[Avodah] Aromatherapy

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:02:11PM +0200, Saul Mashbaum wrote:
: RMB:
:> There is no berakhah achronah on rei'ach, because the hana'ah from
:> smells doesn't linger. Unlike food, which makes you feel less hungary and
:> (hopefully) nourishes after you eat it.

: Source?

Niddah 52a. Rashi ("reichani") says it's because the pleasure is
minimal.

The Taz (OC 216:1) quotes the Kol Bo as giving the answer I gave above.
This is also the only explanation offered by the QSA 58:1.

...
: Borei n'fashot thanks Hashem for creating life-sustaining substances
: (... al kol ma shebarata l'hachayot bo nefesh kol chai). I can't see
: how this applies to aroma.

I don't see how it applies to junk food.

OTOH, both junk food and a good rei'ach could be "ah mechayeh"! <g>

...
:> An(other question while on the subject: Why do most people say "asher
:> nasan rei'ach tov lepeiros?" What other birkhas hanehenin is in lashon
:> avar?

: If passive voice counts, "shehakol n'hiya bidvaro" (according to
: one version).

Well, did a little more legwork...

Berakhos 38a says haMotzi is also referring to the past. We are calling
G-d "the Bringer", because He brought bread. (This comment has
implications for our recurring hashgachah peratis discussions.)

The Siltei Giborim (on Rif, Berakhos ch 6, end) says that all berakhos
that all the berakhos that are "Borei.." are also referring to the past,
and therefore "nihyah" is the consistent choice. (When I asked: What
other birkhas hanehenin is in lashon avar? It seems the question is,
which isn't?) My 2 cents: This parallels birkhos hamitzvah, which are
about the initial command, not the ongoind relationship.

Note that I capitalized haMotzi and Borei because they are now taken to
be descriptions of G-d.

"Nihyeh", because it's in the passive, can't be taken as a description
of G-d, it would be a description of "hakol" (the everything is what
exists through His Word).

The Ya'avetz (teshuvos 95-95) says the Chakham Zvi (his father) laughed
at those who said "nihyeh". He quotes R' Zalman Hanau as saying it
should be "nihyeh", but dismisses him as a grammarian, not a halachic
authority. RZH's rationale is that we speak in descriptions in berakhos,
not verbs. Even though this is passive, we should take it to mean "that
which exists through", not "is existing".

The AhS has "nihyeh" (OC 167:6).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is capable of changing the world for the
micha at aishdas.org        better if possible, and of changing himself for
http://www.aishdas.org   the better if necessary.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning