Nossar, the parts of a Korban that are not eaten within the allotted time, must be destroyed.
Was there a bracha on burning nossar? If so, what is it? If not, why not?
7
-
1What about burning any other the other parts of Korbanot that were burnt? Why specifically ask about Notar?– Double AA ♦Commented Dec 22, 2016 at 19:12
-
1@DoubleAA I did not reflect on such related topics when I posted my question, but I like your expanded question. Yet, perhaps it makes sense to start small with this topic and wait for the answer before asking larger questions.– Yehuda WCommented Dec 22, 2016 at 19:23
-
@DoubleAA What about bringing korbanos in general? I would argue that since this is a lav hanitak le'aseh it's not the kind of thing we make a bracha on - you don't bless tashlumei keifel, for instance...– Isaac KotlickyCommented Dec 22, 2016 at 20:24
-
1@IsaacKotlicky How do you know that we dont make a brocho on a lav hanitak le-aseh?– Avrohom YitzchokCommented Dec 24, 2016 at 22:15
-
3The first comment of Mishne L'melech on Ma'ase Hakarbanos distills a general debate over each element of avoda having its own b'racha, only the "big" ones (which ones?) having a b'racha, or there being one b'racha applying to all the avodos of the day. This should relate to but not answer the question fully because it is only talking about kohanim in the mikdash and nosar could be burned by anyone and elsewhere (cf. עה"ה פסולי המוקדשים קנ"ו).– WAFCommented Dec 25, 2016 at 20:38
|
Show 2 more comments
2 Answers
In Sefer Abudarham, in Shaar Hashlishi which addresses Birkat Hamitsvot, a Teshuva of Rabbi Yosef Ben Pelat. The issue is to find a criterion for blessing on a mitsva. In the Teshuva RYBP wrote that mitsvot that come as consequence of a sin, as returning the stolen object, returning ribbit, are exempted from beracha.
Further RYBP wrote mefurash that notar has no Beracha: (last word of the 15th line of the right column)
וכן שרפת נותר לא תותירו והנותר ממנו, אלו כולן ומאי דדמי להו משום דהוו מצוה הבאה בעבירהלא מברכינן עלייהו
Later he explained the rational, linking the issue with the known Suggia of Mitsva habaa beavera, but I did not understand. His main proof is from the Gemara BK 94a which says that a man who bless for hafrashat challa on a dough made by wheat that he had stolen, he is not blessing but cursing.
In Igros Moshe, Kadashim, vol. 1, #15, toward the end, he says
Yes
on the basis of being unconvinced of a reason not to. The questioner apparently thought that one would not, and while the t'shuva does not mention the categorical exception to the b'racha requirement in @kouty's answer, he does consider and preempt a closely related concern.
Earlier, he'd analyzed the purpose of the mitzva to burn nosar, and some of the ramifications thereof. In that section he entertained the idea of two (or three) subtypes of lav hanitak la'ase, which would operate differently. One type was a positive mitzva that is designed to effect a state, the accomplishment of which de facto negates transgression of a separate prohibition. This sounds like the Avudraham's categorical exclusion, but Rav Moshe did not believe this mitzva fit into that criterion.
For more, and interesting criticism of this t'shuva, see Riv'vos Efrayim 8:368.
Re the wording of the putative b'racha, the general pattern of "אשר קדשנו בקדושתו של אהרן וצונו..." may not fit here, at least when the burning is performed by a non kohen. But it might be a different mitzva for kohanim and others. (I have wondered but never found an answer to what b'racha a kohen says when he eats the korban pesach, for the latter reason.)
-
shkoyech, I want to read the Abudarham up to the end of the Shut and afterwards the Igrot Moshe, have you a link?– koutyCommented Dec 26, 2016 at 19:39
-
-
-
@kouty - I scanned the relevant part of Riv'vos Efrayim and was about to post it when I realized I have no idea what copyright it is under. If you would like to see it let me know.– WAFCommented Dec 30, 2016 at 0:34
-