Podcasts about halacha

Learn a halacha of Rambam in-depth from a variety of noted Torah scholars, who delve deeper into words of the Rambam to understand them in the context of the other sources and commentaries.

Learn a halacha of Rambam in-depth from a variety of noted Torah scholars, who delve deeper into words of the Rambam to understand them in the context of the other sources and commentaries.

The work Va'yomer Meir addresses the situation of a Jew who was involved in a court case, and the courthouse officials forbade him from wearing a Kippa. The question arose as to whether this man was permitted to review Torah topics in his mind during his time in the courthouse, despite being bareheaded. This issue hinges on the question of "Hirhur Ke'dibbur" – whether or not we consider thinking akin to speaking. The Rambam maintains that silent thoughts are indeed halachically equivalent to spoken words, in which case one may not think Torah thoughts while not wearing a Kippa. However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef writes that Halacha does not follow this ruling of the Rambam, and even if one is entirely unclothed, he is allowed to think about Torah matters as long as he does not verbally express these thoughts. Certainly, then, it is entirely permissible to think Torah matters when one is fully clothed but not wearing a Kippa. Summary: Although one may not speak any words of Torah while not wearing a Kippa, it is permissible to silently think about Torah matters without a Kippa.

Learn a halacha of Rambam in-depth from a variety of noted Torah scholars, who delve deeper into words of the Rambam to understand them in the context of the other sources and commentaries.

Learn a halacha of Rambam in-depth from a variety of noted Torah scholars, who delve deeper into words of the Rambam to understand them in the context of the other sources and commentaries.

Learn a halacha of Rambam in-depth from a variety of noted Torah scholars, who delve deeper into words of the Rambam to understand them in the context of the other sources and commentaries.

In our next series, we will examine the laws of The Three Weeks.  May our learning be a merit for our brave soldiers in the IDF, and for full healing for our brothers and sisters in Israel. In our next lesson we discuss Eicha and additions to Davening on Tisha B'Av. Our learning is dedicated L'Iluy Nishmat Captain Daniel Perez HY"D who was killed in battle on October 7th, 2023.

The Zechor Le'Abraham (Rav Abraham Alkalai, 1750-1811) observes that some people ensure to keep their heads covered while walking about in the Mikveh, and not only when they actually immerse. He writes that this is an unfounded stringency that has no basis or reason. He explains that the Shechina does not reside in the bathhouse, and so there is no need to cover one's head, an act which is intended to make us aware of G-d's presence above us. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) similarly writes that there is no reason to cover one's head while in a Mikveh. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) clarifies that this refers to the interior part of the Mikveh. In the outer room, where people get changed, it is proper to keep one's Kippa on his head. One should keep his Kippa on until he leaves to the interior room to shower and immerse, and should put it back on his head immediately upon returning to the outer room to get dressed. The Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939) recommends placing one's hand over his head while walking about in the Mikveh, though the consensus does not follow this view. The Yalkut Yosef writes that the beach has the status of a bathhouse in this regard, and thus one may keep his head uncovered at the beach not only when he is in the water, but also when walking about or relaxing near the water. Of course, he should put his Kippa back on upon returning to the lounge. And it goes without saying that if a person wishes to eat while at the beach, he must wear a Kippa for the recitation of the Berachot and while he eats. (Incidentally, if a person wishes to eat bread at the beach, he may dip his hands in the ocean water in lieu of Netilat Yadayim, and recite the Beracha "Al Tebilat Yadayim.") This applies to a pool, as well. One may keep his head uncovered even while sitting at the poolside, except when eating. The Yalkut Yosef cites Rav Chaim Kanievksy as ruling stringently in this regard, and requiring one to wear a Kippa at the beach or pool when he is not in the water, but Halacha follows the lenient position. Summary: One is not required to wear a Kippa at the Mikveh, at the beach, or at the pool, even when he is not in the water. In the Mikveh, one should cover his head only in the outer room, where he changes. One who wishes to eat at the beach or at the poolside must wear a Kippa for reciting the Berachot and eating.

Learn a halacha of Rambam in-depth from a variety of noted Torah scholars, who delve deeper into words of the Rambam to understand them in the context of the other sources and commentaries.

Learn a halacha of Rambam in-depth from a variety of noted Torah scholars, who delve deeper into words of the Rambam to understand them in the context of the other sources and commentaries.

Learn a halacha of Rambam in-depth from a variety of noted Torah scholars, who delve deeper into words of the Rambam to understand them in the context of the other sources and commentaries.

Learn a halacha of Rambam in-depth from a variety of noted Torah scholars, who delve deeper into words of the Rambam to understand them in the context of the other sources and commentaries.

Learn a halacha of Rambam in-depth from a variety of noted Torah scholars, who delve deeper into words of the Rambam to understand them in the context of the other sources and commentaries.

Learn a halacha of Rambam in-depth from a variety of noted Torah scholars, who delve deeper into words of the Rambam to understand them in the context of the other sources and commentaries.

As we've seen, one should avoid putting on two articles of clothing simultaneously, as this can result in forgetting one's Torah knowledge. The reason is that a special "Or Ha'makif" ("supernal light") surrounds our clothing once we put them on to protect them from the forces of impurity, and when a garment is inside another garment, this light cannot reach it to provide protection. The question was asked concerning men who leave their ties tied around the neck of their shirts. Seemingly, a man should not put on a shirt with the tie already on it, because he is then putting on two garments at the same time. Rav Yisrael Bitan writes that there is room to allow this practice, because it is questionable whether a tie, which does not cover a significant portion of the body, qualifies as a "garment" in this respect. He notes the ruling of the Yalkut Yosef that one recites the Beracha of "She'hehiyanu" upon the purchase of a new tie, which would indicate that a tie indeed is considered a "Beged" ("garment"), but he questions this conclusion, as a tie could be viewed as an accessory to the shirt, rather than an independent garment. Furthermore, Rav Bitan adds, even if a tie indeed formally qualifies as a "Beged," it is possible that a garment that does not really cover any part of the body does not require the protection of the "Or Ha'makif." Hence, there is room to permit men to put on a shirt with the tie already tied around the collar. A similar question arises for women who cover their hair with a snood and a decorative kerchief on top. Many women keep the snood and kerchief together and then put them both on at the same time. Is this allowed? Rav Bitan writes that there is room to argue that since women are exempt from the obligation of Torah study, and the entire concern of putting on two garments simultaneously relates to the retention of one's Torah knowledge, this Halacha does not apply to women at all. According to this theory, women do not need to avoid putting on two articles of clothing at the same time. Rav Bitan concludes that one should not rely on this theory, and women should, in general, avoid putting on two garments simultaneously, but this possibility may be introduced as one of several factors to permit putting on the snood with the kerchief. Another consideration is that if they are kept tied together, then they may be considered a single garment. And even if not, if this has become the normal method of putting the hair-coverings on, then this might suffice to view them as just one garment. Moreover, since the kerchief covers only part of the snood, the "Or Ha'makif" can reach the snood, such that there is no concern. While each of these possibilities on its own could be questioned, they may be combined to permit women to put on the snood and kerchief together. Incidentally, if a man wears a long-sleeve undershirt beneath his shirt, then he must ensure not to pull both sleeves over his Tefillin in the morning simultaneously. Although he may certainly cover his arm with both layers, he should pull each sleeve separately, and not pull them both over his arm together.

In our next series, we will examine the laws of The Three Weeks.  May our learning be a merit for our brave soldiers in the IDF, and for full healing for our brothers and sisters in Israel. In our next lesson we discuss sitting low and doing work on Tisha B'Av. Our learning is dedicated L'Iluy Nishmat Captain Daniel Perez HY"D who was killed in battle on October 7th, 2023.

Learn a halacha of Rambam in-depth from a variety of noted Torah scholars, who delve deeper into words of the Rambam to understand them in the context of the other sources and commentaries.

Learn a halacha of Rambam in-depth from a variety of noted Torah scholars, who delve deeper into words of the Rambam to understand them in the context of the other sources and commentaries.

Learn a halacha of Rambam in-depth from a variety of noted Torah scholars, who delve deeper into words of the Rambam to understand them in the context of the other sources and commentaries.

The Bet Yosef cites the ruling of the Terumat Ha'deshen (Rav Yisrael Isserlin, 1390-1460) that covering one's head with his hand does not suffice to permit praying and reciting Berachot, since the hand is part of the same body as the hand. The clear implication of this ruling, as the Bet Yosef notes, is that another person's hand is considered a legitimate head-covering to permit praying and reciting Berachot, as that hand is not part of the same body. The Bet Yosef rules accordingly in the Shulhan Aruch. There is a minority opinion – that of the Maharshal (Rav Shlomo Luria, Poland, 1510-1573) – that one's own hand can serve as a head-covering for this purpose, but the consensus does not follow this view. Although one's bare hand does not suffice as a head-covering, he may pull his sleeve over his hand, or cover his hand with some material, and then place his hand on his head, and this would qualify as a valid hair-covering. Therefore, if the wind blows someone's Kippa off his head and he needs to go retrieve it, he should pull his sleeve over his hand and then place his hand on his head so that he does not walk four Amot (cubits) with his head bare. A number of Poskim (including the Mishna Berura and Kaf Ha'haim) bring the view of the Elya Rabba (Rav Elya Spira of Prague, 1660-1712) that although covering one's head with his own hand does not suffice for prayer, it does suffice with respect to the requirement to avoid walking four Amot bareheaded. According to this opinion, one who needs to retrieve his Kippa may cover his head with his hand even without pulling down the sleeve. However, the Shulhan Aruch does not mention this distinction, and so it is best to act stringently and try in such a case to have one's sleeve or some other material in between his hand and his head. Summary: Placing one's hand on his bare head does not suffice as a hair-covering in lieu of a Kippa, unless there is something in between the hand and the head. Therefore, if someone does not have a Kippa and needs to pray or recite a Beracha, or he needs to go retrieve his Kippa which blew off his head, he should pull his sleeve over his hand and place his hand on his head. Somebody else's hand – even if the hand is bare – suffices as a head-covering.

One's Kippa should preferably be large enough to cover the entire head or the majority of the head. If, however, one prefers a smaller Kippa, this is acceptable, as long as it can be seen from all sides. One should not wear a Kippa so small that cannot be readily discerned from all sides. This is the ruling of Hacham Ovadia Yosef. Hacham Ovadia Hedaya (1889-1969), in one of his published responsa (Yaskil Abdi, vol. 6, p. 292a), writes that he would often reprimand people for wearing very small Kippot. Even one who normally wears a smaller Kippa, that does not cover the majority of his head, should try to wear a hat or a larger Kippa – that covers the majority of the head – while praying or reciting Birkat Ha'mazon.

As we have seen, even if wearing a Kippa cannot be defined as an outright Halachic obligation (except while praying, reciting Berachot, and eating), it is proper to ensure not to walk four Amot (cubits) with one's head uncovered. It is considered a special act of piety to avoid walking even shorter distances without a Kippa. The Maharshal (Rav Shlomo Luria, Poland, 1510-1573), surprisingly, writes that this entire concept applies only outdoors. Indoors, he writes, there is no need to wear a Kippa – even as a measure of piety – because there is a roof over one's head, and this suffices to remind him of G-d. Most later Poskim, however, including the Mishna Berura, disagreed, and maintained that one should wear a Kippa both outdoors and indoors. Is it recommended to wear a Kippa even while sleeping? From the Rambam's comments it appears, at least at first glance, that he assumed people did not wear a head-covering while sleeping. The Rambam ruled that the Birkot Ha'shahar – the series of morning blessings which we recite praising Hashem for certain phenomena we experience each morning – are recited only as we experience each phenomenon. For example, when one hears the crowing of the rooster, he recites "Ha'noten La'sechvi Bina…"; when one opens his eyes, he recites "Poke'ah Ivrim"; when one stands up from his bed, he recites, "Zokef Kefufim"; and so on. Toward the end of this sequential list of blessings, the Rambam mentions that upon putting on one's head-covering, he recites "Oter Yisrael Be'tifara." The Rambam seems to presume that people's heads were uncovered at night, and only in the morning they put on a covering. However, Rav Yisrael Bitan noted that the Rambam may have assumed that people slept with a small covering – like a Kippa – and then recited this Beracha when putting on their turban or larger hat. In any event, the Mishna Berura and others bring the teaching of the Shela (Rav Yeshaya Ha'levi Horowitz, d. 1630) that it is proper to sleep with a head-covering, though it seems clear that this was intended as a special measure of piety, and is not required. As a practical matter, it is very difficult to keep a Kippa on one's head during the night, and oftentimes it becomes difficult to find it in the morning. Certainly, if a man would end up waking up his wife early in the morning as he searches for Kippa, then he should not sleep with a Kippa. Some people avoid this problem by sleeping with a special hat that stays fastened on the head throughout the night. While this is commendable, it is certainly not required. Summary: One should wear a Kippa both indoors and outdoors. Some sources mention that one should sleep with a Kippa as a measure of special piety, though this is not required, especially given the practical difficulty entailed, though there are those who sleep with a cap that remains fastened on the head throughout the night.

Shiur given by Rabbi Heshy Friedman as a practical halacha overview of the nine days.

The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin (31a) tells that Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua made a point of always keeping his head covered, and he explained that since the Shechina hovered over his head at all times, it is appropriate to cover one's head as a sign of respect. This same Rav Huna is cited elsewhere (Shabbat 118b) as saying that he was worthy of reward for ensuring never to walk four Amot (cubits) with his hair uncovered. In a different context (Shabbat 156b), the Gemara teaches that wearing a hair-covering helps engender Yir'at Shamayim (fear of Heaven) and thus prevent us from sin. It tells that a woman was warned by astrologers that her infant son would be a thief as an adult. She understood this to mean that the boy was born with a natural inclination toward theft. In an effort to avoid this outcome, she saw to it that the child's head would always remain covered, so he would be cognizant of Hashem's presence at all times and thus stay away from sin. In addition, she fervently prayed to G-d that he would be righteous. Once, the Gemara says, when this boy was still a child, he was sitting beneath somebody's palm tree learning Torah, and his head covering blew off. He looked up and saw a cluster of luscious dates. Enticed, he ate the dates, which were somebody's private property – showing how a head covering helps protect a person from the Yeser Ha'ra (evil inclination). (Thanks to his mother's efforts, though, this boy grew to become Rav Nahman Bar Yishak, one of the great Sages of the Talmud.) Similarly, the Zohar (Balak 187a) teaches that one must avoid walking more than four Amot with his head uncovered, because the Shechina hovers over his head. The Zohar adds that this concept is alluded to in the verse in Kohelet (9:8), "Ve'shemen Al Roshecha al Yehsar" – "Oil shall not be lacking upon your head." The Shechina (divine presence) is compared to fire, and Misvot are the "oil," the fuel that sustains its presence in our lives. Covering our heads brings us Yir'at Shamayim so that we remain loyal to G-d's commands. The Zohar reiterates this point later (Pinhas 245b), citing the verse, "Melo Kol Ha'aretz Kebodo" (Yeshayahu 6:3) – G-d's glory fills the entire earth. We acknowledge and give honor to His presence by wearing a head covering. The Rambam, too, in his Guide for the Perplexed (3:52), emphasizes that the great Sages always ensured to cover their heads out of respect for the divine presence. However, as we know, there are many otherwise observant Jews (especially in our community) who do not wear a Kippa all the time. They make a point of wearing a Kippa when they enter the synagogue, but not throughout the day when they go about their ordinary affairs. Is this acceptable, or are these individuals failing to fulfill a Halachic obligation? This question depends on whether we regard head-covering as a strict Halachic requirement, or as a Middat Hasidut – a recommended measure of piety. The Maharam of Rothenberg (Germany, c. 1215-1293), cited by the Orhot Haim and Kolbo, maintained that Halacha does not forbid going about bareheaded, and the Sages who ensured to have their heads covered did so as a Middat Hasidut. This is also the clear implication of the Rambam, in the passage cited earlier, where he mentions that great Rabbis made a point of covering their heads – indicating that this is a recommended measure of piety, and not a binding Halachic obligation. The Maharshal (Rav Shlomo Luria, Poland, 1510-1573) drew proof to this view from a passage in the Midrash which emphasizes how Hashem deals with us far more kindly than mortal kings deal with their subjects. Normally, the Midrash comments, when a king's messenger reads to the masses a written royal decree, everyone is expected to stand, remove their hats, and listen with fear and trepidation. But when we read the Shema in fulfillment of G-d's decree, we are not required to stand and remove our head coverings. The Midrash here clearly implies that there would be nothing wrong with baring our heads – even for the recitation of Shema. The Shebut Yaakov (Rav Yaakov Reischer, 1661-1733) refutes this proof, noting that the Midrash later observes that Hashem does not demand that we hunt wild animals to bring them as sacrifices, but rather commands that we offer as sacrifices domesticated animals, which do not need to be hunted. Clearly, this does not mean that it would be acceptable to offer wild animals as sacrifices. By the same token, we cannot necessarily deduce from the Midrash that it is acceptable to recite Shema with our heads uncovered. Maran (Rav Yosef Caro, author of the Shulhan Aruch), in Bet Yosef (91), brings the aforementioned opinion of the Maharam of Rothenberg, that covering one's head is not strictly required, indicating that he concurred with this view. Elsewhere in Bet Yosef (46), however, Maran appears to imply otherwise. In discussing the blessing recited each morning, "Oter Yisrael Be'tif'ara" ("He who crowns Israel with splendor"), Maran explains that we are "crowned" in the sense that we, unlike other nations, are required to cover our heads. Maran adds that even those who maintain that this is not strictly required, agree that it is recommended as an act of piety. Here Maran clearly sides with the opinion that head-covering constitutes an outright Halachic obligation. Regardless, the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) noted that in the Shulhan Aruch, Maran takes the position that covering one's head is recommended but not strictly required. In Siman 2, the Shulhan Aruch writes that "it is forbidden" to walk about "Be'koma Zekufa" – completely upright, appearing proud and overly confident. In the same sentence, the Shulhan Aruch writes that "one should not walk four Amot with his head bare." When it comes to "Koma Zekufa," the Shulhan Aruch uses the word "Assur" ("It is forbidden"), whereas regarding walking bareheaded, he writes simply that this should not be done. It would thus appear that although it is proper to wear a head-covering, this is not strictly required. However, the Taz (Rav David Ha'levi Segal, 1586-1667) writes that even assuming that head-covering was practiced in ancient times only as a Middat Hasidut, in modern times this has become a strict Halachic obligation. The Taz explains that since the Christians are accustomed to walk about bareheaded, doing so violates the prohibition of "Hukot Ha'akum" – following gentile practices. Hence, in the view of the Taz, one is required to wear a Kippa nowadays in order to avoid transgressing the Biblical prohibition of "Hukot Ha'akum." Hacham Ovadia Yosef disputes this claim. Based on the comments of the Mahari Kolon (Rav Yosef Kolon, d. 1480), Hacham Ovadia writes that one transgresses the prohibition of "Hukot Ha'akum" only if he does something with the specific intention of imitating gentile practices and resembling a non-Jew. If a person decides to leave his head uncovered in the interest of comfort, this does not violate the prohibition. Nevertheless, in a famous responsum in Yehaveh Da'at, Hacham Ovadia writes that nowadays, one is required to wear a Kippa, for a different reason – because this has become the "badge" or symbol of an observant Jewish man. By wearing a Kippa, one identifies himself as a member of the population of G-d-fearing Jews. Conversely, one who chooses not to wear a Kippa presents himself as being non-observant, thereby inviting suspicion, and for this reason, wearing a Kippa has today become an obligation. It seems, however, that this applies only in Israel, where the decision of whether or not to cover one's head is the clear marker of one's self-identification as religious or secular. Here in the United States, however, at least in some communities, this is not the case, and it is known that not all observant Jews ensure to keep their heads covered at all times. Therefore, while it is certainly preferred and advisable to wear a Kippa – and where a person fears antisemitism, he can wear a cap instead of, or over, his Kippa – one who wishes to leave his head uncovered has a basis on which to rely. (Indeed, in the school where I work, I advise the members of the basketball team to leave their Kippot off during games, because the Kippa would interfere with their playing; since the Kippa is not required as a strict obligation, it may certainly be removed for this purpose.) Nevertheless, wearing a Kippa when eating, praying, reciting Berachot and learning Torah is strictly required. Of course, one must wear a Kippa in the synagogue. In the presence of a Rabbi, it is proper to wear a Kippa in the interest of Derech Eretz (common courtesy). When a person wishes to fulfill the requirement of a Beracha by listening to its recitation by somebody else, he must wear a Kippa even though he remains silent, because he is considered as actually reciting the Beracha by listening to his fellow.

It is permissible to handle one's clothes and dress himself immediately upon waking in the morning, even before washing his hands, though one who is stringent in this regard, and ensures to wash Netilat Yadayim before touching his clothing, is deserving of special blessing. However, this applies only to one who went to sleep before Hasot (Halachic midnight). If one went to sleep after Hasot, then there is no reason whatsoever to avoid touching his clothes before Netilat Yadayim, not even as a measure of piety. The Kabbalists teach that the impurity which descends upon the hands while one sleeps arrives at the point of Hasot, and so if one went to sleep after that time, there is no concern at all.

Shiur given by Rabbi Bezalel Rudinsky as a recap of the Hilchos Shabbos Shiur given ss a recap of the Shabbos afternoon Halacha shiur in shul.

Skiing, Heli Skiing, Sky Diving, Bungee Jumping, Escooters, Ebikes, Rock Climbing Is it Muttar? How do we reconcile 'ונשמרתם מאד לנפשותיכם & שומר פתאים ה? with Eli Rowe – Captain of HatzalahAir – 7:28 with Rabbi Aryeh Kerzner – Rav, Agudah of Montreal, Rosh Kollel Ichud Hakehillos D'Montreal, writer for Mishpacha Magazine – 19:23 How to have a successful marriage with Rabbi Avraham Kaas – Social Worker and Marriage Therapist – 54:02 מראי מקומות   

The Gemara (Shabbat 129a) teaches that one should ensure to purchase shoes for his feet even if this necessitates selling the "ceiling beams of his house." This might mean that the protection provided by shoes for the feet is more important than the protection provided by the roof of one's home. Elsewhere (Pesahim 113b), the Gemara warns that one who goes about barefoot is "excommunicated by G-d." Different reasons have been given for why one should not walk about without shoes. Rashi explains that walking around barefoot is undignified, and Torah Jews are obligated to conduct themselves in a dignified manner as befitting the children of the Almighty. Others explain, very simply, that walking around barefoot is dangerous, as one's feet might be bitten or stung, or might step on a sharp object. Some have noted that the Hebrew word for shoe – Na'al – may be read as an acrostic for the words "Nahash" (snake), "Akrab" (scorpion), "Lahash" ("hissing"). Similarly, some sources warn that one who walks about barefoot is more susceptible to catching a cold or some other virus. Rav Abraham Azulai (d. 1643) offered a Kabbalistic reason for this Halacha, explaining that after Adam and Hava's sin in Gan Eden, G-d placed a cursed upon the ground ("Arura Ha'adama Ba'aburecha" – Bereshit 3:17). It became the domain of the snake, which represents the Yeser Ha'ra (evil inclination) and forces of impurity, and slithers on the ground and eats the dirt. One who walks barefoot, touching the ground without any obstruction, exposes himself to the ground's impurity. Indeed, some commentators explain that the Egyptian sorcerers, who succeeded in mimicking some of the wonders that Moshe Rabbenu performed – such as changing their staffs to snakes, and transforming the water into blood – received their magical powers from the forces of impurity within the ground. For this reason, they were unable to match Moshe after he brought the third plague – the plague of Kinim (lice) – because the earth underneath Egypt was overrun by vermin (Shemot 8:13), and thus they could not access the forces of impurity. According to the Kabbalists, then, one must wear shoes in order not to connect himself to the Tum'a (impure) in the ground. In fact, some suggest that the word "Na'al" is an acrostic representing the phrase "Nahash Afar Lahmo" – "the snake's bread is dirt," alluding to the function of shoes to shield a person from the impurity of the ground, the domain of the snake. In theory, these different reasons yield interesting exceptions to this Halacha. For example, in warm climates, or during the summertime, walking about barefoot will not likely result in illness. And, in societies where walking barefoot has become accepted, it is not considered undignified. The Kabbalists teach that the ground of Eretz Yisrael does not contain the Tum'a that is present in the ground throughout the rest of the world. In practice, however, since we must concern ourselves with all these reasons, one should avoid walking about barefoot everywhere – even in warm regions, in societies where this is accepted, and in Eretz Yisrael. Inside one's home, however, none of these reasons apply: there is no concern of getting sick or being bitten or stung; there is no requirement to appear especially dignified within the privacy of one's home; and the floors are tiled such that one does not step directly on the ground. Thus, it is entirely permissible to walk about barefoot in one's home. This is the ruling of Hacham Ovadia Yosef. One should avoid walking about outside without shoes even if he wears socks. Although the socks protect the feet from the Tum'a of the ground, they do not offer protection from small creatures or sharp objects, and, in most societies, this would be considered undignified. Some sources mention the practice of going outside barefoot as a form of self-affliction for the purpose of achieving atonement for one's sins. People would intentionally endure the discomfort of walking barefoot and hurting themselves, or getting sick, so they could earn expiation for their wrongdoing. (This resembles the account of how the Arizal would roll in the snow during the winter in order to earn atonement.) Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, opposed all practices of self-affliction, including voluntary fasts. He noted the Gemara's teaching that the Nazir must bring a sin-offering to atone for his self-denial, abstaining from wine. All the more so, we are discouraged from afflicting ourselves unnecessarily by fasting and causing ourselves pain. Hashem expects us to enjoy – in moderation – the comforts and joys of our world, not to deprive ourselves of them. Moreover, voluntary fasts and other extreme measures of piety can often bring more spiritual harm than benefit, as they frequently result in arrogance. Many people who observe such practices ensure to put themselves on display, or to tell their peers about what they do, in order to earn their admiration and esteem – a kind of exhibitionism which is the diametric opposite of piety. Primarily, though, Hacham Ovadia opposed these practices because they lead a person to overlook the most important and most beneficial means of atonement – Torah study. King Shlomo teaches in Mishleh (16:6), "Be'hesed Ve'emet Yechupar Avon" – "Iniquity shall be atoned through kindness and truth," and "Emet" ("truth") refers to Torah learning. In fact, in the blessing of the Amida in which we ask Hashem to help us repent, we begin, "Hashibenu Abinu Le'Toratecha" – "Bring us back, our Father, to Your Torah." The most important and most effective way to rectify one's wrongdoing and earn atonement is through Torah study. The sanctity of Torah has the ability to purge and cleanse the soul of all impurities. I am often approached by people seeking advice for how to attain forgiveness for various sins, and my response is always to attend more Torah classes and devote more time to Torah learning. This isn't my idea – it was written explicitly by Rabbenu Yona (Spain, 1200-1263) in his famous Iggeret Teshuba – a brief guide for those seeking to repent. He says that on the day that a person decides to perform Teshuba, he should immediately commit to increase his Torah learning: if he is accustomed to learning one page, then he should learn two; if he is accustomed to learning for one hour, then he should learn for two hours. Even regarding the six weeks of Shobabim, when there is a time-honored custom to fast on Mondays and Thursdays, the Sadikim teach that spending several hours a day learning achieves more than fasting. This is especially so in today's day and age, when we are not accustomed to abstaining from food, and fasting thus causes frailty which diminishes our productivity and our ability to learn Torah and observe Misvot. It must be emphasized that Torah learning has the ability to atone for even the most grievous sins. The Gemara in Masechet Menahot (110) teaches that one who learns Torah does not need to offer sacrifices for atonement. Even the sin of Lashon Ha'ra – a sin as severe as murder, idol-worship and immorality combined – can be atoned through genuine repentance and Torah learning. Rav Chaim of Volozhin (1749-1821) related that people would ask his mentor, the Gaon of Vilna (1720-1797), how they could atone for the severe sin of Hosa'at Zera ("wasting seed"), and he would respond, "If they devote themselves to Torah study, then they have nothing to worry about." The Gaon of Vilna did not advise these individuals to observe fasts or practice forms of self-affliction or self-deprivation; instead, he urged them to devote time to Torah learning, as this is the universal remedy for all spiritual maladies. (It goes without saying that rectifying this sin also requires common-sense measures such as avoiding places and devices that trigger the Yeser Ha'ra.) We should add that reading the Zohar, too, is beneficial for achieving forgiveness. Even if one does not understand what he reads, the words themselves have inherent sanctity that spiritually cleanse a person. In fact, the Arizal had the custom of reading a section of Tikkuneh Zohar each day from Rosh Hodesh Elul through Yom Kippur, when he would complete the entire work. Clearly, then, one should avoid all measures of self-deprivation, and should instead care for his physical wellbeing so he has the strength and mental energy to devote himself to Torah learning as much as he can.

When putting on shoes, as we have seen, one should put the right shoe on before the left shoe in order to show importance to the right side, though he should tie the laces of the left shoe before the laces of the right shoe, because the left side has greater importance with respect to tying. When removing one's shoes, one should show respect to the right side by reversing the sequence – removing the left shoe first, so that the right shoe remains on the foot for longer. Intuitively, we might assume that the entire process should be reversed, such that one first unties the right shoe, unties and removes the left shoe, and then removes the right shoe. This is, indeed, the opinion of several Poskim, and the position adopted by Hacham David Yosef in Halacha Berura. By contrast, the Az Nidberu (Rav Binyamin Zilber, 1916-2008) maintained that one unties and removes the left shoe, and then unties and removes the right shoe. He reached this conclusion on the basis of the Gemara's formulation (Shabbat 61a) – "Holetz Shel Semol" ("removes the left [first]"). The verb H.L.TZ. used here in reference to removing shoes appears also in the context of Halisa – the procedure required when a married man dies without children, and his brother chooses not to marry the widow (which would fulfill the Misva of Yibum). The Torah requires the widow to remove her brother-in-law's shoe from his foot, using the word "Ve'halsa" (Debarim 25:9). This is understood as referring to both untying the shoelaces and removing the shoe, seemingly proving that the root H.L.TZ. includes both steps of the process, and not merely the shoe's removal. By extension, then, when the Gemara requires, "Holetz Shel Semol," it means that one should first untie and remove the left shoe before untying the right shoe. As mentioned, however, other Poskim ruled that one should first untie the right shoe before removing the left shoe. Therefore, one has the option of which procedure to follow. It is told that the Sadik of Nasaud ( Rav Avraham Yehoshua Freund, 1850–1932) once needed to remove only his right shoe, to have it repaired. He made a point of first removing the left shoe, in order to observe the Halacha requiring removing the left shoe before the right shoe. This shows that at least in his opinion, even if one needs to remove only the right shoe, he should remove the left shoe first. Rav Abraham Yishak Ha'kohen Kook (1865-1935) drew an intriguing distinction between the ordinary removal of shoes, and removing shoes for a Misva purpose – such as before Yom Kippur and Tisha B'Ab, a Kohen preparing for Birkat Kohanim, or when changing into one's Shabbat shoes on Friday afternoon. Normally, one shows greater respect to the right side by leaving it on for longer. However, when the shoe's removal fulfills a Misva, then to the contrary, one shows greater respect to the right shoe by using it for the Misva first. Rav Kook thus maintained that whenever one removes his shoes for the purpose of a Misva, he should remove the right shoe first. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) fundamentally agreed with Rav Kook, though he disputed the application of this reasoning to the removal of shoes before Yom Kippur and Tisha B'Ab. On these occasions, the purpose of removing the shoe is to deprive oneself the comfort of wearing shoes. Therefore, Rav Shlomo Zalman contended, one shows greater respect to the right shoe by leaving it on and enjoying the comfort it provides for longer than the left shoe. In the other situations of a Misva, Rav Shlomo Zalman concurred with Rav Kook's position. However, Rav Yisrael Bitan noted that the earlier sources make no mention of such a distinction. Moreover, the Lebush (Rav Mordechai Yoffe, c. 1530-1612) explained the requirement to remove the left shoe first by stating that it is disrespectful for the right foot to remain bare for a few moments while the left foot is still in a shoe. According to this explanation, it would certainly seem that the purpose of the shoe's removal is not relevant as far as this Halacha is concerned, and thus in all situations, one should remove the left shoe before the right shoe. Summary: When one removes his shoes, he should remove the left shoe before the right shoe. According to some Poskim, one should first untie the right shoe before untying and removing the left shoe, whereas others maintain that one should untie and remove the left shoe, and then untie and remove the right shoe.

 In this episode Rachel is joined by her friend Genie! The dating scene in Miami is nothing but shticky situation after shticky situation. Even when Genie dates guys from New York, they seem to think that dating a Miami girl means that the Jewish rules don't apply. Where in the Torah does it say that halachah doesn't apply in Miami? This is definitely an episode you don't want to miss!Join Maalot Mizrach for a singles Challah Bake - meet like-minded people, mingle, and prep challah. July 16th at 6:45PM on the Upper West Side. Sign up at https://dub.sh/maalot-mizrach?ref=shtick. Use code SHTICKY for $15 off of an individual ticket!Shticky Situations is sponsored by CoronaCrush. To find out more information about CoronaCrush visit their website and coronacrush.co. Also join the CoronaCrush Facebook group and sign up for speed dating events!Remember to like the Shticky Situations page on Facebook, follow @shtickysituationspod on Instagram, and follow @shtickysituationspod on Tiktok! And make sure to join the Shticky Situations Loop Group:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://loopmein.app.link/invite?uuid=7bd5252c-c1ff-47fc-938b-1c319c57354e⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Want to be a guest and hang out with Rachel and discuss your own dating stories? Apply today https://forms.gle/FhwZs74JBTJgGpw8A! Want to try your luck at dating Rachel or any of her guests? Also apply today https://forms.gle/J31HUQ5aYTzjz5Bv6! You can also send an email too shtickysituationspod@gmail.com or DM @shtickysituationspod on Instagram. Serious inquiries only.Shticky Situations is sponsored by Primrose Flower Shoppe! Primrose is located at 2922 Avenue M, Brooklyn, phone number 929-376-9815, and follow them on Instagram @primroseny.

We have seen that although one should put his right shoe on before his left shoe – because precedence is always given to the right side – nevertheless, one should tie his left shoe before his right shoe. This is because the Torah commanded tying Tefillin to one's left arm, indicating that with regard to tying, the left side has greater importance than the right. Seemingly, then, this Halacha should not apply to women, who do not wear Tefillin. For them, we might assume, the left has no special importance with regard to tying. Accordingly, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) maintained that women should tie their right shoe before the left shoe, reverting to the general principle that the right should be given precedence. Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (1873-1960) was of the opinion that women have the option of tying their shoes in whichever sequence they choose. Others, however, disagree, arguing that once the Torah lent importance to the left side with the Misva of Tefillin, the left takes precedence in this respect for all people, even women. Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, accepted this view, drawing proof from a different Halacha that applies to women despite its being based on the Misva of Tefillin. When using the restroom, a person should not clean himself with the right hand, as this is the hand used to wrap Tefillin around the left arm (and the middle finger of the left hand should not be used, as the Tefillin is wrapped around that finger). Rav Yaakov Emden (Germany, 1697-1776) maintained that this applies even to women, since a woman could wrap Tefillin around her husband's arm, and thus the significance of Tefillin is relevant also to women. By the same token, then, women should tie their left shoe before the right shoe. Hacham Yishak Yosef, in Yalkut Yosef, brings both opinions without reaching a definitive conclusion, but Hacham David, as mentioned, accepts the view that women should follow the same sequence as men. Children should be taught to put their shoes on in the proper sequence as part of their training in Halacha observance. Summary: Men should put on their right shoe before the left shoe, but should tie their left shoe before the right. The Poskim debate the question of whether women, too, should tie the left shoe first, and a woman has on whom to rely whichever sequence she chooses, though it would seem more correct for women to follow the same sequence as men and tie the left shoe first.

A year ago, I was convinced AI had little to offer me. I was wrong. Today I use ChatGPT every day, and it consistently helps me think more clearly, and improves my work beyond what I could accomplish on my own. Precisely because it is such a powerful tool, I believe it demands thoughtful and ethical use. In this video I share the three principles that now guide my use of AI: transparency, retaining human judgment and responsibility, and careful verification. Drawing on examples from my own work - including questions of Halacha and kashrut - I argue that AI can make us more productive and better thinkers, but only if we never surrender the one thing it cannot replace: our own judgment. Michael Whitman is the senior rabbi of ADATH Congregation in Hampstead, Quebec, and an adjunct professor at McGill University Faculty of Law. ADATH is a modern orthodox synagogue community in suburban Montreal, providing Judaism for the next generation. We take great pleasure in welcoming everyone with a warm smile, while sharing inspiration through prayer, study, and friendship. Rabbi Whitman shares his thoughts and inspirations through online lectures and shiurim, which are available on: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5FLcsC6xz5TmkirT1qObkA Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/adathmichael/ Podcast - Mining the Riches of the Parsha: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/mining-the-riches-of-the-parsha/id1479615142?fbclid=IwAR1c6YygRR6pvAKFvEmMGCcs0Y6hpmK8tXzPinbum8drqw2zLIo7c9SR-jc Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3hWYhCG5GR8zygw4ZNsSmO Please contact Rabbi Whitman (michael@adath.ca) with any questions or feedback, or to receive a daily email, "Study with Rabbi Whitman Today," with current and past insights for that day, video, and audio, all in one short email sent directly to your inbox.

We have seen that although the right side is always given precedence over the left, the left shoe is tied before the right shoe, because the Tefillin is tied to the left arm, showing that with regard to tying, the left is given precedence. Seemingly, this would mean that a lefthanded individual – who wears Tefillin on his right arm – should tie his right shoe first. In truth, however, the Halacha in this regard depends not on whether a person is lefthanded, but rather if he is "left-legged" – meaning, if his left leg is stronger than his right leg. If it is, then he should tie his right shoe first, regardless of whether he is righthanded or lefthanded. A "right-legged" person, however, ties his left shoe first, even if he is lefthanded. If a person is placing shoes on somebody else's feet – such as an employee in a shoe store, or an aid tending to an elderly individual – the procedure depends on the person whose shoes are being put on, and not the person who is putting on the shoes for him. Thus, if, for example, the customer at a shoe store is "right-legged," then the person putting on his shoes should tie the left shoe first, even though he – the store employee – is "left-legged." If, for whatever reason, one currently has only his left shoe available, he may put it on, and does not need to wait until his right shoe is brought so he can put it on first.

The Gemara in Masechet Shabbat brings the ruling of Rabbi Yohanan that when one puts on shoes, he should put his left shoe on before his right shoe. He notes that Tefillin are worn (by righthanded people) on the left arm, indicating that the left side, at least in some respects, is given precedence over the right side. Rabbi Yosef, as the Gemara cites, disagrees, quoting a Berayta establishing that the right shoe should be placed first. The Gemara concludes that the proper thing to do is to accommodate both opinions, by placing the right shoe before the left shoe, and then tying the left shoe before the right shoe. At first glance, this "compromise" seems difficult to explain. If one places the right shoe first, but then ties the left shoe first, he does not accommodate either position. Why, then, is this the preferred sequence? The Bet Yosef brings those who explain that when Rabbi Yohanan points to the precedent of Tefillin, his intention was to show that when it comes to tying, the left side is given precedence. Tefillin is tied to the left arm, thus indicating to us that tying on the left should come before tying on the right. Therefore, even Rabbi Yohanan agrees that the right shoe should be placed before the left shoe, and his point was simply that the left shoelaces should be tied before the right shoelaces. This is the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch. It should be noted that the Tefillin are not actually "tied" around the arm; they are wrapped around the arm. It thus follows that this Halacha applies not only to tying shoelaces, but to all kinds of fastening – such as if one's shoes are closed with a zipper or Velcro. Moreover, when one wears a long-sleeve shirt, he should first button the left sleeve before buttoning the right sleeve, as this, too, is a kind of fastening. Although one should insert his right arm into his shirt when getting dressed before the left arm (as we've discussed in previous installments), the left sleeve should be buttoned before the right sleeve – or, if one wears cufflinks, the left cufflink should be closed before the right cufflink. Interestingly, the Lebush (Rav Mordechai Yaffe, c. 1530-1612) offered a different explanation for why the left shoe should be tied before the right shoe. He notes the story of Abraham Abinu rescuing the city of Sedom after it had been captured by the four kings, and when he returned from battle, the king of Sedom offered Abraham all the property which he had retrieved. Abraham refused to take any possessions of the evil city of Sedom, and he proclaimed that he would not even accept a "thread or a shoelace" ("Im Mi'hut Ve'ad Seroch Na'al" – Bereshit 14:23). The Gemara (Sota 17a) teaches that in reward for Abraham's refusing to take even a "shoelace," the Misva of Tefillin was given to his descendants. Thus, the Lebush writes, a special connection exists between shoelaces and the Misva of Tefillin, and it is for this reason that we tie our shoelaces in a manner that is based upon the Tefillin, granting precedence to the left side. According to this explanation, this procedure is required only when tying shoelaces, and not when tying or fastening anything else, such as shirtsleeves. Regardless, the commonly accepted explanation is that which the Bet Yosef cited, and therefore the left is always given precedence when tying or fastening garments, such as when buttoning shirtsleeves. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) addressed the question regarding shoes which have laces on both sides; meaning, on each foot, there are two sets of laces that must be tied, one on the right side of the shoe and one on the left side. When tying each shoe, which side should be tied first? This would depend on the question of whether Halacha requires only tying the left shoe before right shoe, or giving the left side precedence in every act of tying. According to the first perspective, the requirement is merely to tie the left shoe first, in which case for each shoe, we revert to the standard rule granting precedence to the right side, and tie the right laces of each shoe first. According to the second perspective, then even when tying each shoe, the left side is given precedence. Rav Shlomo Zalman was more inclined to accept this second possibility, that the left side should be tied before the right side. The Rama writes that if one wears shoes without laces, then he simply places the right shoe before the left shoe. Rav Haim Cohen of Aleppo (d. 1655) wrote that when wearing shoes without laces, the proper procedure is to put the right foot in the shoe but not completely, and then put the left shoe on completely and, thereafter, finishing to put on the right shoe. However, the Poskim did not bring this practice, and the accepted procedure is to simply put the right shoe on before the left shoe. (It is known that the Hafetz Haim made a point of wearing of shoes without laces, as he did not wish to waste the time it would take each time he put on or took off his shoes to tie and untie the laces.) Summary: The proper procedure when putting on shoes is to place the right shoe first, without tying it, and then place the left shoe, tie it, and, at the end, tie the right shoe. When it comes to any sort of tying or fastening, the left side is given precedence, and thus one should tie his left shirtsleeve before his right shirtsleeve, or close the left cufflink before the right cufflink. If one wears shoes without laces, then he simply puts the right shoe on before the left shoe.

The Gemara (Shabbat 61a) teaches that if one is applying oil on his entire body, he should begin with the head, which is the "king," so-to-speak, of the body. The Rama, in Darcheh Moshe, cites Rav Abraham of Prague (d. 1542) as asserting that this applies also to bathing; when one washes his body, he should wash his head first. The Rama then proceeds to cite a passage from the Rambam which seems to imply that one may wash the rest of his body first, before the head, and that there is no need to wash the right side of one's body before the left side. However, the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939) cites those who explain that since in earlier generations people did not bathe very often, no procedure was instituted for bathing. It is only when it comes to daily activities that we are urged to give precedence to the right side to symbolize the prevailing of Hesed (which is associated with the right) over judgment (which is associated with the left). Bathing, however, was infrequent in ancient times, and so the Sages did not institute any procedure. Nowadays, we bathe regularly, and so we should follow the proper protocol – washing the head first, and then the right side of the body followed by the left side. The simple manner of bathing, then, is to first wash the hair on the head, and then the entire right side of the body – the arm, torso and legs – followed by the entire left side. The Arizal, however, taught that after washing the head, one should wash the right arm, then the left arm, the torso, the legs, the private area, and then the feet. When one washes his hands – either for Netilat Yadayim or for cleanliness – he should wash his right hand before his left hand. Likewise, when drying oneself after bathing, he should first dry the head and face, followed by the arms and then the feet. When one gets dressed after bathing, he should first put on his Kipa before his garments, as the head should be covered before the other parts of the body. When undressing, one should remove his Kipa last, after removing all his clothing. And when one removes his clothes, he should remove the left side before the right side to show importance to the right side, just like one puts his garments on his right side before the left side (as discussed in a previous installment).

There is a basic rule that the right should always be given precedence over the left. The right side is associated with the divine attribute of Hesed (kindness), whereas the left is associated with judgment, and so we always strive to give precedence to the right side so that kindness shall prevail over judgment. When bathing, then, one should wash the right side before his left side. (The Kabbalists first wash their head, followed by the right side of their torso and then the left, and they conclude with the feet.) When one dresses himself in the morning, he should insert his right arm in his shirt before his left. Likewise, when putting on a sports jacket or overcoat, the right arm should be inserted first. One should preferably hold both sides of the garment with his right hand, and then transfer one side to the left so he can put his right arm through the garment first, followed by the left arm. This applies even to lefthanded individuals. When putting on a Tallit, too, one should first hold the Tallit with his right hand, and then transfer one side to his left, at which point he recites the Beracha and puts it on. When putting on a scarf, one should wrap the right side over the left side, and not vice-versa, expressing the prevailing of Hesed over judgment. Hassidic communities insist on this arrangement even for the buttons of shirts. In contemporary society, the shirts have the buttons on the right side, with the buttonholes on the left, such that the left side covers the right side. Hassidic communities therefore have shirts custom-made with the buttons and button-holes reversed, so that the right side will cover the left side. It is told that the Steipler Gaon (Rav Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky, 1899-1985) would have his buttons transferred to the left side of his garments for this reason. In any event, most communities are lenient in this regard, and wear their shirts and jackets with the left side covering the right. Interestingly, even Hassidic communities that insist on wearing shirts with the buttons on the left side wear normal pants, with the button on the right side. Some explain that there is value in leaving one area for the Kelipot (forces of impurity) to control so they will be content and not seek to inflict harm. When putting on shoes, one first puts the right shoe on before the left. Likewise, when applying hand lotion, one should first treat the right hand before the left hand.

The Gemara (Horiyot 13b) warns that sleeping with one's garment under his head can cause him to forget his Torah knowledge. In airports, for example, when flights are delayed, people sometimes place their jacket beneath their head so they can rest. One should avoid doing so, as this could cause him to forget his Torah knowledge. However, this applies only if one places his head directly on the garment. If there is something in between, then there is no concern. Hence, one may lay his head on a piece of luggage even though it contains clothing. According to one opinion, the Gemara refers specifically to a person who lays his head on his own article of clothing. If one lays his head on somebody else's garment, then there is no danger. This is the view of Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868), and of the Salmat Haim (Rav Yosef Haim Sonenfeld, 1849-1932), who explains on this basis the Mishna's description (Tamid 1:1) of the Kohanim sleeping on their garments in the Bet Ha'mikdash. This was allowed, the Salmat Haim suggests, because the priestly garments were not the Kohanim's personal property, but were rather owned collectively by the entire nation. Hacham Ovadia refutes this proof, noting that perhaps the Kohanim were allowed to sleep on their garments because of the sanctity of the Bet Ha'mikdash. The Kelipot (forces of impurity) had no power in the Bet Ha'mikdash, and so there was no danger involved when sleeping there with one's clothing under his head. Hacham Ovadia concluded that as we have no definitive proof to the lenient position, it is preferable to act stringently in this regard due to the serious risk that's at stake, and refrain from sleeping directly on any garment, even one which belongs to somebody else. One who wishes to lie on a garment should ensure to place something in between his head and the garment.

In earlier installments, we noted the Arizal's teaching that one should not put on two articles of clothing simultaneously – such as putting on a hat with the Kippa inside it – as this could cause a person to forget his Torah knowledge. The reason, as we discussed, is that the inner garment will be concealed and thus unable to receive the "Or Ha'makif" ("supernal light") that surrounds our clothing to protect them from harmful spiritual forces. It would seem, at first glance, that this is relevant only to putting two garments on at the same time, because it is then when we want the "Or Ha'makif" to surround the garments. When removing garments, however, there appears to be no reason not to remove two garments simultaneously – such as removing a sweatshirt together with the shirt underneath it. This is, indeed, the position taken by Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995). He writes that when it comes to behaviors which could lead a person to forget his Torah knowledge, we have no reason to be stringent beyond the restrictions mentioned in the earlier sources. Since the sources speak only of the dangers of putting two garments on at the same time, we do not need to be concerned about removing two garments at the same time. By contrast, the Yosef Ometz ruled stringently, that one should avoid also removing two garments at the same time. Hacham Ovadia Yosef concluded that although Rav Shlomo Zalman's lenient ruling seems correct, nevertheless, it is preferable to act stringently and avoid removing two garments at the same time, because one might then also put them on together. If, for example, a person removes his shirt together with his sweater, and the shirt remains inside the sweater, he might later put them both on simultaneously, and so he should preferably remove his garments one at a time.

June 16 first through 5:25 As explained in an earlier installment, the Arizal warned that putting on two articles of clothing simultaneously could have an adverse effect on a person, causing him to forget his Torah knowledge. This gives rise to the question of whether one may put on his shoes when they are inside rubbers. Often, in the winter, people take off their shoes when entering the home together with the rubbers, keeping the shoes inside the rubbers. Then, when they go back out into the snow, they simply put the shoes with the rubbers on their feet. Seemingly, this should be discouraged, as one must refrain from putting on two articles of clothing at the same time. Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (Jerusalem, 1873-1960) cites a source claiming that the Arizal's teaching does not apply to garments made from rubber, in which case there is no concern in this regard. However, the Sitz Eliezer (Rav Eliezer Waldenberg, 1915-2006) questioned this theory, noting that there seems to be no reason to differentiate between rubber and other materials. The Arizal taught that when placing two articles of clothing at the same time, the inner garment does not receive the "Or Ha'makif" (supernal light) that surrounds garments to protect them from the harmful spiritual forces. This concern certainly appears to be relevant to rubbers no less than to garments made from other materials. Nevertheless, Hacham Ovadia ruled leniently in this regard, and allowed putting on shoes that are already inside rubbers. This is based on a comment of the Aruch Ha'shulhan (Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein of Nevarduk, 1829-1908) that the Arizal's teaching does not apply to shoes. The Aruch Ha'shulhan does not explain why shoes would differ from other garments in this regard, but Hacham Ovadia suggested that since the shoes touch the ground, which has impurity, they cannot be protected from impurity, and so they do not receive the "Or Ha'makif." Socks, however, are not treated as shoes. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) ruled that although one who touches shoes must then wash his hands, one does not require hand washing after touching his socks. Some Poskim disagree, but Halacha follows this view of the Ben Ish Hai. This lenient ruling yields a stringent conclusion with regard to the question of putting on two socks at the same time. Since socks are treated by Halacha differently than shoes, the Aruch Ha'shulhan's leniency does not apply. Therefore, one who wishes to wear two pairs of socks for extra warmth must put on one after the other, and may not wrap one sock in the other and then put them both on together.

A number of sources teach that if a person puts on two garments at the same time, he is likely to forget the Torah he has learned. This is mentioned in the Sha'ar Ha'kavanot, based on the teachings of the Arizal. It is brought also by the Mishna Berura. An example is placing one's Kippa in his hat, and then placing the hat on his head, such that he puts on both head coverings simultaneously. Another example is somebody who is going skiing and puts on two pairs of socks – he must put one sock on the foot at a time, rather than placing one sock inside the other and putting them together on his foot. This can also be relevant to a person wearing a shirt and a sweater; he must put on the shirt and then the sweater, rather than putting the shirt inside the sweater and then putting them on together. This applies also to those who wear two jackets; each must be put on separately. The reason for this Halacha is that according to Kabbalah, a garment is surrounded by an "Or Ha'makif" – a "supernal light." In fact, when we recite each morning the blessing "Malbish Arumim," thanking Hashem for the blessing of clothing, we refer to the special "light" that surrounds the clothes that we wear. This "light" has the effect of bringing a person Kedusha (sanctity) and warding off the Kelipot – the harmful impure forces that threaten him. If a person puts on two garments simultaneously, the inner garment does not receive the "Or Ha'makif." It must first be worn alone so it can receive this "light" before the outer layer covers it.

In Ask Away #36, Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe opens with a heartfelt history of TORCH — from its roots in Project SEED visits in the early 1990s, founding by five Young Israel members in 1998, to its growth as an inclusive outreach organization bringing Torah to all Jews in Houston and recently across the globe. He emphasizes unity across Jewish streams (including warm relations with Reform, Conservative, Chabad, Reconstructionist, Orthodox) and the mission of fostering connection to Hashem.Practical halacha dominates: milk/meat mix-ups, kitniyot customs on Passover, Chametz in wells or mixtures before/during Pesach, Selling Chametz procedures, and using pre-Pesach-opened kosher-for-Pesach items. He explains daylight saving time has no effect on halachic times (which follow natural sun/stars). The session closes with a deep teaching on seeing Hashem in all events — including “hidden face” moments — as opportunities for growth, like olives yielding best oil when pressed. Rabbi Wolbe blends inspiration, humor, and clear guidance throughout.Please submit your questions at askaway@torchweb.org_____________The Everyday Judaism Podcast is dedicated to learning, understanding and appreciating the greatness of Jewish heritage and the Torah through the simplified, concise study of Halacha, Jewish Law, thereby enhancing our understanding of how Hashem wants us to live our daily lives in a Jewish way._____________This Podcast Series is Generously Underwritten by Marshall & Doreen LernerDownload & Print the Everyday Judaism Halacha Notes:https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1RL-PideM42B_LFn6pbrk8MMU5-zqlLG5This episode of the Everyday Judaism Podcast by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe of TORCH is dedicated to my dearest friends, Marshall & Doreen Lerner! May Hashem bless you and always lovingly accept your prayer for good health, success and true happiness!!!Recorded in the TORCH Centre - Levin Family Studio (B) to a live audience on March 8, 2026, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on June 29, 2026_____________Connect with Us:Subscribe to the Everyday Judaism PodcastApple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/everyday-judaism-rabbi-aryeh-wolbe/id1600622789Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3AXCNcyKSVsaOLsLQsCN1CShare your questions at askaway@torchweb.org or visit torchweb.org for more Torah content.  _____________About the Host:Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe, Director of TORCH in Houston, brings decades of Torah scholarship to guide listeners in applying Jewish wisdom to daily life.  To directly send your questions, comments, and feedback: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Support Our Mission:Help us share Jewish wisdom globally by sponsoring an episode at torchweb.org. Your support makes a difference!_____________Subscribe and Listen to other podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Hey Rabbi! Podcast: https://heyrabbi.transistor.fm/episodesPrayer Podcast: https://prayerpodcast.transistor.fm/episodesJewish Inspiration Podcast: https://inspiration.transistor.fm/episodesParsha Review Podcast: https://parsha.transistor.fm/episodesLiving Jewishly Podcast: https://jewishly.transistor.fm/episodesThinking Talmudist Podcast: https://talmud.transistor.fm/episodesUnboxing Judaism Podcast: https://unboxing.transistor.fm/episodesRabbi Aryeh Wolbe Podcast Collection: https://collection.transistor.fm/episodesFor a full listing of podcasts available by TORCH at http://podcast.torchweb.org_____________Keywords:#AskAway, #Torah, #Halacha, #Q&A, #Jewish, #Halacha, #EverydayJudaism, #PesachPrep, #PassoverPrep, #Chametz, #SellingChametz, #Shishim, #Kitniyos, #Kashrut, #KosherKitchen, #Hagalah, #Shabbos, #Shabbat, #DaylightSavingTime  ★ Support this podcast ★

It is incumbent upon observant Jews to always appear well-kempt and dignified. Nowadays, this applies to all observant Jews. As representatives of the Torah, we all bear the obligation to look respectable in order to reflect positively on the Torah. An observant Jew must not walk about with stained clothing, scuffed shoes, or a foul odor. People who encounter a religious Jew who appears this way lose respect for the Torah, and reach the conclusion that the Torah does not encourage self-dignity. In fact, the Sages teach (Shabbat 114a) that if a Torah scholar has "Rabab" – dirt – on his garment, then he is deserving of death, because he misrepresents the Torah. I had the privilege of knowing Rav Chaim Kreiswirth (1918-2001), the Chief Rabbi of Antwerp who frequently visited Israel. He was a towering spiritual giant, who mastered the entire Talmud. I saw him once take out a pocket mirror and comb before getting out of a car, to groom himself. He explained that the windows were open during the trip, and his hair and beard became disheveled. He therefore made sure to groom himself so he looked presentable before getting out of the car. Another example that I personally witnessed was the time when I went with a group of students to the home of Rav Chaim Brim (1922-2002) in Jerusalem, for a Torah class, after which we wanted to take a group picture with him. He did not allow the picture to be taken until he first straightened up the room and made sure he looked presentable. He wanted to ensure that people who looked at this picture would not see him unkempt or his home untidy. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in Yehaveh Da'at, addressed the question of whether or not it is acceptable for a man to use a mirror. The Gemara teaches that a man should not use a mirror, as this is something that women do, and is considered vanity for men. Nevertheless, Hacham Ovadia ruled that nowadays it is specifically a Misva for men to use a mirror to ensure that they look presentable and thereby make a Kiddush Hashem (glorification of G-d's Name). Rav Yissachar Frand (contemporary) shared that when he traveled with his Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yaakov Ruderman (1900-1987), to fundraise, and they would pass through the train station, Rav Ruderman would have his shoes shined in order that he would look presentable when meeting with the donors. Just as an observant Jew must dress in a dignified manner, he must conduct himself in a dignified manner. This includes eating neatly and patiently. Needless to say, this applies to both men and women. Women must dress not only modestly, but also respectably so they appear dignified. Earlier, we noted the Gemara's teaching that a Torah scholar with a "Rabab" – stain – on his clothing is deserving of death. An alternate reading of this teaching has been suggested, based on the Gematria of the word "Rebab" (204), which is the same Gematria as the word "Sadik." The Gemara thus perhaps refers to a scholar who "wears" piety on his clothing, who shows himself to be more righteous than he really is. Just as it is wrong to appear unkempt and undignified, so it is wrong to appear greater and holier than one actually is. One who projects a false impression of piety is also deserving of death, as he deceives people in an effort to earn their respect and admiration. Finally, a Torah scholar should wear neither very expensive clothing, nor very cheap clothing. He must appear respectable, but should not appear as though he wastes large amounts of money on costly attire.

Gambling has moved from casinos to our phones. FanDuel, DraftKings, BetMGM, ESPN Bet, Kalshi, and day-trading platforms have made “action” available every minute of the day. When is risk-taking legitimate, and when does it become gambling? Is sports betting different from day trading or prediction markets? What are the dangers of addiction, wasted time, and chasing easy money? with Rabbi Chaim Jachter – Rav of Sha'arei Orah in Teaneck, Dayan on the Elizabeth Beis Din – 25:10 with Rabbi Moshe Rotberg – Rav of Zichron Yechezkel, Toms River NJ, Rov of Hatzalah of Central Jersey, Pyscotherapist - 47:11 with Mr. Yehuda Liff – Therapist at Retorno, Specializing in addiction – 1:09:38 מראי מקומות   

The Gemara (Shabbat 114a) teaches that one of the qualities of a Talmid Hacham (Torah scholar) is that if he notices that one of his garments is inside-out, he immediately turns it around so the stitches will not be visible. It seems that long ago, the interior of garments looked very much like the exterior, except that the stitching was visible on the inside, and so it would be common to mistakenly wear a garment inside-out. A Torah scholar is obligated to ensure to wear his garments the right way, and not inside-out. The Tur writes that with respect to this Halacha, all observant Jews must consider themselves "Torah scholars." All those who observe the Torah effectively function as the "ambassadors" of Torah, since people who see us and watch how we conduct ourselves naturally interpret our behavior as reflective of the Torah's values. Therefore, all observant Jews must dress respectably, and this includes ensuring that clothing is not worn inside-out. However, if the concern was only about appearance, then this Halacha would not apply to undergarments, which are not seen. We would assume that one may wear an undershirt, for example, inside-out, since it is not visible. In truth, though, several sources teach that this Halacha is based also on Kabbalistic concepts, and it therefore applies to all garments. Even if, for example, nobody would notice if one's socks are worn inside-out, or if his Sisit are worn inside-out, nevertheless, they must not be worn this way. Beyond the need to appear presentable, clothes must be worn the right way because of Kabbalistic reasons, and so this applies to all garments. If, however, a garment is made from the outset to be reversible, and worn both ways, then one may wear it either way.