If a person said kiddush on a cup of wine intending to drink only that specific cup, but then changed his mind and added a little more wine to drink, the Shemiras Shabbos k'Hilchisa (footnote 115 end of ch 48) quotes from R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that the added bit of wine does not require its own bracha because it is bateil to the wine already in the cup.
(Parenthetically, this is a bit of an unusual type of bitul. The classic case of bitul is a piece of issur that is nullified in some larger percentage of heter. Here, there is no issur/heter involved. The bitul is a bitul of metziyus that tells you to treat the added wine as non-existent.)
Vol 3 of the SS"K quotes R SZ"A as having retracted that psak and says what sounds like a brilliant chiddush. We know that the rule of bitul b'rov does not apply in dinei mamonos (Beitzah 37). To take a crazy example to illustrate the point, if I take a dollar of your money and put it in my wallet with my own money, I can't say your dollar is bateil b'rov and I therefore don't have anything of yours. R' SZ"A suggests that since the gemara (Brachos 35b) says א"ר חנינא בר פפא כל הנהנה מן העוה"ז בלא ברכה כאילו גוזל להקב"ה וכנסת ישראל that not saying a bracha is like gezel, we should therefore treat the issue of bitul viz a viz whether a bracha is needed as a dinei mamonos issue. You therefore would not say bitul b'rov on the bit of wine added to the cup and it does require a new bracha.
To connect dinei brachos as mamonos is genius, but I don't get it. How do you explain the principle of ikar and tafeil? As the Mishneh Berura writes (OC 212:1) אפילו שניהם עיקרים אלא שהאחד מרובה מחבירו הרוב הוא העיקר כמ"ש סימן ר"ח ס"ז ואפילו כל מין ומין עומד בפני עצמו וניכר נמי בתר רוב אזלינן Is the use of rov vs miyut to define ikar and tafeil when you have a mixture not the same principle as bitul b'rov?
No comments:
Post a Comment