to building a sukkah, as it's a straight asei, then bediqah or
baking matzos.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: Sure you would.  A sukkah is a major possession...

Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm.

(Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your
roof. See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos
habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying
sekhakh.)

:> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't
:> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at
:> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act
:> of making it.

: I.e. acquiring it.  If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought
: it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?!

Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a
new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah? Again, mitzvos lav lehanos
nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it.
(Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.)

...
: >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the
: >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas
: >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush.

: No, he doesn't say that at all...

Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at
qiddush.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
mi...@aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter

On 10/20/2015 01:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : Sure you would.  A sukkah is a major possession...
>
> Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm.

Of course it was.  The closer ones house was to a shack, the greater
the sukkah was in comparison!


> (Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your
> roof.

If that was done at all in Litta, it was certainly not typical.


> See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos
> habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying
> sekhakh.)

He refers to the "shlack", the rain-roof that they would put over the
schach when it rained.
  

> :> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't
> :> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at
> :> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act
> :> of making it.
>
> : I.e. acquiring it.  If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought
> : it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?!
>
> Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a
> new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah?

If so then there would be a shehecheyanu on baking matzos, which we
would fold into the shehecheyanu of kiddush, and RAM's question would
return in full force.


> Again, mitzvos lav lehanos
> nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it.
> (Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.)

Which tells you right there that a sukkah (as opposed to the mitzvah
of sitting in it) *is* leihanos.



> : >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the
> : >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas
> : >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush.
>
> : No, he doesn't say that at all...
>
> Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at
> qiddush.

Of course not; he's already said shecheyanu on the sukkah, why would
he say it again?   If you said shecheyanu as soon as you saw a new
fruit in the shop, you don't say it again when you eat it.  Your
chiyuv started then, and you've discharged it, so what is left?


-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

I wrote:

> My question concerned the situation where one is omitting
> Asher Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor
> any kind of chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly
> on the matzah.

R' Zev Sero responded:

> By "omitting" I assume you mean "saying it later".

I stand corrected, and I thank you. For some reason, I thought that if one
has no kos to say it on, then Asher Gaalanu would be omitted. But Mechaber
483:1 clearly says otherwise.

But still, in the case I've given, Kiddush would be said directly on the
matzah. Therefore, although you are correct that Asher Ga'alanu is not
omitted, but it would be said long after the matzah was eaten, so the
question of Shehecheyanu at Kiddush (modeled after Sukkos) is still valid.

RZS again:

> I see where you've misunderstood. The shehechayanu on the
> first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah
> of sitting in it. Rather than say shehecheyanu when we
> build the sukkah, we wait until the first time we use it
> and include it in the shehecheyanu we're saying then anyway.

My understanding is that the Shehecheyanu of the first night is on *both*
the Sukkah itself and also on the mitzvah of eating in the sukkah. Those
two concepts are intertwined so deeply that if one said Shehecheyanu when
building his sukkah even a few days before Sukkos, when the holiday had not
yet begun, that Shehecheyanu exempts him from saying it again when he does
the mitzvah the first time that year.

This applies even to a person who did not build any sukkah at all, and is a
guest in other people's sukkos for the whole holiday. [For this thread, I
plan to use the word "guest" to refer to a person who did not participate
in building a sukkah, and does not even have any ownership of any sukkah,
not even the shul's sukkah, and eats only in other private sukkos.]

If the Shehecheyanu is only on the building of the sukkah and *not* on the
mitzvah of eating in it, then a guest would have to delay his Layshev
Basukkah to the end of Kiddush even on the first night. But since a guest
says Layshev before Shehecheyanu on the first night, it is clear to me that
he must be saying Shehecheyanu on the fact that he is now eating in a
sukkah for the first time this year.

But that logic should apply on the second night as well: Since his
Shehecheyanu is *only* on the mitzvah, and the mitzvah did not exist last
night, then Shehecheyanu ought to be last on the second night as well. (And
in indeed some are noheg like that, but because of Lo Plug, and not because
of my reasoning. MB 661:2)

Therefore, it seems clear to me, that the Shehecheyanu is both for the
mitzvah, and also "for the sukkah" too. I am eager to point out that I have
no idea what "for the sukkah" means, except that it does *not* mean "for
building the sukkah" and it also does *not* mean "for eating in the sukkah".

(I anticipate that some might argue that the halacha was designed for the
typical case, and the typical case was that most people did build their own
sukkos. I would ask for evidence of that. Somehow, I suspect that private
sukkos were not nearly so widespread more than a few decades ago.)

After writing the above, I found that Beur Halacha 641 "L'atzmo" does seem
to hold that the Shehecheyanu is specifically on *building* the sukkah. He
says that the Shehecheyanu "on the sukkah" applies only to one who built
his *own* sukkah, and NOT to guests. Thus, the Shehecheyanu is problematic
if the sukkah's owner/builder and a guest are together, and one is saying
Kiddush for the other. But this surprises me, because although I'm aware of
differences between kiddush on the first night and second night, I've never
before heard of difference between the host and his guest. Has anyone else
heard of such a distinction?

Here's another distinction between when we do or do not say Shehecheyanu:
Mishne Brura 651:2 says that the sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu because it is
made anew each year, in contrast to a shofar or megilla which lasts for
many years, and also in contrast to Chanuka neros which are made each year
but are not obviously so. I've always wondered why this logic wouldn't
allow us to say Shehecheyanu when baking or preparing our Seder Matzos.

I am beginning to suspect that RZS might be right: Maybe we do *not* say
Shehecheyanu on the mitzvah of eating matza, and also not on the mitzvah of
sitting in the sukkah. But if so, then I'm looking for an answer to the
question about sukkah guests. And even more than that, what makes Matzah
and Sukkah different from Megillah and Shofar?

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied
> to the chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the
> mitzvos of the holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is
> most directly about the YT. So, we are advised to keep the
> mitzvos of the night in mind, but if not, they are covered
> indirectly anyway and do not get their own berakhah.

According to this reasoning, we should put Layshev Basukkah at the end,
even on the first night of Sukkos, *exactly* like the Maamar Mordechai
wrote (for when making Kiddush on matza at the Seder).

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq
> says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of
> "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't
> get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, ...

If you're saying that "ushemartem es hamatzos" is purely negative, then Rav
Shimon Eider explicitly disagrees. In his Halachos of Pesach, pp 212-213,
he writes: (emphasis his)

"We know that *all* foods used on Pesach require supervision to guarantee
that they do not contain chometz... Therefore, when the Torah says "you
shall guard the matzos," it is not merely requiring *preventative*
supervision, it is not only requiring us to prevent the matzah from
becoming chometz. In addition to preventative supevision, the Torah is also
requiring *positive* supervision. That is, matzos must be supervised during
the various stages of the manufacturing process L'Shem Matzas Mitzvah -
specifically for the purpose of being used for the mitzvah of eating
matzah..." [I've omitted his many sources.]

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151020/ba8a20bd/attachment-0001.htm>

On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote:
> : Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime?
> 
> I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have
> your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah.

Tangential to your point, but someone who regenerates his foreskin
(apparently that is possible), would need to have milah again, AIUI.  And
someone fulfills pru u'rvu (I assume that's what you are referring to with
"second child") and then has children die chv"sh, would be chayuv to have
more children.	So these are not really once per lifetime.

--
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20151020/35eedf42/attachment.htm>

------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)