Precision in the wording of the count - Mishnah Berurah · Orach Chayim - Mishnah Berurah

Shulchan Aruch, the laws of Sefiras HaOmer, continuation of se'ifim 7-8
"Today is eight days, which are one week and one day"
(Shulchan Aruch)

(In the previous shiurim we covered the form of the counting, including standing and the berachah, as well as the reason we say "one day" rather than "the first day." Here we return to the fine points of the wording as discussed in the Mishnah Berurah and the Biur Halachah.)

Precision in the wording of the count - Mishnah Berurah

One who did not complete the count of weeks: The Mishnah Berurah deals with someone who said "today is eight days" but did not finish "which are one week and one day," since he already mentioned weeks on the eighth day. The details of this halachah were not covered in this shiur.
"Shavua" is masculine: We say "shavua echad" and not "shavua achas," and likewise "shnei shavuos" and not "shtei shavuos," because the word shavua (week) is masculine. Since these words follow a berachah, one should be careful to use precise language.
"Yamim" and "yom": Up to ten we say "yamim" ("today is ten days of the omer"), and from eleven onward we say "yom" ("today is eleven day").
Putting the smaller number first: One should mention the smaller quantity first, for example "one and twenty days" rather than "twenty and one days."
- Not everyone accepts this point of precision. This order is indeed found in Scripture, but it is not consistent throughout, and therefore the poskim wrote that this is the accepted custom and this is how it appears in the siddurim, though it is not compelling.
The proof from the wording of the sprinklings: The Gemara records the formula for counting: "one, one and one, one and two," that is, the smaller number first, and that was the practice in Yehudah, while in the Galil they did the reverse. The comparison is not exact, since there we are dealing with two separate counts, one above and two below, but in any case it is clear that there were two approaches and one of them became accepted.
The counting as a remembrance of the Mikdash: Some wanted to base the wording on the practice in the Beis HaMikdash, since our counting nowadays is a remembrance of the Temple service; but here too there is a dispute about exactly what was said in the Mikdash.

"And all of these matters are not indispensable; they are only a matter of proper language"
(Mishnah Berurah)

Counting with abbreviations and indirect numbers - Biur Halachah

The question: Someone who counted using initials or gematria, for example he said "today is bais days of the omer," or someone who said "today is lamed-gimmel days of the omer," using the familiar expression "Lag Ba'omer." Has he fulfilled his obligation, or must he state the number explicitly?
The view of the Chok Yaakov (cited in the Biur Halachah): The later authorities dispute this, and since most poskim hold that Sefiras HaOmer nowadays is only a rabbinic obligation, one should not be stringent out of doubt; therefore he should count again in the usual wording but without a berachah, since it is possible that he already fulfilled his obligation when he said "bais days."
The difficulty with the stringent side: The essence of the counting depends on the counter's understanding. Just as one who counts in another language fulfills his obligation as long as he understands what he is saying, so too one who counts "bais days" understands that it means two days. According to this, even "today is forty less one," an expression commonly found in the Gemara, or "two squared" for someone who understands the arithmetic, would present no deficiency.
The conclusion of the lenient approach: Some wrote that the words of the Mishnah Berurah here require further study: if the counter understands what he is saying he has fulfilled his obligation, and if he does not understand he has not fulfilled it in any case, so where is there room for doubt?
For himself and for fulfilling the obligation of others: For himself there is no great problem, but using such a formulation to be motzi others is questionable.

One who is asked what day of the count it is

The basic halachah: Someone who has not yet counted and is asked what day of the count it is should not answer with the number, because by doing so he has already counted, and he will then no longer be able to recite the berachah on the counting.
One who already counted: If he already said "today is three days of the omer" and fulfilled his obligation, it is obvious that he may answer the questioner.
Distinguishing between the questions: The poskim dispute what qualifies as counting. If he was asked simply "how many days?" and he answered "five," it is possible that this is not counting, since nothing in his words indicates what he had in mind. But if he was asked "how many days of the omer?" and answered "today is five days," the matter is more complicated.
Some are lenient: There is an opinion permitting him to answer even with the number itself, as long as he does not say "of the omer" and does not intend to count, but is merely informing the questioner of a number.

Se'if 8 - "la'omer" or "ba'omer"

The two versions: Some have the wording "ba'omer," and according to most poskim the wording is "la'omer."

"The essential point of this matter is only to clarify that he is counting from the day the omer was offered and onward"
(Mishnah Berurah)

The difficulty in the Mishnah Berurah's words: This language requires explanation. What does the emphasis add? Does someone who says "today is seven days of the omer" not already know that the count begins from the day the omer was offered and onward?

The question of the Sefer HaChinuch - why do we count upward rather than downward?

The purpose of the counting: Shavuos is the only Yom Tov in the Torah that has no calendar date; rather, it is fixed on the fiftieth day of the count. It emerges that the entire purpose of the counting is to arrive at Mattan Torah: they left Mitzrayim and need to reach the receiving of the Torah, and therefore we count.
The difficulty: The natural way of someone anticipating something is to count what remains, not what has passed. A soldier who knows that in fifty days he is discharged counts forty-nine, forty-eight, and so on, tearing off a page each day. If so, it would seem more fitting to count "today is fifty days until Mattan Torah," and not "today is one day."

The answer of the Sefer HaChinuch

The basis of the answer: If the count began at fifty, a person would gain nothing from the counting, because as long as the number is large he pushes off his preparation: fifty more days, there is no urgency; forty-five more days, there is no urgency; and he is not called upon to prepare in any way, neither with additional learning nor with any change.
Therefore we count with small numbers: When he says "today is one day of the omer," even though he knows that the appointed time is far off, the distance does not speak to him and he does not use it as a reason to postpone his preparation.
A reservation: This answer is somewhat difficult, since a person knows the truth, and all we have here is a change of wording.

(A question that was raised regarding the angle of "we ascend in matters of holiness" was deferred to a later point.)

The answer of the Alshich

(We are accustomed to say "the Alshich," but really we should say his name: Moshe Alshich, author of the well-known commentary on the Torah.)

The omer offering comes from barley: All the menachos (meal offerings) in the Mikdash come from wheat, and there are only two meal offerings in the Torah that come from barley: the omer offering and the offering of the sotah.
The reason for the sotah's offering: The Gemara explains that she brings a barley offering, which is animal food, because she behaved like an animal.
The parallel in the counting: At the time of the Exodus, Israel was on a low level, like an animal, and therefore the omer offering comes from barley.
What distinguishes a person from an animal: An animal has no laws and is drawn after its instincts; it wants to eat, it eats; it wants to rest, it rests. A person, though he too has desires, is lifted above his instincts by the laws the Torah gave: he wants to eat meat, he must first slaughter; he ate meat, he must wait before dairy. The laws are what transform the animal into a human being, for a human being rules over his instincts.

(The continuation of this explanation was left for the next shiur.)

In passing · The Sefer HaChinuch and authors who concealed their names

Its author is unknown: The Sefer HaChinuch is one of the mysteries of halachic literature, and to this day it is not known who wrote it. In the introduction the author signed off "a man of Levi from Barcelona," and no more. Some attribute the work to Rabbi Aharon HaLevi, but the matter is not settled. According to all available information the book was written in the twelfth or thirteenth century, in Barcelona.
The structure of the book: It is not arranged according to the order of the Gemara, nor according to the Rambam's order, nor by subject, but according to the order of the mitzvos of the Torah, mitzvah after mitzvah in the sequence of the verses, even though one mitzvah has no connection to the next. For this reason he discusses the mitzvah of the omer in parshas Emor, the place of all the festivals.
For whom it was written: According to tradition and according to the introduction, the author wrote the book for his son, and therefore he wrote it in a light style that includes halachos together with reasons and explanations.
The reason for concealing the name (the Chida): In his time authors already commonly wrote their names, yet some concealed their names out of humility: who am I to write a book? What matters is the content, not the name of the author.

Concealing the author's name in the ancient world

Chazal: The redactor of the Mishnah, and likewise Rav Ashi and Ravina, by whom the Gemara was arranged, never recorded their names anywhere as authors. The same is true of the midrashim, where it is not known who wrote them.
Not only in books: Even in ancient art the artist's name does not appear; for example, a statue of the emperor Nero in Caesarea has no sculptor's name at the bottom, unlike what is customary today.
The reason: The work speaks for itself, and the author is not the main thing. It is enough that people study the book; what importance is there in the name of the one who wrote it?

The turning point in the piyutim

The early piyutim: In the piyutim of Yanai, who is among the earliest, there is virtually no hint of the author's name. So too the "Seder HaAvodah" recited on Yom Kippur gives no indication of its author, and only on the strength of tradition do we say that it was composed by Yosi ben Yosi HaKohen.
From the Kalir onward: From a certain period a change took place, and the paytanim began hinting at their names in an acrostic, in the opening letters of the lines, and sometimes their locality as well, and at the end even the word "chazak."
The reason for the change (Sefer Chassidim): Sefer Chassidim is alert to this problem and writes that people who were not upright composed piyutim, and one should not recite in prayer passages composed by such people. Once the paytan signs his name, the congregation can decide whether the author is fitting and whether to recite his piyut; and no one signs with someone else's name, since his whole desire is that people should know he is the author.

From Eretz Yisrael to Ashkenaz, and the piyut "U'Nesaneh Tokef"

Piyut grew in Eretz Yisrael: Most of the important piyutim recited in prayer originate in Eretz Yisrael. In Bavel the Jews sat in tranquility for hundreds of years, until around the year five hundred, without real problems with the authorities, and the yeshivos were well developed and there the Gemara was studied and edited. In Eretz Yisrael, by contrast, around the year three hundred and thirty there were decrees and persecutions, the sages were forced to flee and the yeshivos closed, and in place of open study in the beis midrash the art of piyut grew. The early piyutim contain many halachos, sugyos and allusions to midrashim, and one needs broad knowledge to understand them.
The route of transmission: Over the generations the piyutim traveled from Eretz Yisrael to Italy, to Germany and to the rest of Europe, and not all of them arrived intact; some were forgotten.
"U'Nesaneh Tokef": From the piyut itself there is no way to know who composed it. The author of the Or Zarua, who lived some one hundred or one hundred and fifty years after Rabbi Amnon of Mainz, is the one who relates the story: the pressure the local lord put on him, the cutting off of his hands and feet, his being carried into the shul and his passing, and his appearing in a dream.
He taught it, he did not compose it: All the sources say that Rabbi Amnon taught the piyut, not that he composed it. According to scholarly research the piyut originates in Eretz Yisrael, and some attribute it to Yanai, the teacher of the Kalir. The piyut reached Ashkenaz, was forgotten for some reason, and Rabbi Amnon restored it. One may disagree with this, but that is what is said.

From the piyutim to the books

The author of the Rokeach: Just as it was established regarding piyutim that the paytan should sign his name, so it was said regarding books, and the author of the Rokeach wrote that a person is obligated to write his name at the beginning of his book. Those who held this approach came from the same circle that produced Sefer Chassidim.
The book's title as a hint to the author's name: From here various practices developed, such as naming the book after the author: "Minchas Yitzchak" for an author named Yitzchak.
Authors who concealed their names and were discovered: In most cases the names of authors who concealed themselves were eventually discovered, through a citation by someone else or through testimony in another book. This happened even in recent generations: Rav Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim, who served as a rav in Yerushalayim, wrote in the first part of his life a book on various halachos and did not reveal his name in it, and he even gave it an approbation so that people would think he was not the author; nevertheless the matter became known when someone else mentioned him in his own book.