<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16825" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=MPoppers@kayescholer.com
href="mailto:MPoppers@kayescholer.com">Michael Poppers</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=avodah@lists.aishdas.org
href="mailto:avodah@lists.aishdas.org">avodah aishdas list</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=picksh@mail.biu.ac.il
href="mailto:picksh@mail.biu.ac.il">Shlomo Pick</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, April 30, 2009 8:18
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: is mayim acharonim a
chumra?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P>In Avodah Digest V26#73, RSP noted:<BR>> In OH, 181:1 the mechaber
states emphatically that mayim achronim is an obligation....Chaza&quot;l
even pegged it to a verse in these parshot of vayikra, that one should be
holy, this is mayim acharonim. At the end of this chapter, in no.10 the
mechaber says that there are some who do not practice (she'ein nohagim) to
wash mayim achronim, with the tosophot in berachot brought as the source.
<<BR>The Tur says what RSP noted, and, after quoting Tos'fos, he writes at
the end of the siman, "V'ham'vareich nami [isn't noheig to wash mayim
acharonim --MP], kivan she'ein anu osin k'mo she'amar hapasuq 'ki qadosh
Ani'-zeh shemen areiv, gam bin'tilah lo nahagu. V'lo miqri l'didan 'yadayim
m'zuhamos' kivan she'ein anu r'gilin litol v'ein anu maqpidim b'kach...." In
other words, the argument would be that not only, as per Tos'fos, is melach
S'domis not found nowadays (going back to y'mei Tos'fos, many hundreds of
years ago), but also our practices contradict important aspects of the
d'rashah and of the concept of zuhama: (a) we're not fully following the
d'rash of "v'hisqadishtem" re using shemen, and that d'rash isn't halfway, so
it apparently doesn't apply l'halacha; and (b) since we're not particular to
always wash our supposedly m'zuhamos hands after eating, we apparently don't
have the condition which would mandate mayim acharonim in order to remove
zuhama. (Re point (a), BTW, the counterpoint of BY 181:1 is worth the price of
admission!)<BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>on point A, the tur implies (based on
the tosaphot in hullin 105a and more upon the rosh at the end of the 8th
chapter of berachot, that since shemen is not practiced it implies that the
drasha is an asmachta, and also the custom (in northern germany and France)
was not to wash mayim acharonim. that's all the tur says. i presume you would
translate: and thus also the custom was not to... (and note the BY at the
beginning of the siman as you have done). point taken in the Tur, but i
will note that the tur says nohagu and not nohagim. it may be just a copy of
the tosophot, or it may be a reference to the past and not the
present.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>i would point out here, that 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. thus anyone who washes his hands after a jelly sandwich, or
herring, etc. would be obligated in mayim acharonim before
benching.</FONT></P>
<P>> Interestingly, the remah says nothing in either place, seemingly
agreeing to the mechaber's view. <<BR>DM 181:1 is crystal clear: "Mihu
haminhag k'divrei haTos'fos [sheheivi Rabbeinu b'sof hasiman -- Chidushei
Hagahos]." As RRW has pointed out in the past, you really need to check out
Tur SA -- SA is really an extract of BY and DM on Tur SA. I can't speak to why
no extract (much less a quote) of RMA's words is in SA 181, but he certainly
did write upon the subject. </P>
<P>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?<BR><BR>> 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.
<<BR>Could I bother you to quote the phraseology verbatim? Online, the
words of the Lublin 1590 edition (<A
href="http://hebrewbooks.org/11762">http://hebrewbooks.org/11762</A> -- 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. <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>see further post with
attachment</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>shlomo</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>