5

Aruch Hashulchan, OC 188:18, cites a difference of opinion regarding the following case. On Shabas which is rosh chodesh, someone says the Shabas addition in birkas hamazon (grace after the meal) but omits the rosh chodesh addition. (The case is actually more closely circumscribed than that; see e.g. :20.) Some say he must repeat birkas hamazon because he was required to eat and thus say birkas hamazon, which he didn't do properly, and others says he need not and thus must not repeat birkas hamazon because his requirement to eat didn't stem from its being rosh chodesh. Because of the difference of opinion, the Aruch Hashulchan concludes: "a doubt about benedictions — be lenient" and don't repeat birkas hamazon.

Yet, in 490:2 and :5, he says as follows: Someone who omits the chol hamoed addition to birkas hamazon should not repeat birkas hamazon; and, on Shabas which is chol hamoed, someone who omits the chol hamoed addition but says the Shabas addition should repeat birkas hamazon.

Why is that latter case different from the rosh chodesh case? It would seem to be subject to the same difference of opinion and one should therefore not repeat birkas hamazon.

  • Maybe it's because the normal chiyuv to eat of Shabbos is also "enhanced" by the moed. Either you're eating matza or you're eating in the sukkah. A nafka mina would be for women on Sukkos (or for men if it's raining). – Heshy Apr 13 '17 at 14:18
  • Normal halacha is not as the Oruch Hashulchan. But I cannot find any evidence that the OH holds that a bread meal is obligatory on Chol Hamoed. – Avrohom Yitzchok Apr 13 '17 at 17:32
1

See Magen Avraham siman 505 sk 1:

ובמשנ' רפ"ד דסוכ' אמרי' ההלל והשמחה ח' ימים וע"ש ובסי' קפ"ח ס"ז משמע דדי באכיל' פירות ומ"מ נ"ל לכתחל' מצוה לאכול פת עיין סי' תרס"ד:‏

In Mishna at the begining of the first chapter of Succa, they say that the simcha continues 8 days. But the Shulchan Aruch in 188, 7 states that to eat fruits (without bread) is enough. But I (the Magen Avraham) think that lechatechilla there is a mitsva to eat bread (not equivalent to Rosh Chodesh). The Magen Avraham seems to say that this is a machloket rishonim {and BY says cites SMG and Kol Bo against RMBM and Rabenu Yerucham and the SA stated as Rambam that fruits mealvis enough} if chol hamoed is equivalent to Rosh Chodesh.

Bet Yosef 188:

ואם חל ר"ח בשבת והזכיר של שבת ולא של ר"ח היה אומר ה"ר יוסף שאין מחזירין וכו' כ"כ המרדכי שם ובהגהות מרדכי פ"ב דשבת כ' שתי הסברות ודעת הרשב"א בפרק שלשה שאכלו כדעת ה"ר יחיאל דכיון דע"כ אכיל אפי' טעה בשל ר"ח מחזירין אותו: ב"ה ולענין הלכה נקטינן כה"ר יוסף דספק ברכות להקל:‏

There is an additional machloket, when R. Chodesh (or chol hamoed according to Rambam) falls on Shabbat, a first opinion says that since the meal is required in Shabbat, so each details of the bentsh is a part of the duty (if yaale veyavo of rosh chodesh was not mentioned, we have to bless a second time )and a second opinion says that the shabbat's mention is required, not Rosh Chodesh's. Bet Yosef stated as the last opinion by doubt.

Aruch Hadhulchan 490, 2:

וכן מזכירו בברכת המזון. ואם לא אמרו – אין מחזירין אותו, מפני שאינו חובה לאכול פת.‏

AH 490, 5:

ואם לא אמר – מחזירין אותו. וכן בברכת המזון, מפני שבשבת חובה לאכול פת.‏

It seems that the Aruch Hashulchan makes a combination. He follows in conclusion the first opinion quoted on Bet Yosef 188 (Kol Bo and Smag) in cases in which we can combinate the Rashba and Rabenu Yechiel.

  • Clearer now. Thanks. Also it seems plausible. – msh210 Apr 14 '17 at 12:48

You must log in to answer this question.

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