Is A Bracha She'ayna Tzricha Permissible When Your Friend Needs To Hear It
In a case where one had mezonos and drank wine and he now has to say an al hamichya and he wants to yotze his friend in al hamichya but he wants to drink more wine – and the friend can’t wait – should he say al hamichya and al hagefen and after say a new borei prei hagefen or should he just say al hamichya alone and after he finishes drinking the wine he says al hagefen. Either way there will be a bracha she'ayna tzricha. Is it better a borei prei hagefen she'ayna tzricha or an al hagefen she'ayna tzricha. Rav Avrohom said that Rav Mordechai Venkin Shlita (often quoted in the sefer) says that the need of his friend for a bracha immediately makes it a need for the mevarech as well and it’s no longer a bracha she'ayna tzricha and therefore he said in a case where one only had mezonos alone and the friend needs to leave he should stop and make the bracha achrona for the friend and then return to mezonos.
And this notion would apply also when one wants to yotze his friend from a safek bracha. It would not be considered a bracha she'ayna tzricha because when his friend must go it’s as if the mevarech must go as well.
Sefer Bar Almugim Siman 159 Section 5 - Page 765-766
Shulchan Aruch – Siman 158 and Siman 152
Washing Hands For A Meal
There was a case where one washed his hands and made a bracha and then noticed that there was an object on his hand which caused a chatzizah so he took off the object to avoid a chatziza in order to wash again. The question is whether he has to make a second bracha. (The question is only if the chatzizah was on the fingers, not on the place of his main hand, for there are opinions in Shulchan Aruch; 161:64, that the chiyuv is only until kishrei etzbeoseha.)
One can’t bring a proof from a case of where one chooses to use a different shofar, for there a new bracha must be made (Mishna Berurah: Siman 685; Seif Katan 4) because it was a different object whereas here it’s just a second action and is similar to a case where one takes a lulav and sees he took it upside down, and then turns it over, where he need not make a second bracha (however, see Mishna Berurah: Siman 651; Seif Katan 56 where it seems to say you do have to make a bracha – this is discussed later in this Seif of Rav Avrohom’s sefer).
However, it may be said that one must make a new bracha because he had a hesech hada'as, because he thought he already fulfilled the mitzvah and therefore the bracha becomes batel as proven in the Biur Halacha (Siman 690: Siman 4 s.v. ein). (Rav Avraham then discusses a question by lulav regarding nanuim.)
Perhaps, however, it can be argued that a bracha shouldn’t be made because of the second hand (that didn’t have the chatzizah) where a new washing wouldn’t be needed. But Rav Avrohom rejects this because both hands were wiped against each other and the one that had the chatzizah was metameh the one that didn’t require a second washing.
Rav Avrohom concludes that based on hesech hada'as, it seems a new bracha would be necessary but still leaves it be’tzarich iyun.
(Rav Avrohom discusses this issue further in this Siman.)
Sefer Bar Almugim Pages 130-131
Shulchan Aruch – Siman 286 Seif 4
One Who Has Time To Either Daven Mincha Or Mussaf
The Halacha is that if one did not daven Mincha, he davens Maariv twice, and if he didn’t daven Mussaf there is no Tashlumin in such a case. If however, one only has enough time to daven either Mincha or Mussaf, The Magen Avraham writes (Siman 286 Seif Katan 3) he should daven Mussaf, even though it’s more infrequent (eno tadir) because he won’t lose the Mincha which can be said as Tashlumin twice during Maariv.
Rav Yechial Bavis Shlita asked, we know the poskim say (Shulchan Aruch Siman 108 Seif 11, see the Mishna Berurah) that one who davens Mincha on Rosh Chodesh, but forgot to say Ya'aleh VeYavo, if he is now on the eve when it’s now Chol, he should daven Maariv twice and say one will be benadava, and if Motzei Rosh Chodesh is Shabbos, he shouldn’t say it as Tashlumin because there is no nedava on Shabbos.
The question would be if Motzei Rosh Chodesh is Shabbos and one forgot Ya'aleh VeYavo at Mincha, and now he has in front of him to daven either Mincha or Mussaf and he only has time to say one of them, so according to those (See Tosefos Berachos 26b s.v. Taah) that say you say Maariv twice, because without saying Ya'aleh VeYavo it’s as if you didn’t say anything then certainly one should daven Mussaf and then repeat Mincha as Tashlumin at Maariv. And according to those that say you don’t daven Maariv twice, if there reason is because one was already yotze Mincha through the main Mincha Tefillah said, then they would say you daven Mussaf now. But if there reason is that in fact it is as if he didn’t daven at all, but there is no Tashlumin on that nusach that he said, then he should daven Mincha that is tadir because there is no Hashlama for it.
We hold this is a safek, so according to the opinion that says it is as if he fulfilled his Mincha, it turns out the Mincha now is a safek and the Mussaf is a vadai and therefore he should daven Mussaf. And according to the second opinion that it’s as if he didn’t daven at all, but there’s no Tashlumin, then he should daven Mincha.
This only applies on Motzei Rosh Chodesh that is Shabbos, but if Motzei Rosh Chosesh is Chol, where he can do a tenai, then certainly he should daven Mussaf first.
Sefer Bar Almugim – Siman 186 Pages 865-866
Changing the Pasuk You Were Going To Be Mevarech On While Reciting Birchat HaTorah
Rav Avrohom zt"l poses the question regarding Birchat HaTorah that is mi'diorita, what would be the halacha if one had in mind a specific pasuk he was referencing before he started to say Birchat HaTorah and then changed his mind to use a different verse. Does he have to make the bracha again?
We know in a case of lulav or shofar if one had in mind a certain lulav and shofar then changed his mind to use that specific lulav or shofar, replacing it with another, he must make another bracha. Rav Avrohom says initially one can argue the cases are different because Birchat HaTorah goes on all the Torah that one learned.
However, he asks what if it's compared to a case where one is planning to make a bracha on one fruit and he has in mind to cover a second fruit that he has in his hand and that fruit falls to the ground. The Mechaber holds a new bracha would be necessary whereas the Rama says a new bracha isn't required.
However, the Rama might be lenient because of safek brachos lehakhel, but by Birchat HaTorah that is deorita perhaps he would require another bracha. However, Rav Avrohom says the sevara might only exist by brachos on a fruit and not Bitchat HaTorah. He leaves it in a tzarich iyun.
Sefer Bar Almugim - Siman 11
A Case Where A Baal Habayit Says The Fruit Is Not In The House And Then Finds It - Is A new Bracha Necessary?
There was a case that took pace on the 15th of Shevat, where a son asked his mother if there were any dates in the house (for they take precedence in regards to the "Shivat Haminim"). The mother replied that there were none so the child made a bracha on other fruits. When he was ready to make the "bracha achrona" the mother remembered that she did have dates. Does the son now have to make to new "borei pri ha'eitz" on the dates?
Rav Avrohom Zt"l said that it seems the son would not have to make a new bracha based on the "Head of Household" principle, and even though in this case the Baal Habayit didn't think there were any dates, it is assumed that when a person makes a bracha, they rely on everything the ball habayit will tell them, even though at the time of the bracha the baal habayit said there were no dates.
Rav Avrohom Zt"l then brings a proof to this Halacha from "Afikomen" on Pesach.
However, Rav Avraham zt"l asks on the case of dates, how we can say that the first bracha on the fruit will cover the dates, for this would go against the law of "kadima" in brachos for the dates are more "chasuv" than regular fruits and the Rashba holds in such a scenario this can't be done.
However, unlike the Rashba, we hold the "Head of Household" principle is effective in this case as brought down by the Biur Halacha (Siman 211 Sief 5.)
Sefer BarAlmugim Siman 52:Section 2 - Pages 280-281