[Avodah] is mayim acharonim a chumra? responses

[Shlomo Pick]

RSP replied: 
> if anyone washes his hand after the meal for whatever reason, especially
if he feels that his hands are greasy, then tur and the mechaber all state
that he is obligated in mayim acharonim < 
MP: I think one needs to add the word "regularly" before "washes."  So, how
many of us regularly wash our hands after eating a meal? 
you're correct in that SA and Tur say Ragil which would be translated
regularly. But how does one define regularly? Every meal? I would say that
upon eating almost every sandwich people wash/wipe their hands and that
would then require mayim acharonim.  But perhaps this should be brought to a
poseq.


> oh, i know what the darkei moshe wrote, and is found at the end of the
darkei moshe ha'aruch on the siman.  but just as he reacted to the BY in the
darchei moshe and explicity stated that the minhag is like tosophot, why
didn't he do that in the SA?  and that brings us to the issue of retraction.
is his silence a retraction or not? < 
MP: Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject can enlighten us on
whether an argument from silence (in this case, the lack of a "hagahah" by
RMA upon SA OC 181 when he explicitly commented upon what the BY wrote) is
valid, here or, indeed, anywhere except when you witness the sh'siqah of a
Rav and can truly say k'hoda'ah damya. 
I asked some people and they couldn't answer me immediately, and so I did
some research myself and this is what I came up with.

1                    Look at chayei adam, klal 69 hilchot shabbos veyom tov,
nishmas adam aleph, last line of his comment: his proof is that the remah
did not respond at all in the SA although he had commented in Darchei Moshe,
thus he must have recanted.

2                    See SA OH, 364:2, MB 8. now look at sha'ar hazion, no.
9 where he writes, see DM but since he wrote nothing here, he must have
recanted.

3                    Even a Sephardi Poseq comes to the same conclusion, see
vayikra avraham (use responsa project for this one), chelek even haezer, no.
11, end of next to the last paragraph (s.v. vehinei harav hachida.

Accordingly, I can say similarly over, that if Remah did not comment on this
case, he recanted.


>>> Finally the great forerunner of all minhag ashkenaz, the maharil, also
obligated mayim acharonim, see spitzer ed., p. 117, no. 41, and especially
note heh. <<<
>> Could I bother you to quote the phraseology verbatim? Online, the words
of the Lublin 1590 edition (http://hebrewbooks.org/11762 -- see pp.160-161)
don't tell me anything about a mandate for mayim acharonim but rather seem
to relate to explaining an "over la'asiyasan" question brought by Tos'fos.
Thanks. <<
> see further post with attachment < 
MP: Thanks for sending me a scan of a seifer listing "seider haHagadah."  I
would agree that the language of #41 (and of #40) tells us that mayim
acharonim was perforce done by at least the "m'vareich" of Bircas haMazon
(the one we would nowadays call the "leader" of BhM) after the eating of the
afiqoman and that Shinui Nuschaos 41:5 adds (I don't know whether this is an
actual nusach in a copy of Seifer MaHaRYL or comes from the author of SN,
and the nafka mina is crucial!), "achein MaHaRYL, b'chal pa'am shenatal
yadav, amar lab'churim [v'ham'subin] gam-kein litol."  I've previously seen
MaHaRYL misquoted (e.g. re whether a bachur should not wear a talis until
he's married), so I would very much like to know if that "achein" can be
sourced.  Also, note the subfootnote 5, which elucidates, "Lichora,
haMaHaRaSH s'vira leih...d'mayim acharonim tiqnu lim'vareich l'fi shemazkir
es haSheim...ush'ar m'subin hu raq mip'nei hasakanah, v'savar haMaHaRaSH
d'hayom ein sakanah v'lachein ein tzrichim litol y'deihem k'lal, v'chein
heivi deiah zu b'Seifer haMinhagim 'Leil haSeider' 53:1."  The bottom line
seems to be that mayim acharonim was l'chat'chilah done at the table of
MaHaRYL at least during leil haSeider by at least whomever would actually be
saying BhM. 
r. shalom of neustadt (maharash), ed s. shpitzer (machon Jerusalem), p.108,
no.302:9 records that the mevarech washes his hands. However, R. Isaac
Tirnau brings a makhlokes whether everyone or just the mevarekh, p. 53
machon Jerusalem ed. r. avraham klausner records that all should wash hands,
and then adds that according to r. moshe hacohen (quoted from mordechai
berachot, no.191, agur 238) that the mevarech is the only one to make a
beracha on mayim acharonim, everyone else just washes. He bases it on the
drasha, and so is cholek on the tur and says the drasha is lehalakha and you
make a beracha.  I note that all these sources are the real sources of
minhag ashkenaz and for the most part ignore the tosaphot!

However, so far I can't confirm what it says in fn.heh anywhere in the
maharil, but unless proven wrong, there's no reason why not to accept. Could
be one year he said this, the next year, that.

In any case, there is certainly mayim acharonim according to many of the
founders of yekke minhagim. 
shomo

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090501/c3f0fba9/attachment-0002.htm>