Is Sefiras haOmer zman gerama

B'pashtus sefiras haomer is time sensitive with women not required to count, so holds Rambam (eg סה"מ מצוה קסא). As it relates to Rambans shitah (kiddushin 33b) that sefiras haomer isn't considered time dependent, I recently came across the following Kuzari where he astonishingly writes that maybe the karaim were really right in their understanding of ׳מִמָּחֳרָת הַשַּׁבָּת׳, but that the date of Sunday is arbitrary from a biblical standpoint, as the real trigger for counting is solely the harvest event of ׳מֵהָחֵל חֶרְמֵשׁ בַּקָּמָה׳, which can be on any day, Chazal then went and fixed it on the 16th of Nissan, however, b'etzem, as a matter of biblical exegesis, the karaim were correct.

Now, mind blowing thesis aside, I want to extract from it that R. Yehuda Halevi is of the opinion that the mechayev for sefirah is the initial reaping of the barley which isn't even mandated to be done—at least from a deoraisa standpoint—on a specific day. That being the case, he presumably holds that sefira is not a mitzvas asei shehazman gerama, with women presumably obligated.

Hard to imagine Ramban agreeing with the Kuzari's theory, however even if he disagrees with it, and fixes the omer biblically on the 16th, he can still be in agreement with R. Yehuda Halevi that the main trigger is putting sickle to grain, which may also potentially resolve the issue.

Heres the excerpt from the Kuzari (3:41)

וֶאֱמֹר, שֶׁלֹּא נַחֲלֹק עִם הַקָּרָאִים בְּמַה שֶּׁהֵם טוֹעֲנִים עָלֵינוּ מִן הַמּוּבָן מִמִּלַּת ׳מִמָּחֳרָת הַשַּׁבָּת׳ וְ׳עַד מִמָּחֳרָת הַשַּׁבָּת׳ שֶׁהוּא מִיּוֹם רִאשׁוֹן, וְאַחַר כֵּן נֹאמַר שֶׁאֶחָד מִן הַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹ הַשּׁוֹפְטִים אוֹ הַמְּלָכִים, הָרְצוּיִים עִם דַּעַת הַסַּנְהֶדְרִין וְכָל הַחֲכָמִים, רָאָה כִּי הַכַּוָּנָה מִן הַמִּסְפָּר הַהוּא לָשׂוּם חֲמִשִּׁים יוֹם בֵּין בִּכּוּרֵי קְצִיר שְׂעוֹרִים וּבִכּוּרֵי קְצִיר חִטִּים, וּשְׁמִירַת שִׁבְעָה שָׁבוּעוֹת שֶׁהֵם שֶׁבַע שַׁבָּתוֹת תְּמִימוֹת, וְנָתַן לָנוּ דִמְיוֹן בִּתְחִלַּת יוֹם מֵהַשָּׁבוּעַ, לוֹמַר: אִם תִּהְיֶה הַהַתְחָלָה ׳מֵהָחֵל חֶרְמֵשׁ בַּקָּמָה׳ מִיּוֹם רִאשׁוֹן – תַּגִּיעוּ עַד יוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן, לְהַקִּישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁאִם תִּהְיֶה הַהַתְחָלָה מִיּוֹם שֵׁנִי – נַגִּיעַ עַד יוֹם שֵׁנִי. וְ׳הָחֵל חֶרְמֵשׁ׳ מֻנָּח אֵלֵינוּ, בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁנִּרְאֶה שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי – נַתְחִיל בּוֹ וְנִסְפֹּר מִמֶּנּוּ. וְקָבְעוּ אוֹתוֹ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה יוֹם שֵׁנִי שֶׁל פֶּסַח וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָזֶה סְתִירָה לַתּוֹרָה, וְהִתְחַיַּבְנוּ לְקַבְּלוֹ לְ׳תוֹרָה׳, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מִן ׳הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה׳ ׳ עִם הַתְּנָאִים הַנִּזְכָּרִים. וְשֶׁמָּא הָיָה זֶה בִנְבוּאָה מֵאֵת הַבּוֹרֵא, וְיָכוֹל לִהְיוֹת, וְנִהְיֶה נְקִיִּים מִבִּלְבּוּל הַמְבַלְבְּלִים

As an aside, notice how he says that maybe it was fixed via nevuah post biblically on the 16th, Rambam would presumably have none of it as it would run afoul of his broad application of "מעתה אין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר" (yesodei hatorah 9:1), which anyway works out well lishitaso that women are peturos.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sukkos: Pesach in the fall

This piece attempts to uncover an entirely new way of looking at the significance of Sukkos in what essentially amounts to a paradigm shift about the chag Vayikra 23:42-43 בַּסֻּכֹּת תֵּשְׁבוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כׇּל הָאֶזְרָח בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשְׁבוּ בַּסֻּכֹּת. לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דֹרֹתֵיכֶם כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי י"י אֱלֹהֵיכֶם. There is no other biblical record of our forefathers ever having stayed in booths, certainly not immediately after the exodus. The rishonim (ad loc) quote a disagreement (bavli sukkah 11b) between R Eliezer and R Akiva as to the identity of the pasuk's obscure referent: כי בסכות הושבתי – איזו סכות היו, ר' אליעזר אומר ענני כבוד היו, ר' עקיבא אומר, סכות ממש then saying that it works out acc to R Eliezer but acc to R Akiva what exactly are we celebrating?; see there for various solutions. The rishonim have in common an understanding that the holiday is somehow related to hitherto un
Read more

Are Jews innately unique

This write up attempts to explain why Haman planned for genocide whereas the Greeks opted for religious suppression As reflected in the differing formulations of al hanissim for Purim and Chanuka respectively, Haman was out for Jewish blood whereas Antiochus was for eradicating Jewish rites and rituals.  Practically speaking, Judaism would have been a relic of the past had either of them had their way.  That different approaches were employed may have been a function of most Jews having been religiously observant during the Purim story as opposed to during the Chanukah story when most were already hellenized—easier to annihilate a people than to get them all to change their ways as opposed to by the Chanukah where only a minority were still practicing it made more sense to just stamp out what remaining observance there was than to exterminate an already mostly hellenized nation.   Perhaps a more philosophical approach can be suggested: There's a well known divide amongst Jewish thi
Read more

Zionism done right

This piece attempts to provide some color to a comment of Chazal regarding the Bnos Tzelafchad's חיבת הארץ as well as explain away an apparent inconsistency in a specific Amora's approach to it Bamidbar 27 opens with the daughters of Tzelafchad making their case to share in the distribution of EY by inheriting their sonless father Tzelafachad's portion instead of his brothers. Chazal posit a love for the land of Israel as their motivation, explaining that the reason this narrative is juxtaposed with the previous chapter owes to it being illustrative of an inferred contrast therein that only the men died out in the midbar as only they had cast aspersions on the land (to the extent of wanting to return to Egypt) as opposed to the women that were lovers of the land and wanted to proceed apace even after the report of the spies. Namely, ibid 26:64: וּבְאֵלֶּה לֹא הָיָה אִישׁ מִפְּקוּדֵי מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר פָּקְדוּ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִדְבַּר סִינָי with Rash
Read more