Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 297 - Laws Governing Spices for Havdalah

Berachos 51b. An exception is made when a festival falls on Saturday night. See sec. 473:6.

Beitzah 16a; Taanis 27b; Zohar, Vol. II, p. 208b. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 31, p. 191ff., which discusses this concept, explaining that the Talmudists (Rashi, Taanis, op. cit.; Rashba, Vol. 3, responsum 290) interpret the term “extra soul” as referring to the state of tranquility and capacity for satisfaction the soul experiences on Shabbos. According to the Zohar, op. cit., the term refers to an extra dimension of the soul that radiates within one’s person on Shabbos.

For fragrance is “an entity from which the soul derives pleasure” (Berachos 43b).

Rambam writes (Hilchos Berachos 11:2): “There are mitzvos that a person is obligated to make an effort to seek out [their fulfillment] until he performs them – for example, tefillin, sukkah, lulav, and shofar. These are referred to as obligations, since a person is obligated to fulfill them. There are other mitzvos that are not obligations, but resemble voluntary activities – for example, [the mitzvos of] mezuzah and constructing a guardrail” (for one is not obligated to live in a home that requires these mitzvos). The Alter Rebbe is saying that, according to this opinion, smelling spices on Saturday night restores the soul, but it is not a mitzvah that a person must seek to perform.

See sec. 288:2-3.

The Alter Rebbe is implying that since the person will be fasting on Shabbos, he will lack the state of tranquility and satisfaction associated with the “extra soul” granted on Shabbos. Therefore, there is reason to think that he will not suffer feelings of loss for which he will have to compensate by smelling spices. In resolution, the Alter Rebbe explains that since the person is immediately endowed with the extra soul on Friday night and it does not depart from him until Saturday night, he will still feel a sense of loss despite fasting on Shabbos.

In that source, the Alter Rebbe writes that, although generally, it is not customary to recite a blessing over spices when making Havdalah after Yom Kippur, when Yom Kippur falls on Shabbos, that blessing is recited. Kabbalistically, it can be explained that although Yom Kippur is a day of fasting, it is a day of heightened spiritual pleasure that accentuates and enhances – rather than disturbs – the influence of the extra soul granted on Shabbos.

This term is used to translate the Hebrew ערוה, literally, “nakedness.” As used above, the term refers to fragrances that are used by women to spur attraction.

For it is forbidden to benefit from anything associated with the worship of false deities.

But rather to impart their fragrance to another entity, for example, incense used to make clothes fragrant, or alternatively, as a room freshener.

This section is not extant in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. See the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro (Orach Chayim 217:2-5).

In his Seder Birkas HaNehenim, ch. 11, law 3,the Alter Rebbe uses slightly different wording for the Hebrew text of the blessing, אשר נתן ריח טוב בפירות.

From the Alter Rebbe’s wording, one can infer that one should recite the blessing, “Who created types of spices” even on a fragrant fruit. The use of the uniform blessing is preferable so as not to embarrass one who does not know the appropriate blessing.

See Seder Birkas HaNehenim, ch. 11, law 5, for a description of this substance.

This section is not extant in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. See Seder Birkas HaNehenim, ch. 11, law 9, where the Alter Rebbe mentions a difference of opinion whether the blessing for pleasant fragrances should be recited over these spices since they are primarily used to spice food and not for their fragrance.

There is a Scriptural prohibition against drinking or even benefiting from wine that was thus used, whether by a Jew or a non-Jew, as a libation to a false deity. As a safeguard to this prohibition, our Sages forbade all wine that was touched by a non-Jew. Such wine is termed stam yeinam (Rambam, Hilchos Ma- achalos Assuros 11:1-4). Even when the safeguard became unnecessary with the decline of idolatry, the ban against benefiting from such wine was upheld as a barrier against assimilation.

In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 1), the Alter Rebbe focuses on the words “as an initial preference” in the main text, noting that Rashba (Vol. 3, responsum 234), whose ruling serves as the source for this law, states: “It is desirable to be careful regarding [such spices],” but does not state that they are forbidden outright. His rationale is that the subject of the ruling depends on an unresolved question raised by the Talmud(Avodah Zarah 47a) concerning such an issue. Rashba’s perspective is that the question was only whether it was acceptable to use such articles for mitzvos as an initial preference. After the fact, their use is accepted.

The Alter Rebbe notes that in sec. 11 (see footnote 18 below), a stringent ruling is rendered. Nevertheless, Magen Avraham 586:6 rules that, as an initial preference, a shofar that had been worshiped by a non-Jew may not be used for the mitzvah because the fact that it was used for idolatry makes it repulsive to G‑d. Nevertheless, after the fact, one who hears the shofar blasts from it fulfills his obligation. Similarly, in the instance at hand, one may conclude that, after the fact, the spices are acceptable.

Sec. 11:13 states a comparable ruling: The wool of an animal that was worshiped as a false deity is forbidden to be used for tzitzis. Even though the wool would be permitted for ordinary use, it may not be used for a mitzvah.

I.e., after the festival of Sukkos; during the festival, it is forbidden to smell the myrtle for its fragrance (Seder Birkas HaNehenin 11:8).

See Berachos 39b and Shabbos 117b, which state that Sages would select the loaf of bread that had been used for an eruv chatzeiros to recite the blessing HaMotzi over for this reason. See sec. 393:3, where the Alter Rebbe states that this practice should be emulated. See sec. 21:1, sec. 445:12, sec. 473:35, and sec. 527:25, which cite other laws based on this rationale.

For example, a person with a strong cold or sinus condition whose nasal passages are clogged.

In sec. 167:23, the Alter Rebbe states: “One may recite all of the birchos hanehenin on behalf of minors, in order to train them in the observance of mitzvos. This applies even when one is not responsible for their education, e.g., they are not members of his household.”

In that source, the Alter Rebbe states:

A person who is not eating may not recite the blessing HaMotzi in order to fulfill the obligation of others who are eating. [This ruling applies] even if those individuals do not know how to recite a blessing themselves. [The rationale is] that [since he is not eating], he is not obligated in this blessing, and one who is not obligated in a matter cannot fulfill the obligation on behalf of others.

[In this,] the blessings recited in appreciation for receiving benefit (birchos hanehenin) do not resemble the blessings recited over the mitzvos (birchos hamitzvos). [In the latter instance,] one who is no [longer] obligated in the mitzvah because he already fulfilled his obligation can recite a blessing for another person who has not yet fulfilled his obligation and who does not know how to recite the blessing, e.g., one may recite Kiddush [on Shabbos and festivals] for women and unlearned people. [The rationale is that] all Israel are responsible for each other with regard to mitzvos that are obligatory. [Hence, even a person who fulfilled his personal obligation] is still considered as obligated in the matter, since his fellow Jew has yet to fulfill his obligation.

With regard to birchos hanehenin by contrast, even though they are obligatory for one who derives benefit, he nonetheless has the option of not deriving benefit and not [being obligated to] recite the blessing. Therefore, another person who does not personally derive benefit is not considered as obligated in the recitation of the blessing that this [other] person must recite on the food of which he seeks to derive benefit.

I.e., one person may recite the blessing over wine used for Kiddush and allow a listener to drink from the cup instead of drinking himself. In the above source, the Alter Rebbe explains:

[Different laws apply concerning] all eating and drinking that are obligatory, independent of the person deriving benefit, for example, [eating] matzah on the first night of Pesach and [reciting] Kiddush over wine, whether at night or during the day [on Shabbos and festivals. In these instances,] if a person does not know how to recite the blessing, another person who has already fulfilled his own obligation may [recite the blessing, enabling the unlearned person to] fulfill his obligation. [This includes] also the birchos hanehenin [associated with the mitzvah], i.e., HaMotzi [for the matzah] and Borei pri hagafen [for the wine]. Needless to say, it applies with regard to the blessing Al achilas matzah (“concerning the eating of matzah”) and the blessing of Kiddush itself, for they are blessings associated with the mitzvos (birchos hamitzvos).

I.e., so that Kiddush could be “a song recited over wine” (see sec. 190:2), i.e., its presence is primarily ceremonial. Similarly, sec. 174:1 speaks of reciting the blessing Borei pri hagafen before Kiddush, Havdalah, and the blessing during the marriage ceremony, “even though there is no necessity to drink wine” at that time.

As stated in subsection 1.

Nevertheless, as mentioned in sec. 213:5, although the blessing over the spices on Saturday night is placed in the category of birchos hanehenin, dispensations are granted in its observance because there is also an obligatory dimension to the act.

As described in sec. 296:17.

I.e., because he already recited it.

In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 2), the Alter Rebbe explains his ruling in the main text: In his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 297:5), Rav Yosef Caro maintains that as part of the Havdalah ceremony, a person may recite the blessing over the spices for another person even if he himself does not smell the spices, for this blessing is also comparable to the blessings recited over mitzvos.

Magen Avraham 297:5 differs with Rav Yosef Caro and maintains that the person must smell the spices again himself. He may not rely on the fact that the listeners will smell them. Nevertheless, from Magen Avraham’s ruling, it is not clear that a distinction should be made between the blessing over the spices and the blessing over the flame. For it is possible that Magen Avraham did not feel that he could overrule Rav Yosef Caro’s decision entirely. Hence, with regard to the blessing over the spices, he suggested a viable alternative. Since such an alternative does not exist with regard to the flame, perhaps he relied on Rav Yosef Caro’s ruling.

In support of his ruling that one should smell the spices again, Magen Avraham explains the difference between the spices used for Havdalah and the vegetables used for karpas at the Pesach Seder. With regard to those vegetables, license is granted for a person who already conducted a Seder to recite the blessings over them (see sec. 484:2) because the person is eating them primarily for ritual reasons, not for his benefit. In contrast, on Saturday night, the person is definitely smelling the spices for his benefit, as the Alter Rebbe explained above.

Other authorities raise an objection to Rav Yosef Caro’s ruling based on the distinction mentioned in this subsection – that, in contrast to mitzvos, the spices and the flame are not absolute requirements. Because of the strength of that argument and because of the general principle that whenever there is a question whether or not to recite a blessing, it is preferable not to recite it lest one mention G‑d’s name in vain, the Alter Rebbe advises that a person who has already fulfilled his own obligation should not to recite the blessing on the flame for others.

Because of the principle of areivus, “mutual responsibility,” as cited in footnote 23.