4

This question already has an answer here:

When Al Hamichyah is recited on a holiday or on the sabbath, it has a short passage inserted relevant to the day. However, there's no addition to Al Hamichyah for when it's recited on Chanukah: Chanukah is not mentioned at all in the blessing. Why not?

marked as duplicate by Y     e     z, Isaac Moses, kouty, Scimonster, Gershon Gold Dec 22 '16 at 19:25

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

1

The Minchas Ani says that Al Hanisim when said in Birkas Hamazon, is considered an insert. It is not a special Beracha in the Birkas Hamazon. But, if we would add an insert in the Al Hamichya, people might come to think that Al Hanisim deserves its own Beracha.

See this link from Rabbi Eli Mansour for more detailed answer

  • Somone just told Rab Plagi not Chaim but his father said one of the reasons we Have Latkes on Chanukah is Because Al Hamichyah lacks a reference to Chanukah we Eat Shehakol foods because he thinks it Should. – SimchasTorah Nov 29 '10 at 23:46
1

A couple of answers from a couple of Soloveitchiks:

R' Chaim Soloveitchik explains that "beracha me'ein shalosh" (al hamichya) only includes those components of bentching which get a beracha. The additions that we add into al hamichya get a beracha to make up for them if they are forgotten in their proper place and remembered right after boneh yerushalayim before starting hatov vehametiv. This also explains the addition of the placement of the references in al hamichya - they are after "ובנה ירושלים עיר הקדש וכו", which corresponds to the conclusion of the 3rd beracha, and before כי אתה ה' טוב, which corresponds to the 4th beracha, as they are in place of the blessings that are made between the 3rd and 4th beracha.

R' Yosef Dov Soloveitchik explained that al hanisim is a modified version of nodeh l'cha, as opposed to yaaleh v'yavo and retzei which are addendums of an external nature. Al hanisim becomes part of the actual beracha of nodeh l'cha and therefore is included in the corresponding words of al hamichya which summarize that paragraph. As opposed to the other additions, which are external additions, are not represented without being explicitly included.

0

Mishna Berura OC 208, sk 9 in name of the GRA that even for Birkat Hamazon there is no need to mention the Al Hanisim, for Meen Shalosh, people have not the custom to add (adding here is regarded as a stringency) so, we cannot add it

In Bet Yosef we found in name of the Yerouchalmi to "mention some words linked to the event", but Tosfot seems to think that this Yerouchalmi wasn't ruled for the halacha. Tosfot has an other explanation, that this mention was mandatory at the time of Chazal because they were using wine or other Erets Israel important fruits for whole meals. But nowadays we don't make meals with nothing except bread, so, to mention the event is less important We understand that the duty to mention the event is to mention it in the important meals. Diverse customs are mentioned in Rishonim. The guideline is furnished by Rashba: "See what is going among people". According to all poskim people did not mention Chanuka.

The last seems a weak explanation. The first is more rational. But following the both, we see that the fact that someone looks at any cost to mention Chanuka is not right

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .