Parshas Toldos 5786 – Intriguing Questions & Answers
If One Mistakenly Recited Al HaMichyah After Eating Grapes — Is He Yotzei?
Q: While learning the halachos of Birchos HaNehenin in the Kollel Hora’ah of Yerushalayim, a question arose—one that Mori V’Rabi, Maran HaGaon R’ Avigdor Nebenzahl, shlit”a, was uncertain about: If a person ate dates or grapes, and when reciting the Berachah Mei’ein Shalosh afterward he mistakenly said Al HaMichyah—the insert designated for foods of the five grains—instead of Al Ha’eitz; or similarly, if he began correctly with Al Ha’eitz but concluded erroneously with Al HaMichyah (as the chasimah is essential to the berachah)—must he recite the proper brachah again, or has he fulfilled his obligation b’dieved?
A: The Gemara (Berachos 12a) explicitly states that if one recited Birchas HaMazon after eating dates, he has nonetheless fulfilled his obligation, because dates are “meyzan zaynei”—filling. Similarly, the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 208:17) rules that if one recited Birchas HaMazon after eating dates or drinking wine, he has discharged his duty. The Mishnah Berurah (ibid. 47) explains, however, that this applies only to dates and wine; but if one recited Birchas HaMazon after eating figs, grapes, olives, or pomegranates, he has not fulfilled his obligation, even b’dieved.
Accordingly, it is clear that if one recited Al HaMichyah after eating grapes, he certainly has not fulfilled his obligation, since this brachah pertains exclusively to items that provide sustenance—which does not include fruits.
However, concerning dates, there is room for doubt: Since one fulfills his obligation with Birchas HaMazon, perhaps one should likewise fulfill his obligation with Al HaMichyah. Or, perhaps Al HaMichyah is limited strictly to foods made from the five types of grain and does not apply at all to dates—even though dates are considered filling.
Shevet HaKehati rules that one indeed fulfills his obligation with Al HaMichyah, since dates are mizan zaynei, akin to grain products. He brings a proof from the Midrash Talpiyos, which writes that R’ Shimon bar Yochai, during the years he was in the cave, survived on carobs during the week and on dates for Shabbos. The Zohar also states that R’ Shimon ate all three Shabbos meals even during that period. Accordingly, if we combine these teachings, it emerges that one can fulfill the obligation of Shabbos meals with dates. I have also seen that this was the ruling of the Rav Chaim Kanievsky, zt”l.
Nevertheless, to explain why Mori V’Rabi Rav Nebenzhal was uncertain: it would seem that it not proper to recite Al Ha’eitz again. Since we do not find any basis that Al HaMichyah covers dates—aside from Birchas HaMazon, which is a distinct category—it is not entirely clear that one has certainly fulfilled his obligation. However, since the matter remains in doubt, we would apply the halachic principle of safek berachos l’hakeil—in cases of doubt regarding blessings, we rule leniently—and one should therefore not recite Al Ha’eitz again.
Still, where possible, it is proper to hear Al Ha’eitz recited by someone else and fulfill his obligation that way.
If One Mistakenly Read the “Targum” Before the “Shnayim Mikra” — Is He Yotzei B’dieved?
Q: I was asked by someone who was being maavir sedra with Shnayim Mikra V’Echad Targum. By mistake, he began a particular aliyah by reading the Targum first, and only afterward read the two krios of the Mikra. He was unsure whether he was yotzei b’dieved, or whether, since he had not read even one Mikra beforehand, he had not fulfilled his obligation at all.
A: We find that the Poskim differ on this matter. In practice, I rule that he is yotzei b’dieved, as explained below bs”d.
In the halachos of Shnayim Mikra V’Echad Targum (O.C. 285), it is clear that the preferred order is to read the Mikra twice and then the Targum; a yirei shamayim should also learn Rashi. The Mishnah Berurah cites many Acharonim on the maalos of Targum Onkelos. Nevertheless, he also writes that one should not read the Targum first and only afterward the Mikra; rather, the ideal order is two krios of Mikra followed by Targum. In Shaar HaTziyun (s.k. 10), he notes that if one did not follow this order but read the Targum in between the two Mikra readings, he has nonetheless fulfilled his obligation b’dieved, as implied by the Levush.
We must therefore examine whether this leniency applies only when the Targum was inserted between the two Mikra readings, but not when the Targum was recited before even the first Mikra; or whether even in such a case one has fulfilled his obligation b’dieved, since ultimately he has read two krios and Targum, albeit out of order.
See Aruch HaShulchan (3), who raises the question whether the requirement is specifically two Mikra followed by Targum, or whether one fulfills his obligation with a sequence of Mikra–Targum–Mikra. He writes that it would appear from the Levush that one does fulfill his obligation in such a manner, for he writes: “It appears to me that if a person reads one Mikra and one Targum on his own, and afterward, when the parashah is read in the Beis Haknesses, he reads along with the chazzan, he is yotzei Shnayim Mikra v’echad Targum.” It is thus clear from him that the Targum may be in the middle. Although he adds that the Beis Yosef does not agree that one fulfills his obligation in such a manner—this is because he holds that one does not fulfill his obligation by reading along with the ba’al korei, not because the Targum appears in the middle.
Similarly, as mentioned above, the Shaar HaTziyun (s.k. 10) writes that one fulfills his obligation even when the Targum is in the middle, as evident from the Levush. This is also the view of the Ketzos HaShulchan (siman 72, s.k. 1) and other poskim. Moreover, Machatzis HaShekel (end of s.k. 1) writes that one should ideally place the two Mikra readings adjacent to one another without interruption by the Targum—implying that this requirement is lechatchilah only. The Ketzos HaShulchan himself is uncertain whether one fulfills his obligation if he mistakenly read the Targum before the two Mikra readings, and writes that some hold that one should repeat that aliyah when such an error occurred; this is cited in the name of Rav Chaim Kanievsky, zt”l.
See also Teshuvos Tzitz Eliezer 15:7:4, who was asked whether the order is essential to the mitzvah—such as in a case of Mikra–Targum–Mikra—and he responded that b’dieved one does fulfill his obligation. He brings proof from the ruling that one may fulfill the “one Mikra” by reading along with the ba’al korei during Krias HaTorah. The Pri Megadim (Mishbetzos Zahav s.k. 1) writes that one should not read Targum and only afterward Mikra, nor read out of order, but should read Mikra first and then Targum. His words seem to imply that one would not fulfill his obligation as we have argued above.
However, from the Mishnah Berurah it appears that he holds one does fulfill his obligation, for he writes that one should not read one Mikra and one Targum and intend to fulfill the second Mikra by listening to the shaliach tzibbur, unless he himself also reads along. It is clear that the Mishnah Berurah understood that this does not invalidate the fulfillment of the mitzvah—although it is surprising that he does not mention that the Pri Megadim argues.
In Chut HaShani, Hilchos Shabbos, vol. 4 (p. 115, §2), it is recorded that the Chazon Ish preferred to read Mikra first, then Targum, and then the second Mikra. This is when one requires the Targum in order to properly understand the Mikra, so that at least the second reading of the Mikra is done with comprehension of the text. It is only meant to be done in the order of “Shnayim Mikra V’echad Targum” when one already knows the meaning of the pesukim.
I have also heard from Mori V’Rabi, HaGaon R’ Avigdor Nebenzahl, shlit”a, that even if one read the Targum before the two Mikra readings, he is yotzei b’dieved. This is the ruling I follow.
Someone Said Havdalah Over Coffee with Milk, and Then Remembered He Is Still Within Six Hours of Eating Meat
Q: A common scenario in the winter months arises with someone who is accustomed—or wishes—to recite Havdalah over coffee with milk, relying on the opinions that classify it as chamar medinah. After having recited Havdalah and preparing to drink from the cup, he now remembers that on this particular Shabbos he ate the Shabbos meal quite late, and six hours have not yet passed since eating meat. What should he do now?
A: Since several poskim distinguish between whether one is still within the first hour after eating meat, or whether that initial hour has already passed, we will present the various opinions on this topic.
The Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 89:1) writes: “One who has eaten meat, even meat of a chayah or chicken, may not eat cheese afterward until six hours have elapsed.” The Rema adds: “The widespread custom in these lands is to wait one hour after eating meat and then eat cheese.” He concludes: “There are those who are stringent to wait six hours after meat before eating cheese, and this is the proper practice.”
The Taz (s.k. 2) cites the Maharshal, who expresses astonishment at the lenient custom and writes: “Even if it is impossible to protest among the general populace who are not learned, among bnei Torah one should certainly protest and admonish them not to be lenient with less than six hours.” Likewise, the Shach (s.k. 8) writes in the name of the Maharshal that this is the proper practice “for anyone who possesses even a scent of Torah.” The Levush likewise rules that it is forbidden to eat milk within six hours. The Pri Megadim (Sifsei Daas) writes that the proper custom is to wait six full hours, and one should not breach this standard.
Regarding the required amount to be tasted from the cup at Havdalah, the poskim write that one of those present must drink meloh logmav (a cheekful) from the cup. The Shulchan Aruch Harav writes in Hilchos Kiddush (O.C. 271:25): “But regarding Havdalah and all other matters requiring a kos, the Geonim agree that even lechatchilah it suffices for one of the participants to taste a cheekful.”
However, in Hilchos Birchas HaMazon (O.C. 190:4), the Shulchan Aruch Harav cites a dispute regarding the very obligation of drinking from the kos shel mitzvah and concludes: “And similarly, with Havdalah, if he did not taste a cheekful, he need not repeat Havdalah, for in cases of doubt concerning rabbinic blessings we are lenient, following the latter opinion.” Nevertheless, even according to this view, one must taste something, so that the blessing should not be in vain.
Based on the above, the leading poskim rule that if he tasted even the smallest amount from the kos, he has fulfilled his obligation b’dieved and does not need to repeat Havdalah.
In my opinion, even if he is still within the first hour from eating meat, and he remembered before drinking, he should taste a small amount from the cup—merely enough so that his blessing will not be l’vatalah—but he should drink no more. If, however, the first hour has already passed, he may drink a full melo logmav, for one may rely on the lenient opinion requiring only a one-hour interval between meat and milk in order to fulfill the mitzvah of Havdalah lechatchilah, and not merely b’dieved.
This is especially so since Tosafos (Chullin 105a) hold that if one performs siluk (clearing the table) and recites a brachah between meat and milk, it is permissible; therefore, to avoid the possibility of a brachah l’vatalah, I instruct that one may rely on this view to taste at least a minimal amount.