[Avodah] Why Karpas should be less than a K'zayyis

[Chaim G Steinmetz]

3) The SA
The theory put fwd by R' Rich was, that the reason the SA in Siman 473
says to eat less than a kzayis of karpas, is to gain that there not be an
issue of a brocho on netilla, since lehalocho we don't wash today
(because of the machlokes whether tibul bemashke applies today), so we
sidestep the issue of a sofek brocho by eating less than a kzayis where
there is no chiyuv brocho. 
Obviously, this is based on the assumption that the Mechaber felt that on
less than a kzayis there would be a washing, but without getting into the
issue of a brocho (or rather - less of an issue of a brocho). 
My problem is as follows: Who is the mechaber following? He cannot be
following the opinions of the Tur and Rashba, as they clearly hold of a
brocho less than a kzayis, so the same issue of sofek remains.
R' Rich claims he is doing the Rambam "in reverse": The Rambam (who holds
you make a brocho) holds you need a kzayis to make a brocho, which is why
he makes you eat a kzayis of karpas in order to trigger the brocho - so
the Mechaber, who wants to avoid the issue of (sofek) brocho, tells you
to eat less than a kzayis.
However, we have already shown that it is not simple at all to claim that
the rambam holds you need a kzayis for tibul lemashke - the Gro probably
does not hold like that (unlike by bread). On this R' Rich can argue, nu,
go like a shita that holds you need a kzayis, and say, that we avoid THAT
shita by eating less than a kzayis (maybe the aforementioned rashbatz),
just like we see the MB himself held such a shita (of davka a kzayis).
Perhaps.
My problem is as follows: In 158:2, he brings an opinion (the Rokeach)
concerning bread that on less than a kbeitza one washes without a brocho
(since it is a sofek whether one has to wash ). In 158:3, he brings an
opinion without dissent (also apparantly based on the Rokeach) beshem
"yesh mi sheomar" that holds that less than a kzayis one does not have to
wash at all.
On this last point (seif 3) there is much discussion (see nosei keilim).
Many say the BY had a wrong girsa, and there is no issue of kzayis at
all. According to them, less than a kbeitza is a sofek (as per 158:2)
whether one has to wash, therefore anything less than a kbeitza one
washes without a brocho (no difference less or more than a kzayis). This
is accepted lehalocho by many achronim - see SA Horav, and opinions
brought in MB 158:10.
Others say it was not a mistake, and less than a kzayis one does not wash
at all, and from kzayis until kbeitza without a brocho - see
aforementioned MB for sources, and this is the opinion of the Gro (see
also Aruch Hashulchan).
[IF we equate tibul to pas, it follows that we will have the same
machlokes: Either less than a KBEITZA wash without a brocho (me'ikur
hadin) - and kzayis is meaningless in this context, or have a sofek
whether netilla applies less than a kbeitza, and no netilla at all less
than a kzayis. This may be wrong - has to be looked into again].
Now let us see: The reason to assume that the chiyuv tibul bemashke is
only kzayis, is based on the kzayis we find concerning pas (at least,
that is R' Rich's read of MB 158:20). If that is the case - there is no
reason to wash at all! For by bread, the shiur kzayis is not only for the
brocho but for washing also.
Therefore - memah nifshach: If the mechaber equated bread and tibul - and
both have the shiur kzayis, why wash at all on karpas LESS than a kzayis.
And if there is no shiur kzayis on tibul, then what do you gain by having
less than a kzayis?
IOW: We are trying to understand the MECHABER's needing less than a
kzayis. The theory is, that he gained the issue of (sofek) brocho that
kzayis would have. But let us examine his OWN shito in 158 - either he
holds less than a kzayis does not need any washing like bread doesn't, in
that case why wash at all? There is no chiyuv to wash! [To say this is a
special pesach night netilah would be a chiddush nifla!]. Or he holds
that there is no kzayis issue by tibul - in which case he gained nothing
by having less than a kzayis.
In short: I do not know of a shito, that has washing for tibul less than
a kzayis without a brocho according to ikur hadin. Therefore, I do not
see how washing on less than a kzayis gives you a chiyuv to wash without
a brocho.
Since he DOES tell you to wash, indicates to me, that he holds that there
is a chiyuv netillah, albeit without a brocho (like any washing today on
tibul is without a brocho), and less than a kzayis davka, is for the
brocho achrona issue.
veyesh lehaarich od.
Before I conclude (and no doubt get attacked and refuted...), I want to
thank R' Rich for giving me the impetus for learning a fascinating inyon
that I never learned before...
CGS

PS I am in the process of writing this up (in a different format) in
Hebrew. If anyone is interested, contact me off-list.
____________________________________________________________
Be a professional.  Click here to earn a psychology degree.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTOk51QYl3dlSreiemC4KhRrbEfp1UOI1rIxdt2sOUptveXFytqeKc/