LaOmer Versus BaOmer

LaOmer Versus BaOmer

by Yair Hoffman

Baseball season is soon to begin. In late March, Los Angeles Dodger pitcher Randy Wolf pitched into the sixth inning and allowed just five hits and two runs, as the Los Angeles Dodgers beat the Baltimore Orioles, 4-2, in spring training action. But, as the astute halachic reader probably assumed, that is not what this article is about. LA does not refer to Los Angeles and BA does not refer to Baltimore.

No, we are concerned about the nusach of Sfiras HaOmer.

Do we say the word “baOmer” or do we say the word “laOmer?” The Rashba (responsa Vol. I #457) and the Kol Bo (Siman 55) both have the wording “laOmer.” Both of these authorities lived in the late 1200’s and early 1300’s. The Rashba and Kol Bo seem to be the earliest authorities that discuss the subject. On the other hand, the Sefer HaMnhagim Rabbi Yitzchok Tirnau (who lived in the 1300’s to early 1400’s) has the word as BaOmer.

The TaZ backs up the usage of “baOmer” instead of “laOmer.” Why? Because the word LaOmer refers to the future. On the first night of the Omer how can we say something that we did not yet do? BaOmer refers to something that we are currently within, and therefore according to the TaZ is more accurate.

The AriZal in Shaar HaKavanos (Sfiras HaOmer Drush #11) has the word LaOmer as does the Shla (Psachim 23).

What seems to be a bit of a shock is that neither does the Tur nor the Shulchan mention either form in their Shulchan Aruchs (Orech Chaim chapter 489). It seems that it was the Ramah who added the word “baOmer” in his gloss to Rabbi Karo’s Shulchan Aruch, but it did not appear in Rav Karo’s original text. The Shulchan Aruch left out either word.

Leaving out the word is actually the position of the Responsa of the Maharshal, Rabbi Shlomo Luria (1510-1574). In siman 64, the Maharshal who quotes his Rebbe as not having ended with any word. Apparently there are some Kabbalistic streams that it is better not to identify it with either word. This very question was addressed by the Rashba in his responsa and he responded that one should say the word because it clarifies it more.

Interestingly enough, Rav Yoseph karo in his Bais Yoseph does cite the Ran who appends the word laOmer, but for some reason Rav Yoseph karo did not see fit to include either laOmer or BaOmer in his Shulchan Aruch.

The Mateh Moshe 667 writes to say LaOmer, as do other Achronim. Rabbi Chaim Mordechai Margolios author of the Shaarei Teshuvah quotes the responsa of the Bais Yaakov who states that his father-in-law used the form “laOmer”, whereas he used the form “baOmer.” The author of the Bais Yaakov attempts to bring a proof to the baOmer version from Choshain Mishpat 253 the laws of Shechiv Merah. Rabbi Margolios (1780-1820 writes that there is no proof from there and cites that there a number of verses that do use the prefix of “la” as well. He further writes that the method of people’s speech conforms better with laOmer than baOmer. Finally he cites the halachos of writing a Get (divorce document) discussed in Even HoEzer 126 where “layerach”- (to the month of) is used instead of bayerach (in the month of). He also states that the majority of Poskim went with laOmer. The custom seems to be in accordance with the custom to say laOmer, and that is the Mishna Brurah’s conclusion that the majority of Poskim go with laOmer.

But how do we answer the TaZ’s question? There is a manuscript cited in the back of the new high tech Shulchan Aruchs entitled Birkas Avrohom. He proposes that the TaZ’s question can be answered based on a Rashi in Rosh HaShana (4a). The prefix “la” refers to the entire period of time discussed. It is only to fulfill the requirement of temimus – doing it perfectly that we recite it at the very first time that we can. Thus the meaning is “the day tomorrow that we first entered now tonight is the first of the Omer.”

As an aside there is no blessing of Shehecheyanu on the Mitzvah of counting the Omer. The reason for this is the subject of much debate. The Ran, Baal HaMaor, Avudraham and the Rashba write that the Mitzvah in ts current Rabbinic does not have Simcha in it, rather it is a reminder of what we once had. It is mournful in its inherent nature.

Another reason is that the Mitzvah according to many authorities (Rokeach 671: Ran and Baal HaMaor) was only enacted as a commemoration of the Temple. Consequently, its status is not as important as significant as other Mitzvos, and would not warrant a Shehecheyanu.

Another reason is that the Mitzvah is not one that has a physically distinct characteristic, and thus would not warrant a Shehecheyanu. (Rokeach 671)

Others explain that the Mitzvah is only in preparation for the Mitzvah of Bikkurim. The Shehecheyanu recited on the Kiddush for Shavuos would cover it (Avudraham).

The Manhig (#64) writes that it is as if it does not have a set time, since many authorities hold that one continues counting on the rest of the days if one missed the first.

The Ran in Sukkah (84a) states that since the Mitzvah is not recited in the daytime and one does not fulfill the Mitzvah in the daytime, the Shehecheyanu was not enacted. [It is unclear why this would matter.]

The Shvilei HaLeket (234) writes that no Shehecheyanu is recited since its time is dependent upon the holiday of Pesach. Therefore the Shehecheyanu of Pesach Kiddush covers it.

A final thought: The Ramban in the end of parshas Emor has a somewhat different view of the Sefira period that we might generally have based upon all the mourning restrictions that we have during this time. The Ramban, based upon Kabbalistic sources, views the Sefirah perios as infused with such Kedusha that it is comparable to the Chol HaMoed days. We should therefore use this period as a time of growth. The Bnei Yisroel developed from the lowest spiritual level to the highest of any generation. The power inherent within these days is clearly quite potent.