tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post114462036549109198..comments2024-03-28T21:21:02.777-04:00Comments on Divrei Chaim: Forced eating with respect to matzah and brachosChaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1144686131412779092006-04-10T12:22:00.000-04:002006-04-10T12:22:00.000-04:00Nachon. That is what I meant.Nachon. That is what I meant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1144683155210692162006-04-10T11:32:00.000-04:002006-04-10T11:32:00.000-04:00I like it! But let me just clarify that I underst...I like it! But let me just clarify that I understand it: By being mafrish stolen challah, the hafrasha has nothing to do with the issur gezel - just there is a seperate din not to say a bracha on a cheftza shel issur. You want to apply the same argument here: an act of han'ah under duress is still a ma'aseh, but there is a seperate din that one cannot say a bracha on an achila done bal korcho. Did I get what you mean? I ask because I had a different approach to answer the kashe. I think there can be multiple approaches on this one!Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1144679197553609882006-04-10T10:26:00.000-04:002006-04-10T10:26:00.000-04:00Just like if someone is mafrish stolen challah, he...Just like if someone is mafrish stolen challah, he doesn't make a bracha, but is yotzei the mitzva (at least on a d'oraysa level - see Tosafos in Sukka 9a and 30a)...here also, one can be yotzei the mitzva of matza (because he was ne'hene) but doesn't make a bracha (because he was forced).<BR/><BR/>In other words, there are different requirements for being yotzei a mitzva and for making a bracha.<BR/><BR/>I don't think it's a klutz kasha, but I do think that it's easily answerable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1144676171352253122006-04-10T09:36:00.000-04:002006-04-10T09:36:00.000-04:00I'm no "esteemed scholar", but the MG"A certainly ...I'm no "esteemed scholar", but the MG"A certainly was and he left this b'tzarich iyun! How does your distinction answer the question? True, "bala matzah" is speaking about being mekayeim a mitzvah, but the point is that the reason the mitzvah is fulfilled is by virtue of the significance of the hana'ah which comes under duress. So if that hana'ah is significant enough to define your act of eating as intentional for purposes of kiyum mitzvah, why is it not sufficient to define your act of eating as intentional for purposes to reciting a birchas hanahenin? IOW, if you eat an apple under duress, by virtue of the hana'ah it is the same as willfully eating the same apple - so why no bracha? (I agree it is possible perhaps to answer up the MG"A, but its not a klutz kashe).Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1144674762001548842006-04-10T09:12:00.000-04:002006-04-10T09:12:00.000-04:00Ain zeh mivarech elah mina'etz. I can't accept the...Ain zeh mivarech elah mina'etz. I can't accept the fact that an esteemed scholar such as yourself has never encountered this concept. <BR/><BR/>The Rama you quoted is talking about birchas ha'ne'nin. The "bala matza yotza" gemara is talking about being mikayeim the mitzva of matza.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com