Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: S'firas HaOmer, Kavana for Mitzvos, Safeik, Etc

In a few weeks, if anyone asks me how old I am, I may very likely respond, "Last year I was 55."  Or, "Hey... what day is it?"  "Yesterday was Wednesday."  We all get a bit nuts this/that time of year because of our zeal to be able to "tzel s'fira"/count the omer with a bracha.  There is a lot going into why the best answer to "What's day of the s'fira today?", is "Yesterday was kach."  ("kach" is the object form of "ploni").

Zeroth is, of course, that you need to know the day of the s'fira before you can count.  While the Shulchan Aruch does permit one who is not sure of the count to make the bracha with the congregation and then wait till he hears the number from his neighbor's counting, it's certainly not l'chatchila.  (Here's a horrible scene: the whole shul looking like an EF Hutton commercial as it slowly dawns on everyone that no one actually knew the count.)  So there is going to be a lot of asking going on.

First there is the question of d'oraisa vs. d'rabanan.  There is a machlokes rishonim about whether the counting we do in the absence of the Beis HaMikdash -- May it be rebuilt soon and in our lifetime -- is d'oraisa or a d'rabanan made zecher l'mikdash.  The Rambam holds it is d'oraisa; and he is not a da'as yachid on this.  (So notes the Biur Halacha.  Frankly, once I heard "Rambam", I was pretty satisfied with being nervous about it, whether or not he stood alone on the issue.)  The bracha, however, is certainly d'rabanan.  That being the case, any case of uncertainty is going to push us to count (safeik d'oraisa l'chumra) without a bracha (safeik d'rabanan l'kula).  We really, really want to make the bracha, so it is important to stay out of doubtful situations as much as possible.

Another important issue is whether "mitzvah tzricha kavana".  If yes, then you could answer "today is kach", because unless you have specific kavana to be fulfilling the mitzvah of counting, you haven't.  If no, though, then you need specific kavana to not want to fulfill the mitzvah or you will have ex post facto fulfilled the mitzvah of counting.  Again, we hold that indeed, "mitzvah tzricha kavana" and the G"ra further holds that it doesn't make a difference whether the mitzvah is d'oraisa or d'rabanan.

Then there is the fact that the omer needs to be counted at night.  Bein ha'shmashos is again a period of doubt, so whether you can fulfill counting s'fira during that time depends on whether the mitzvah during this epoch of churban is d'oraisa or d'rabanan.  Heck, some poskim even play with whether you can fulfill the mitzvah from plahg ha'mincha or not.  After all, they reason, you can daven ma'ariv then.

Given all that, there is a lot of wiggle room.  For example, one who announces "today is lahg b'omer" (on the 33rd day of the omer) pretty clearly has no intent to count the day of the omer; he is just naming the holiday.  Or someone who always, always, always counts after tzeis ha'kochavim and answers someone question that "Well... for you... who are hopelessly meikel.. the day is kach" also pretty obviously does not have intent to count.  (But he should work on his midos... that other Jew has plenty to rely on!)

As many issues as this question raises, though, the actual sh'eila may be a dinosaur.  Now a days I suppose there is instead a lot of texting going on; with a lot of replies that end with, "There's an app for that."


Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Sometimes a Food Loses Its Identity When It Loses Its Bracha; Sometimes It Doesn't

Let's start with a question: Why are We Allowed to Drink Coffee and Whiskey Made by Non-Jews?  Before you ask,"Why would I think that I shouldn't be able to drink whiskey and coffee made by non-Jews?", I'll tell you. Simple, we all know that Chazal made a decree -- known as בישול עכו''ם/bishul akim -- that particular foods cooked by non-Jews are forbidden.  There are basically two criteria that determines if a dish falls into this category:
Is not consumed raw.Fit for a royal banquet. Cooked carrots, therefore, are not a problem since they can be eaten raw (I actually prefer them that way).  Baked beans are find because the are not prestigious enough.  (For great synopsis of the laws, see the article on the Star-K site, FOOD FIT FOR A KING, by Rabbi Moshe Heinemann, shlita.)  There are lots of cool questions and details (baked potatoes are prestigious, does that make even potato chips and issue?) which are for another time.  Clearly, though, both coffee an…

Thought for the Day: Prayer II -- How?

Now that we know that the obligation to pray is nothing more (nor less!) than a divine decree, we are going to also need instructions from heaven on how to implement that decree.  I cannot stress enough how important it is to have instruction from heaven how to implement heavenly decrees.  One only needs to look at the shambles that one modern ism has made of the very important Torah principle of תיקון עולם/improving and fixing the world.  They have taken words out of context and used them to support their own nefarious schemes.  (To the point that Google Translate actually translates -- not transliterates -- תיקון עולם as Tikkun Olam.  Amelia Bedelia would be proud; we are not amused.

The Torah teaches us how to pray in two complementary fashions.  One is the way in which the concept is presented as an obligation, the other is by giving us examples of how to practically implement those instructions.

The obligation is introduced in the second paragraph of "sh'ma" -- וּלְ…

Thought for the Day: Our Job Is השתדלות/Endeavor with All One’s Resources, Not Results

Forrest Gump is a sweet movie from the last century about a relatively clueless -- though quite loveable -- fellow who triggers several history changing/making events of the 20th century.  He also amasses a considerable fortune due to fortuitous stock purchases and business investments.  A model for success, no?

No.  In every event, every stock transaction, and every business investment... our relatively clueless -- though quite loveable -- protagonist is completely passive and simply the beneficiary of good/dumb luck/karma/being at the right place at the right time.  It is not that he is a bad role model, nor a role model for something bad.  He is just not a role model.  Like an ice cube in a glass.  When the glass is empty, the cube rests on the bottom.  When the glass is filled with water, the ice cube bobs to the top. The ice cube is neither good nor bad; it just is.

I recently saw an incredible back story about events leading up to the (long overdue and very much appreciated) rel…