What is the law if prior to counting one said that “Today is Lag Baomer”, may he count that night with a blessing?

What is the law if prior to counting one said that “Today is Lag Baomer”, may he count that night with a blessing?
If he said the words “Today is Lag Baomer”, he does not fulfill his obligation and may count that night with a blessing.[1] However, some[2] conclude one is to count without a blessing. Practically, one may count with a blessing.

 

What is the law if prior to counting one unintentionally said “Today is Lamed Gimel Baomer” or another letter form of counting?[3]
If he did not intend to fulfill his obligation upon saying it, he is to recite the Sefira with a blessing.[4] However, some[5] conclude one is to count without a blessing.

Should one avoid saying the words “Lag Baomer” prior to counting on the night of the 33rd?
There is no need to avoid saying these words, being it is an invalid count.[6] Nevertheless, some[7] are stringent in this matter.

Background Laws:

Counted without intention to fulfill the Mitzvah:[8]

If one unintentionally stated the Sefira of that night [i.e. without intent to fulfill the Mitzvah], he is to recount later on at night without a blessing.[9] [This applies irrelevant of which language he answered in.[10] This applies whether he said the days or the weeks.[11] However, if it is the end of a week, such as day 7, 14 etc and, he only said the weeks, he is to repeat the count with a blessing.[12]] This however only applies if one said the words “Today is such and such”. If, however, he did not say these words and rather simply said “Such and Such to the Omer”, then he is to repeat the counting with a blessing. See Halacha 18 for all the details of this ruling!

When does this apply?[13] The above law applies starting from Bein Hashmashos [after sunset]. If the Sefira was unintentionally mentioned prior to sunset [Bein Hashmashos], but past Plag Hamincha, then he has not forfeited the blessing and is thus to repeat the count with a blessing later at night.[14] (Nevertheless, initially, one is to be careful to avoid saying the coming nights count beginning from Plag Hamincha and onwards.[15])

 

Counting in numbers versus letters?[16]

One is to count the Sefira in number digits [אחד, שתים] as opposed to letters [i.e. א, ב, ג]. If one counted in letters and not in numbers, such as he said “Today is Alef or Beis or Gimel of the Omer[17]”, then it is disputed[18] as to whether he fulfilled his obligation. Practically, one is to repeat the count without a blessing.[19] [If one did not do so, he may nevertheless continue counting with a blessing the following nights.[20]]

What is the law if one counted in Roshei Teivos/Abbreviations?[21]

In the above Halacha, Admur concludes that one who counted in letters is subject to a dispute in Poskim and is thus to recount without a blessing. The question raised is asked as to what is the definition of letters, is it limited to letter abbreviations [example 1] or does the dispute extend even to word abbreviations [example 2].

Ø  Example 1: One said on the 33rd night “Today is Lamed Gimel Baomer”

Ø  Example 2: One said on the 33rd night “Today is Lag Baomer”

Letter abbreviation-Example 1:[22] One who counted that night in a letter abbreviation, such as instead of saying thirty-three he said the letters Lamed Gimel, then it is subject to the same dispute mentioned above regarding one who counted in letters, and he is to recount that night without a blessing, but may continue to count the future nights with a blessing, even if he did not recount.

Word abbreviation-Example 2: One who counted in a word abbreviation of the number night, such as instead of saying thirty-three, and instead of saying the letters Lamed Gimel, he said the word Lag, is not subject to the above mentioned dispute, and he does not fulfill his obligation and is to recount with a blessing.[23] Some Poskim[24] however rule that he fulfills his obligation even in such a case according to the lenient opinion above, [so long as the word abbreviation is commonly used for that number[25]].[26] Practically, according to Admur it is implied that he must repeat the count with a blessing in all cases of word abbreviations.[27] [Accordingly, if one counted using a word abbreviation and did not recount properly, he may no longer continue counting with a blessing.]

PDF Article and source sheet

 This file is view-able in PDF format for logged in members only! To become a member, please choose a subscription plan. For current members-please sign in! If you have logged in and it does not show up in your browser-please try using Google Chrome.

[pdfjs-viewer url=”http://shulchanaruchharav.com/download/5267/” viewer_width=100% viewer_height=1360px fullscreen=true download=true print=true]

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] So rules even if he intended to count when he said these words: Implication of Admur 489/7; Sheilas Yaavetz 139; Siddur Yaavetz Halacha 11; Birkeiy Yosef 489/9 “I lean towards this opinion,”, brought in Shaareiy Teshuvah ibid; So rule only in this case that he did not intend to count when saying these words: Sakina Charifta 20; Maharash Levi 5; Kneses Hagedola 489; Shulchan Gavoa 489/15; Zechor Leavraham 70; Kaf Hachaim 489/30; Daas Torah 489/4

The reason: See Halacha 8 in Q&A for the full discussion on this matter, and our conclusion that Admur rules like the Yaavetz and Chida that word abbreviations are invalid number counting. Furthermore, even according to those Poskim who rule that word abbreviations is subject to a dispute in Poskim, in this case there is room to be lenient and count with a blessing even in their opinion, as there are three more doubts entered into the equation, which are a) He did not count the weeks, and b) Perhaps he we rule you need intent to fulfill the Mitzvah and c) Perhaps in order for an abbreviation to carry weight as a number one must have intent to use it as a number, and if used as a name for the Holiday, one does not fulfill his obligation according to all. [So explains Maharash Halevi, Kneses Hagedola, Sakina Charifta, Shulchan Gavoa, Zechor Leavraham and Kaf Hachaim ibid]

[2] Piskeiy Teshuvos 48914; Shaareiy Ezra 1/29 [Rav Ezra Batzri]

[3] Sakina Charifta 20; Maharash Levi 5; Kneses Hagedola 489; Shulchan Gavoa 489/15; Zechor Leavraham 70; Kaf Hachaim 489/30; Daas Torah 489/4

[4] The reason: As this is a case of Sfek Sfeika, as there are three doubts/disputes entered into the equation, which are a) He counted in Roshei Teivos [he did not count the actual numbers but counted letters which is a dispute if he is Yotzei]; b) He did not count the weeks, and c) Perhaps he we rule you need intent to fulfill the Mitzvah. [See Maharash Halevi, Kneses Hagedola, Sakina Charifta, Shulchan Gavoa, Zechor Leavraham and Kaf Hachaim ibid] Vetzaruch Iyun from Siddur Admur who is stringent even regarding a Sfek Sfeka.

[5] Piskeiy Teshuvos 48914; Shaareiy Ezra 1/29 [Rav Ezra Batzri]

[6] See previous footnotes and Halacha 8 in Q&A that Admur rules like the Yaavetz and Chida that word abbreviations are invalid number counting.

[7] Piskeiy Teshuvos 48914; Shaareiy Ezra 1/29 [Rav Ezra Batzri]; Seemingly, so would apply according to all Poskim who only allow repeating with a blessing if one said “Today is Lag Baomer” due to Sfek Sfeika, as one is not to initially enter himself into a Safek.

[8] See Halacha 18 for all the details of this ruling

[9] Admur 489/12; M”A 489/8

The reason: As he fulfills his obligation according to those opinions [Rashba Brachos 13b; Ran R”H 3 in name of Geonim] who say that Mitzvos do not need intention for one to fulfill his obligation. Furthermore, even according to those Poskim [Bahag Brachos 2/7; Rif R”H 3; Rambam Shofar 2/4; Rosh R”H 3] who argue that Biblical Mitzvos require intention, today the Mitzvah of Sefira is Rabbinical, and there are Poskim [Bach 475; M”A 60/3; Admur 60/5]  who rule that by a Rabbinical Mitzvah according to all one does not need intention. [Admur ibid] Accordingly, one is to be stringent like both opinions and hence is to repeat the Sefira [to suspect for the stringent opinion who rules that one is not Yotzei without intent] but without the blessing [in order to suspect for those opinions that rule one is Yotzei without intent].

[10] P”M 489 A”A 9; Derech Hachaim 9; Kaf Hachaim 489/54; See Admur 489/10 brought in Halacha 9!

[11] See Admur 489/6 [brought in Halacha 7] that we rule either the day’s or the weeks suffice during the middle days.

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that if one did not say both the weeks and the days it is a Sfek Sfeika if he fulfills his obligation, as maybe Mitzvos need Kavana and maybe one must mention the days and weeks, and thus perhaps he is to repeat the count with a blessing. [P”M 489 M”Z 7]

[12] See Admur 489/6 [brought in Halacha 7] that we rule that at the end of the weeks one must count the days to be Yotzei.  Vetzaruch Iyun regarding if one said the days but not the week at the end of a week, of which there is a true dispute as to whether he fulfills his obligation, and hence perhaps due to Sfek Sfeika, he would be permitted to count with a blessing, as brought in P”M 489 M”Z 7, brought in previous footnote, and as written in Admur 489/15 regarding one who answered during Plag Hamincha.

[13] Admur 489/15; Michaber 489/4

[14] Admur 489/15; Michaber ibid; Biur Halacha 489/4 “Eino”

The reason: The reason why one may recount with a blessing if the response was given after Plag Hamincha but before sunset is because we mainly rule like those who state that even after Plag Hamincha and onwards is only considered night with regards to prayer and not other matters. Furthermore, even in accordance to the opinions who rule it is consider night for all matters, there are other opinions who state that even Rabbinical Mitzvos require intention to fulfill one’s obligation. [Admur ibid]

[15] Admur 489/15 in parentheses; Kaf Hachaim 489/52; See Biur Halacha 489/4 “Eino”

The reason: This is in order to suspect for those opinions [See Admur ibid and 489/12] who rule that Plag Hamincha is considered night and one may hence start counting from then. [Divrei Nechemiah]

[16] Admur 489/7; Olas Shabbos 489/1; Chok Yaakov 489/8; Elya Raba 489/5; Chok Yosef 489/9; Sheilas Yaavetz 139 “I am truly in doubt regarding this case, and therefore one is to repeat the count without a blessing.”; Siddur Yaavetz 12; Birkeiy Yosef 489/9; Siddur Beis Oveid 11; Beir Heiytiv 489/6; Shaareiy Teshuvah 489/6; Kaf Hachaim 489/24

[17] So is the example in Admur ibid; Examples in other Poskim: Lamed Gimel [Kneses Hagedola/Maharash Halevi] Yud Daled [Chok Yaakov ibid] Daled [Maharshal]; Daled or Ches [Peri Chadash] Beis or Gimel [Kaf Hachaim 489/24] See Olas Shabbos ibid;

[18] Some Poskim [Kneses Hagedola 489; Get Pashut E.H. 126/73] rule one fulfills his obligation. Other Poskim [Peri Chadash 489/1; Maharash Levi 5; Opinion in Kneses Hagedola ibid; Sakina Charifta 20] rule one does not fulfill his obligation. [Admur ibid] Other Poskim rule that if he counted with a blessing then he is Yotzei even if he counted in numbers, while if he counted without a blessing, counting in numbers is invalid. [Rashal, brought in Get Pashut ibid-negated by Get pashut ibid and omitted by Admur ibid]

[19] Vetzaruch Iyun why we don’t say this is a case of Sfek Sfeika and allow him to count with a blessing, as one who counts only the days without the weeks it is disputed if he fulfills his obligation. However, in truth one can explain that we already ruled leniently in that dispute and it is hence no longer considered a Sfek Sfeika, although this would not explain the law in a case when it was the end of the week and one said Yud Daled and did not say the weeks, in which case it is a true dispute, and certainly can create a Sfeik Sfeika. Perhaps one can answer that in truth in such a case Admur ibid would agree that a blessing may be said, or alternatively he would still hold one is to say it without a blessing being that the two doubts are all on the same Tzad and is hence viewed like one doubt. This will be elaborated on in further footnotes.

[20] See Admur 489/25; Olas Shabbos 489/1; M”B 489/38; Kaf Hachaim 489/24; See Halacha 22 for the full discussion on this matter.

[21] See PT 489/11; The following Poskim differentiate between letter abbreviations and word abbreviations: Sheilas Yaavetz 139; Siddur Yaavetz 11-12; Birkeiy Yosef 489/9-10; Shalmei Tzibur; Beis Oveid; Shaareiy Teshuvah 489/6; Kaf Hachaim 489 24 and 26

[22] This case of counting Lag Baomer in abbreviations is actually the original case of argument recorded in the Kneses Hagedola and Maharash Halevi. Admur ibid however changed the case example from Lag Baomer to the first few days. See next. Sheilas Yaavetz 139 “I am truly in doubt regarding this case of letter abbreviations, and therefore one is to repeat the count without a blessing.”

[23] Implication of Admur ibid as explained below; Sheilas Yaavetz 139; Siddur Yaavetz Halacha 11; Birkeiy Yosef 489/9 “I lean towards this opinion, however it’s good to recount without a blessing”, brought in Shaareiy Teshuvah ibid

The reason: As abbreviated words are not numbers, despite one’s intent, as normal people do not use these terms to describe a number. [Sheilas Yaavetz ibid] For example, the word Lag is not used as a number at all, but is rather the name of a holiday. Would one be Yotzei if he said on the 5th of Iyar that today is Chag Haatzmaut, or if he said on the last day of Pesach that today is Acharon Shel Pesach? He has not said a number at all, but rather a title for the day. Would one be Yotzei if on day 49 he said “Meit Baomer” [Meit means a dead person]. These are all words and not numbers and hence cannot be interpreted as an abbreviated number even if one intends to count using its Gematria. [Sheilas Yaavetz ibid] 

[24] Get Pashut ibid; Kneses Hagedola ibid as understood by Sheilas Yaavetz ibid, and Shaareiy Teshuvah ibid, and Kaf Hachaim ibid; and Piskiey Teshuvos 489/11; [however not listed by Birkeiy Yosef ibid to hold this way]

[25] Implication of Get Pashut ibid, however it is possible to also learn that he holds one fulfills his obligation in all cases of word abbreviations, Vetzaruch Iyun]

[26] The reason: As all terms that have become known to man to refer or symbolize a number, have the status of a number in that language. Furthermore, it is possible to learn in the above opinion that all word abbreviations are valid, as once it has become common to count using word abbreviations, it validates all word abbreviations. [See Get Pashut ibid]

[27] The implication of Admur ibid: Admur ibid in his recording of the dispute changed the case of the Kneses Hagedola and other Poskim from Lag Baomer [case in Kneses Hagedola and Maharash Halevi], or Yad Baomer [Case in Chok Yaakov ibid] to Alef or Beis or Gimel. From the fact Admur changed the case from a word abbreviation to a letter abbreviation implies that he learned that the entire dispute of the Poskim is only in a case of a letter abbreviation, while a word abbreviation is invalid according to all. If Admur in truth held the dispute applied even to word abbreviations, then why did he not make that clear, and leave it for speculation, and why did he specifically go out of his way and change the case of the Poskim from a possible word abbreviation to a definite letter abbreviation. Furthermore, there is a second wondrous change of wording in Admur versus the previous Poskim, and that is the term “Osiyos/letters” versus Roshei Teivos. All the other Poskim describe the case as one who counted in Roshei Teivos [See Kneses Hagedola ibid; Maharash Halevi ibid; Get Pashut ibid; Peri Chadash ibid; Sheilas Yaavetz ibid; Beir Heiytiv ibid; Shaareiy Teshuvah ibid; Biur Halacha ibid] while Admur changes this wording and writes “Osiyos/letters” instead of Rosheiy Teivos. Now, the Yaavetz ibid and Birkeiy Yosef ibid, both explicitly differentiate between a case of counting in Roshei Teivos and a case of counting in Osiyos, and it is hence clearly implied from Admur’s changed wording that holds like the Yaavetz and Chida that one who counts in Roshei Teivos is not Yotzei at all, and it is not subject to the debate. This understanding is not contradicted in the above Poskim who debated the question of abbreviations, as they did not make it clear if the case in discussion was a letter abbreviation or word abbreviation, and it is possible to learn in them either way. However, it is clear from Sheilas Yaavetz ibid and other Poskim ibid that they understood the Kneses Hagedola to refer to even word abbreviations.  

Was this article helpful?

Related Articles

Leave A Comment?