[Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza

[Akiva Miller via Avodah]

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/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151020/ba8a20bd/attachment-0004.htm>