Podcasts about halachic

Is “Dati Leumi” in Israel the same as “Modern Orthodox” elsewhere? Is “Chareidi” in Israel the same as “Yeshivish” elsewhere? What are their respective views of secular studies, engaging in the modern world, and serving in the IDF? What are the most common misperceptions each has of the other, and what can each learn from the other? Host: Ari Wasserman with Rabbi Dr. Yitzchak Breitowitz – posek, Rav and Senior Lecturer at Yeshivas Ohr Somayach – 11:14 with Jonathan Rosenblum – Mishpacha Columnist and author – 40:02 with Rabbi Moshe Taragin – Ram at Yeshivat Har Etzion, Gush Etzion, Israel – 1:02:02 https://www.mtaraginbooks.com/ Conclusions and Takeaways – 1:56:37 מראי מקומות   

Exploring the lives of three Jewish doctors. Living in very different settings, yet linked by a common thread: compassion. They left a lasting mark on medicine and Jewish history and were dedicated to the strong belief that every fragile life matters. In New York, Dr Martin Couney helped save thousands of babies. His sideshow displays were controversial, but at a time when incubator technology was widely doubted, his exhibits brought life-saving technology into the public eye. Dr Mary Gordon was born in Lithuania and her trailblazing career as a pioneering female physician who was deeply connected to Jewish life, allowed her to carry her medical calling into some of the hardest moments of the twentieth century, in Palestine, in detention camps in Cyprus and through world wars. Dr Shlomo Adler's reputation in London as a beloved doctor and trusted medical confidant to Gedolim and Torah leaders as well as to thousands of patients, rested on his complete commitment to care, innovation and halacha. We also hear from his son Dr Yossi Adler - who has continued a 3 generational family legacy - about AI and other issues confronting medicine today   Timestamps: - **0:00:00 – 0:01:13** – Podcast intro, series context (Medicine Part 2), and mention of guests (Rabbi Tatz & Dr. Yossi Adler) - **0:01:13 – 0:02:16** – Introduction of Mary Gordon; granddaughter of Reb Eliezer Gordon; name changes (Miriam → Mary, Sara → Sylvia)   - **0:02:16 – 0:03:49** – Background on the Gordon family, Telshe Yeshiva, and Reb Eliezer Gordon's leadership and social conscience (matzah bakeries)   - **0:03:49 – 0:06:21** – Fire in Telshe (1908), Reb Eliezer Gordon's fundraising trip to England, his death, funeral, and Mary receiving apology from the Chief Rabbi   - **0:06:21 – 0:09:00** – Mary's struggle to enter university, re-doing exams in England, brilliance and speed of study, financial help from Rabbi Moishe Hirsh Siegel, graduation as a physician   - **0:09:00 – 0:10:27** – Status of women doctors in England; WWI, shortage of male doctors; Mary becomes first female medical student allowed to practice in the army   - **0:10:27 – 0:12:57** – Move to South Africa; reuniting with family; pioneering practice in Johannesburg General Hospital; treating rich and poor, all races; miners' strike of 1922   - **0:12:57 – 0:15:30** – Plans to move to Palestine; WWII intervenes; army medical role, rank of captain then lieutenant colonel; final move to Palestine (1946)   - **0:15:30 – 0:18:18** – Postwar DP situation; Anglo-American committee, Truman's proposal for 100,000 DPs; British refusal; Cyprus detention policy and harsh camp conditions   - **0:18:18 – 0:21:06** – Mary chosen by the Jewish Agency to serve in Cyprus; tiny medical team; overwhelming numbers, disease, births; her legendary dedication; quote about measuring temperature vs pain   - **0:21:06 – 0:22:28** – New Year's 1948 story (two big ships arrive, many pregnant women and newborns); Mary persuades nurses to stay; later work in Israel with Yemenite immigrants; return to South Africa, work in Soweto clinics, death and legacy   - **0:22:28 – 0:24:04** – Introduction of Dr. Yossi Adler; recognition that “Dr. Adler” was a global communal institution   - **0:24:04 – 0:26:24** – Growing up in a house that doubled as a practice; constant stream of patients; balancing family meals with emergencies, especially before Hatzalah   - **0:26:24 – 0:28:18** – What made Dr. Adler's practice unique: long-term relationships, personalized care, deep sense of responsibility, readiness to innovate   - **0:28:18 – 0:32:24** – Early roots of his father's connection to Gedolim (Gerrer Rebbe, Imrei Emes); later relationships with Gedolim and Rebbes (Stipler, R' Shach, Satmar, Klausenburger, etc.)   - **0:32:24 – 0:36:24** – Stories illustrating kavod from Rebbes (“Malach Refael goes with Dr. Adler”), and equal importance of all patients; how he handled treating Gedolim without intimidation   - **0:36:24 – 0:40:21** – Lessons Dr. Yossi learned: time use, achrayus (responsibility), integrating halacha and derech eretz into medicine; a few character-defining stories   - **0:40:21 – 0:44:04** – Role of a frum doctor today: giving clear medical facts for Rabbanim, especially in end-of-life, surgery, fasting, and shidduch situations; why doctor ≠ posek   - **0:44:04 – 0:49:05** – Community health issues:   - Vaccine hesitancy and mistrust of authorities     - Halachic support for following broadly accepted medical guidance     - SIDS reduction through “back to sleep” and risk of complacency   - **0:49:05 – 0:53:59** – Discussion on modern weight-loss medications (semaglutide, tirzepatide): when benefits outweigh risks (severe obesity) vs mainly cosmetic use   - **0:53:59 – 0:56:51** – Google and patient information: opportunities and dangers; importance of joint doctor–patient interpretation rather than self-treatment   - **0:56:51 – 0:57:40** – Rabbi Tatz introduction, playful comment about trying to “one up” Rabbi Hirsch with an unknown medical figure   - **0:57:40 – 0:59:37** – Background of Dr. Cooney (Mikhail Kohn): Jewish origins in Prussia, medical studies, interest in premature infants and early incubators   - **0:59:37 – 1:03:10** – Move to America; transformation into “Dr. Cooney”; sideshow incubator exhibits at fairs and Coney Island; hospitals giving up on babies, parents bringing infants in shoeboxes; high survival rates   - **1:03:10 – 1:05:00** – Framing ethical and halachic questions: doing something risky to save life; early incubators as both spectacle and lifesaving tool   - **1:05:00 – 1:08:32** – Classic halachic scenario: terminal/“Ha'ei Sha'ah” patient offered high-risk procedure with chance of cure vs certain shorter-term survival; introduction to “Lo chosheshin lechayei sha'ah” in this context   - **1:08:32 – 1:12:08** – Majority view:     - If chance of success >50%, patient *should* generally accept.     - If

In this episode, Dr. Baron sits down with Dr. Lauren Hofstatter, a clinical therapist often known as "the orthodox therapist," to unpack the complex realities of how Jewish couples navigate intimacy, marriage, and fertility through a traditional lens while protecting the privacy of their relationships. Dr. Hofstatter shares her insights from her popular, anonymous social media platform where community members submit questions from marital discord to sexual health concerns that they feel unable to ask anywhere else. She discusses the unique intersection between clinical training and strict Torah values. She emphasizes the necessity of bridging patients to trusted rabbis for Halachic queries, and the emotional weight that comes with being a support to others . The conversation explores the heavy emotional toll of fertility struggles on partnerships. From the hazards of over-sharing your marriage with casual friends to the pain of public pregnancy announcements, this episode offers an honest look at how to protect your relationship when community expectations become overwhelming. About Dr. Lauren Hofstatter, LMHC, PhD : Dr Lauren Hofstatter, LMHC, PhD, is a licensed mental health counselor based in Boca Raton, Florida, specializing in work with adult women and couples within the Orthodox Jewish community. She integrates clinical expertise in sex therapy with a deep understanding of Torah values, offering culturally sensitive support around intimacy, relationships, anxiety, trauma, and sexual health. Lauren is the founder of The Orthodox Therapist and is passionate about providing clear, modest, and shame-reducing education that promotes emotional connection and marital well-being. Connect with Dr. Lauren Hofstatter, LMHC, PhD : Instagram‍ Email‍ ‍Website Connect with us: Website‍ ‍Instagram - send us a message YouTube‍ ‍Facebook‍ ‍TikTok‍ ‍LinkedIn‍ ‍

It's 9:04 in New York and we finally reached boss level. Today's guest is Dan Senor of the “Call Me Back” podcast, bestselling co-author of “Start-Up Nation” and “The Genius of Israel”, and all-around great guy.We chain him to the chair for a good 90 minutes for our version of a serious interview, which included the Halachic case for rooting for the New York Knicks, who despises Brad Lander more, Dan or Yael (close call), why people who hate Israel usually also hate America, what Dan's favorite conspiracy theory is, and what's the one question Dan's wife never wants to hear, ever again.If you enjoyed this episode please consider rating and reviewing us on Apple Podcasts and Spotify and leaving a comment. It really helps us grow! And watch this episode on Youtube as well later today! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit askajew.substack.com/subscribe

It is customary to sit during the recitation of the Korbanot – despite the fact that the Kohanim were required to stand while performing the service in the Bet Ha'mikdash. Some Poskim required one to stand during the recitation of the section of the Korbanot, since it is recited in lieu of the offering of the sacrifices, and the service in the Bet Ha'mikdash would be invalid if it was performed seated. Common practice, however, does not follow this opinion. It is documented that the great Rabbis of Jerusalem several generations ago would sit during this recitation. Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868), in his work Lev Haim, inferred from earlier sources that although it is accepted to sit during the recitation of Korbanot, it is commendable to stand. However, if everyone in the synagogue is seated, and the person would clearly stand out if he made a point of standing up, then he should not stand, as this would constitute Yuhara (a display of arrogance). If the person is widely recognized as an especially righteous individual, and it would be expected for him to follow Halachic stringencies, then he may stand. Likewise, if a person's standing would not necessarily be perceived as the observance of a stringency, then this would not constitute Yuhara and he may stand if he wishes. It goes without saying that if one prays privately, or after the congregation completed the public prayer service, and he wishes to follow this stringency, he certainly may.

The Rebbe addresses questions regarding his commentary on the Haggadah, clarifying issues about the term Shabbat HaGadol, interpretations of phrases in the Haggadah, distinctions in Rambam's language, and halachic nuances about circumcision and Pesach practices. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/igroskodesh/011/009/3566

Is it permissible to recite the Korbanot section – which discusses the various sacrifices – very early in the morning, before sunrise? On Shabuot morning, for example, when it is customary to pray early such that the Amida is recited right at sunrise, the Korbanot section is recited earlier, before sunrise. And sometimes, especially in the winter, it happens that a person needs to leave before sunrise for a meeting, or to catch a flight. May the Korbanot be recited before sunrise, when it is still dark? One potential issue is the Kabbalistic practice to refrain from reading or studying Tanach at night. According to the teachings of Kabbalah, verses from the Tanach should not be read at night, and the night is the time for the study only of Torah She'be'al Peh (the oral tradition), such as Gemara, Halacha, and so on. Secondly, since we read the section of Korbanot in lieu of the offering of these sacrifices in the Bet Ha'mikdash, and sacrifices could be offered only during the daytime hours, perhaps one must wait until sunrise before reciting the Tamid. The Halacha is that one must recite the Korbanot no earlier than Alot Ha'shahar – daybreak, the moment when the sun's rays first appear on the eastern sky – which occurs 72 Halachic minutes before sunrise (the moment when the sun itself appears on the eastern sky). Since it was after Alot Ha'shahar that the service began in the Bet Ha'mikdash, the Korbanot may be recited at this time – even before sunrise – but no earlier. This is the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, and in Bet Yosef, he brings as the source of this Halacha a comment by the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327) that the section of the Tamid should be recited no earlier than Alot Ha'shahar. The Bet Yosef deduced that all the Korbanot, too, must be recited only after Alot Ha'shahar, as the sacrifices could not be offered any earlier than that point. However, the Peri Megadim (Rav Yosef Teomim, 1727-1792) writes that if one is unable to recite the Korbanot section after Alot Ha'shahar, he may do so even earlier. This is based on a ruling of the Tebuot Shor (Rav Alexander Sender Shor, Poland, 1673-1737), who added that in such a case, the person should not recite the customary prayer asking G-d to consider the recitation as the actual offering of the sacrifice. Since sacrifices may not be brought during the night, one cannot ask that his recitation be deemed the equivalent of the actual offering of the Korbanot when he recites this section at night. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) writes that although it is preferable to recite the Korbanot section after daybreak, it is acceptable when necessary to recite them earlier, even though the Korbanot cannot be brought during the night. He notes that we are credited with having offered the sacrifices by reciting and studying these portions of the Torah even though we are not in the Bet Ha'mikdash, and it is obviously forbidden to bring sacrifices anywhere besides the Bet Ha'mikdash. By the same token, it is acceptable to recite these sections even at times when sacrifices cannot be brought. The Leb Haim (Rav Haim Palachi, Turkey, 1788-1868) writes that one who cannot recite the Korbanot after Alot Ha'shahar may do earlier, but this would be considered simply as reading from the Torah, and not as the actual offering of the sacrifices. By contrast, the Mishna Berura rules that the Korbanot section may not be recited before Alot Ha'shahar. Those who cannot recite the Korbanot at the proper time may rely on the opinion that Alot Ha'shahar occurs 90 minutes before sunrise, rather than 72 minutes, giving them an additional 18 minutes. Summary: The Korbanot section of the morning prayer service must be recited no earlier than Alot Ha'shahar (daybreak), which occurs 72 Halachic minutes before sunrise. When necessary, one may follow the position that Alot Ha'shahar occurs 90 minutes before sunrise, and recite Korbanot at that time. If one cannot recite Korbanot even at that point, then according to some Poskim, he may recite it earlier.

The 1800s was an era when medicine sat at the crossroads of science, ruses and discoveries. New vaccines and medical impostors competed for public trust. People broke with tradition and created a new landscape. Mordecai Wolff Haffkine Haffkine stood out as an almost legendary figure. A Jewish bacteriologist, he developed and tested vaccines against cholera and bubonic plague, putting his life repeatedly at risk and fighting to save the lives of millions of people. Whereas Dr. Samuel Solomon showed how skilful wording and suggestion could build a reputation and a fortune. Although his contribution to public service is rather unknown, Liverpool remembers him to this day - on par with some of their other legends. We also look at what happens when medicine and surgery produce unexpected outcomes. What are the halachic ramifications? And how did the BBC cover a re-election campaign in Kentucky?   Timestamps: - 0:00:00–0:00:31 — Opening advertisement read (Dr. Solomon). - 0:00:31–0:03:47 — Hosts intro: series overview and upcoming guests. - 0:03:47–0:08:36 — Start of Mordechai Wolf Hafkin biography (education, expulsion, Pasteur Institute). - 0:08:36–0:12:33 — Hafkin self‑inoculates and early cholera vaccine work. - 0:12:33–0:15:43 — Hafkin's large vaccination campaigns in India; plague vaccine development. - 0:15:43–0:23:00 — Political opposition, 1902 tetanus deaths, inquiry and character attack. - 0:23:00–0:31:44 — Scientific exoneration, later life, return to Orthodoxy, philanthropy, death (1930). - 0:31:44–0:45:06 — Dr. Samuel Solomon biography: origins, balm of Gilead, marketing, bought MD. - 0:45:06–0:46:44 — Solomon's social status, legacy, and mixed moral assessment. - 0:46:44–0:53:33 — Halachic case: wrong‑kidney removal that saved the patient; discussion of intent vs. outcome and liability. - 0:53:33–0:58:34 — Media segment: critique of BBC coverage of Thomas Massie's election loss. - 0:58:34 — Episode close; call for listener feedback (podcast@jle.org.uk) and preview of part 2.

201

Divergent susceptibilities of earthenware and other vessels to ritual impurity • Divergent susceptibilities of wooden and metal vessels to ritual impurity • The controversy about boneware • Laws of tithing sweet and bitter almonds • Halachic treatment of an undivided inheritance estate

In this class Rabbi Breitowitz discusses Halachic details of inheritance, and how a Halachically valid will is written.

The Rebbe examines the inheritance of Eretz Yisrael, addressing how it was divided among the tribes and the implications for different generations. He discusses whether halachic requirements or spiritual principles guide this division, highlighting the interconnectedness of spiritual and physical inheritances. https://www.torahrecordings.com/likutei-sichos/008/009_002

Every community eventually faces moments of confusion and controversy. Recently, in Montreal, Kashrut has become one of those moments. And beneath the details, a deeper question emerges: who should we rely on when it comes to Kosher? Social media creates the illusion that everyone is an expert, and that every issue must be debated publicly. It may give us information - but not necessarily judgment, responsibility, or accountability. Frequently, it leads not to clarity, but to confusion and division. Jewish communities rely on recognized systems of Kashrut supervision - agencies built on expertise and normative Halachic standards. In Montreal that includes MK, KSR, Belz, and others such as COR, OU, OK, and Star-K. We may not understand every decision, and we may not agree with every policy, but without expert oversight, keeping Kosher becomes impossible. And what is at stake is not only what we eat. Keeping Kosher is one of the ways we live as Jews, and maintain a daily connection to something larger than ourselves. So especially in moments like this, the question is not: what did I read online? The question is: who do we rely on, and what kind of community do we want to be? Enjoy your Kosher cheesecake this Shavuot. 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.

The Rebbe addresses the question of when Motzaei Shabbos begins, noting that waiting times vary by location and season. He references local custom in New York and emphasizes balancing stringency with communal needs, highlighting the importance of Shabbos. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/igroskodesh/017/008/6272

This class explores the unique halachic status of Isru Chag Shavuos, its connection to festival offerings, and the differences in observance between Eretz Yisrael and Chutz La'aretz. The Rebbe explains why certain stringencies apply specifically to Shavuos and how they impact practical observance. https://www.torahrecordings.com/classes/by_month/010_sivan/Shavuot_007

This class explores the timeline of Matan Torah as presented in Chumash and Gemara, focusing on the sequence of events in Parshas Yisro and the discussion in Meseches Shabbos. It examines differing opinions on the exact date and how halacha determines when we celebrate Shavuos. https://www.torahrecordings.com/classes/by_month/010_sivan/Shavuot_009

The Gemara in Masechet Berachot (3a) teaches that the night is divided into three periods, and at the points when one period leads to the other, Hashem "roars like a lion," bemoaning the fact that our sins compelled him to destroy the Bet Ha'mikdash. The Bet Yosef brings from earlier sources that it is proper to join Hashem at those moments and lament the destruction of the Bet Ha'mikdash. The Kabbalists, however, determined that this should be done at the point of Hasot, halachic midnight. This is the time best suited to mourn the destruction of the Bet Ha'mikdash, the Jewish People's dispersion, and the death of the righteous Sadikim. The Kabbalists taught that it is especially important not to sleep at the moment of Hasot, as this brings upon the person a certain level of impurity. For many generations, the practice of Tikkun Hasot – reciting a special prayer mourning the destruction of the Bet Ha'mikdash at Hasot – was observed by the Sadikim. There are accounts of how the synagogue in Halab (Aleppo, Syria) would be filled at Hasot by men reciting Tikkun Hasot and then remaining to learn Torah. Tikkun Hasot is normally recited in a manner reflecting mourning – on the floor, without shoes, wearing sackcloth, with ashes on one's head, and crying loudly. Hacham Baruch Ben-Haim shared with us his memories of his father reciting Tikkun Hasot while sitting on the floor. People in our community remember seeing Hacham Shaul Kassin crying on the floor while reciting Tikkun Hasot. I had the opportunity to join the special Thursday night Tikkun Hasot service led by Rav Benayahu Shmueli in Jerusalem, near the Temple Mount, in close proximity to the site of the Kodesh Ha'kodashim (the inner sanctum of the Bet Ha'mikdash). For two hours, the small group of Rabbis sit on the floor, weep, and sing, beseeching Hashem to rebuild the Bet Ha'mikdash. Although Tikkun Hasot is not required as a strict Halachic obligation, Hacham Ovadia Yosef writes that one who is in any event awake shortly before Hasot should certainly remain awake a bit longer in order to recite Tikkun Hasot. It should be noted the during the winter months, Hasot is around 11:30-11:45pm, which is not very late for many people, and so it is certainly worthwhile for those who are awake at that time to recite this special prayer. Halachic Hasot is defined as the midway point between sunset and sunrise. Some claimed that Hacham Ovadia Yosef permitted during Elul reciting Selihot – which may not be recited prior to Hasot – after the time of Hasot in Jerusalem, wherever one is located. This would mean that in New York, for example, it would be permissible to recite Selihot already in the late afternoon hours. However, Rav Yisrael Bitan writes that these reports are unreliable. Nevertheless, with regard to Tikkun Hasot, Rav Bitan cites Hacham David Yosef as ruling in Halacha Berura that there is room to allow reciting Tikkun Hasot shortly before midnight in areas west of Eretz Yisrael. There is a view among the Poskim that permits reciting Tikkun Hasot even before Hasot, and so although we do not follow this opinion, we can combine this lenient ruling with the possibility that the time of Hasot depends on the moment of Hasot in Jerusalem. Since in any event Tikkun Hasot is not required as a strict Halachic obligation, there is room to rely on these two lenient positions to permit reciting Tikkun Hasot even before halachic midnight, if it is after Hasot in Jerusalem.

Chapter Titles with Timestamps: * 00:00 - Evening Halachic Times & Omer Count * 00:46 - Weather Outlook: Tonight & Coming Days * 01:00 - Lake Fog Risk & Thunderstorm Chances * 01:30 - Thursday's Beautiful Forecast * 01:50 - Weekend Weather & Potential Severe Storms * 02:15 - General Storm Motion & Closing RemarksBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/weather-with-enthusiasm--4911017/support.This episode includes AI-generated content.

The Shulhan Aruch, the authoritative code of Halacha, begins with the following instruction: "Yitgaber Ka'ari La'amod Ba'boker La'abodat Bor'o" – "One shall strengthen himself like a lion to arise in the morning for the service of his Creator." The fact that this Halacha opens the Shulhan Aruch shows us that waking early in the morning is a fundamental part of our religious responsibilities. In fact, this quality is what impressed Bilam when he attempted to place a curse upon Beneh Yisrael, compelling him to bless them, instead, as he exclaimed, "Hen Am Ke'labi Yakum" – "Behold, a nation that rises like a lion" (Bamidbar 23:24). Rashi explains this as a reference to the way Beneh Yisrael rise in the morning and immediately "pounce" to perform Misvot, putting on Tallit and Tefillin, and praying. Indeed, Rashi (Shemot 19:3) brings from the Midrash that each time Moshe Rabbenu climbed to the top of Mount Sinai, he did so early in the morning – "Kol Aliyotav Be'hashkama Hayu." Some explain this to mean that every spiritual "ascent" requires "Hashkama" – rising early. The path to spiritual greatness begins with waking up early in the morning. Abraham Abinu is likewise described on several occasions as rising early in the morning, because this is how he became great – by beginning his day early. Rav Eliyahu Lopian (1876-1970) was known for rising early every morning. When he was asked about this practice, he said that when he leaves this world, and will stand before the Heavenly Tribunal, he will be judged regarding his compliance with the Shulhan Aruch. He wanted to at least "pass" the first question – whether he complied with the Shulhan Aruch's very first ruling, that one should make an effort to get up early in the morning. If a businessman scheduled an early morning meeting with a prospective customer, and the potential deal was worth a million dollars, there is no question that he would be up at the crack of dawn and arrive early so he could be fully prepared with his sales pitch. The money at stake motivates the businessman to arise early. If we knew that the Misvot we perform each morning are worth many times more than any amount of money, bringing us eternal rewards, we would never think to sleep late. We would eagerly get out of bed and rush to perform the Misvot energetically and enthusiastically, as early as we could. People want to stay in bed and sleep late only if they don't have anything to wake up for. Once we acknowledge the inestimable value and worth of each and every Misva, we realize how much we have to do, and we then excitedly get out of bed early in the morning to get started. Rising early is also a crucial component of our ongoing struggle against the Yeser Ha'ra (evil inclination). The Sha'reh Tefila comments that just as when an army goes out to war, the first battle is the most important one because it sets the tempo and momentum for the rest of the war, our first battle with the Yeser Ha'ra each day similarly sets the tone for the rest of the daily "war" against it. The Yeser Ha'ra tries to convince us to remain in bed, and if we win this struggle and get up early, then we are in a better position to emerge victorious in our subsequent struggles with the Yeser Ha'ra throughout the day. Waking up early, then, helps us overcome all spiritual challenges that we encounter. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) cites his grandfather, the Hesed Le'Abraham (Rav Abraham Azulai, Hebron, d. 1643), as finding an allusion to this concept in the Gemara's famous teaching, "Ha'ba Le'horgecha, Hashkem Le'horgo" – "He who comes to kill you, arise to kill him." On the simple level, this means that one is allowed to kill a person who seeks to kill him. On a deeper level, however, "He who comes to kill you" refers to the Yeser Ha'ra, which seeks to spiritually kill us by leading us to sin. The Gemara teaches us, "Hashkem Le'horgo" – that we should arise early in the morning in order to defeat the Yeser Ha'ra. The way we eliminate our evil inclination is by waking early. This is alluded to also in G-d's pronouncement to the snake after it lured Adam and Hava to sin in Gan Eden: "Hu Yeshufcha Rosh, Ve'ata Teshufenu Akeb" (Bereshit 3:15). Literally, this means that human beings will kill the snake by stomping on its head, whereas the snake can strike the human being only by biting its foot. Additionally, however, "Hu Yeshufcha Rosh" means that the way we defeat the Yeser Ha'ra – which is symbolized by the snake – is through "Rosh," by waking up at the "head," or beginning, of the day. Conversely, the snake can defeat a person through "Akeb," the "heel," by convincing him to oversleep and get a late start to the day. The Torah says that when Abraham Abinu set out to fulfill the command of Akedat Yishak, he arose early in the morning and saddled his donkey ("Va'yashkem Abraham Ba'boker Va'yahavosh Et Hamoro" – Bereshit 22:3). The word "Hamor" ("donkey") is often interpreted as an allusion to "Homriyut," physicality, the animalistic tendencies within every person. Abraham succeeded in "saddling" and restraining his physical qualities by rising early in the morning. The Midrash comments that this donkey was the same donkey on which Moshe Rabbenu rode when he journeyed from Midyan to Egypt, and Mashiah will ride this same donkey when it arrives to redeem the Jewish People. The deeper meaning of the Midrash is that all great Sadikim – like Moshe Rabbenu and Mashiah – succeed in overcoming their physical tendencies by rising early in the morning, like Abraham Abinu did. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in Parashat Vayishlah, writes that the first half of the night – from nightfall to midnight – is called "Layil," whereas the period from midnight until sunrise is called "Layla" – the word "Layil" with the letter Heh added. This letter Heh signifies a higher level, indicating that this is a time of great spiritual potential. Accordingly, the Ben Ish Hai writes, the great Sadikim would go to sleep right at nightfall and then rise at Hasot to learn Torah until the early morning. The Ben Ish Hai notes that the letters of the word "Layla" (Lamed, Yod, Lamed, Heh) are the first letters of the words "Ha'ba Le'horgecha Yashkim Le'horgo" – alluding to the aforementioned teaching that the way we defeat and eliminate the Yeser Ha'ra is by rising early, and being awake during the "Layla," the second part of the night. Although nowadays we are not able to keep to this schedule, nevertheless, this demonstrates for us the importance of rising early in the morning. The Sages teach, "Kol Hat'halot Kashot" – "All beginnings are difficult," which means simply that any new undertaking is difficult at the outset, when a person gets started. However, Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868) explained that this refers to the morning, the beginning of the day. Getting out of bed in the morning is difficult, but this is a challenge we must all work to overcome. Another reason to start the day early is that whenever we begin something new, it is critically important to start strong, as this builds a sturdy foundation for the rest of the undertaking. If the foundation of a structure is done improperly, the rest of the building will not be safe. Likewise, the beginning of any new project must be strong and sturdy for it to succeed. The Jewish Nation has succeeded because we are built on the strong foundation of our Abot (patriarchs) and Imahot (matriarchs), righteous men and women who laid the spiritual groundwork for Am Yisrael. This is true also of a new day – the stronger we start our day, the more likely we are to have an accomplished and successful day. We find numerous examples of this concept in our sources. Elisha Ben Abuya was an outstanding scholar, a Tanna, and the mentor of the great Rabbi Meir, but he ultimately lost his way and became a heretic, committing grievous sins such as desecrating Shabbat and even Yom Kippur. Different stories are told to explain how and why Elisha Ben Abuya abandoned the path of Torah observance. One story, told in the Talmud Yerushalmi, is that when he was a young child, his father showed him the great Sages of Israel, how their Torah study brought the fire of the Shechina into the home, and he said, "If you learn Torah, you can do amazing things like these Rabbis!" Since as a youngster Elisha was taught the message that he should learn Torah for self-serving motives, and not out of a sincere desire to serve Hashem, his educational foundations were shaky, and this allowed him to be led astray as an adult. Likewise, the Midrash comments that Noah was sharply reprimanded for planting a vineyard right after exiting the ark following the flood. As he set out to rebuild the earth, he should have begun with something more significant and meaningful than producing wine. The process was started on the wrong foot, as it were, on faulty foundations, and so Noah was criticized. This idea has also been developed in the context of the Hanukah story. As we know, the Gemara tells that the Hashmonaim, after driving the Greeks from Jerusalem, found only a small jug of pure oil with which to kindle the Menorah in the Bet Ha'mikdash, and this small quantity of oil miraculously sufficed for eight nights. The Peneh Yehoshua (Rav Yaakob Yehoshua Falk, Germany, 1680-1756) raises the question of why the Hashmonaim did not rely on the Halacha which permits performing the service in the Mikdash in a state of impurity if the entire nation is in such a state ("Tum'a Hutra Be'sibur"). After the Greeks had defiled the Bet Ha'mikdash, this leniency was certainly relevant and applicable, seemingly obviating the need to use specifically pure oil. The Peneh Yehoshua answered that the Hashmonaim did not wish to rely on Halachic leniencies as they inaugurated the Bet Ha'mikdash anew. They were now beginning a new chapter, restoring the service in the Bet Ha'mikdash after many years during which it could not be performed, and so they found it necessary to perform the service at the very highest standards, in order to set the tone for the years to come. They therefore refused to rely on the leniency of kindling the Menorah with impure oil. King Shlomo teaches in Kohelet (2:14), "He'hacham Enav Be'rosho" – "The wise man, his eyes are upon his head." The plain meaning of this verse is that a wise person looks at the potential outcome of his actions, and assesses potential risks before acting. Additionally, however, this verse has been understood to mean that a wise person focuses on the "head," on the beginning of his day, to ensure to start the day the right way, as this impacts the rest of the day. It is told that when Rav Shmuel Salant (1816-1909), the renowned Rabbi of Jerusalem, grew old, he decided to bring a Rabbi from Europe to assume his position, and the Rabbi chosen was the Aderet (Rav Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim, 1843-1905). Immediately upon the Aderet's arrival, Rav Salant brought him to officiate at a wedding to show the community their new leader. The Aderet was weary from the long, grueling trip, and so when the time came to recite the Beracha over the wine under the Huppa, he mistakenly recited "She'ha'kol" instead of "Ha'gefen." He immediately corrected himself, and recited "Ha'gefen." Afterward, people spoke about the Aderet with disdain, charging that he was ignorant of Halacha. It is well-known that although the proper blessing over wine is, of course, "Ha'gefen," one who mistakenly recited "She'ha'kol" over wine has fulfilled his obligation and does not then recite "Ha'gefen." There were those who claimed that the Aderet was unfit to serve as a Rabbinic leader, as he was unfamiliar with this simple Halacha. The Aderet explained that he certainly knew this Halacha, but he nevertheless recited "Ha'gefen" because he was reciting the blessing over the wine not only for himself, but also on behalf of the Hatan (groom), who was standing under the Huppa with his bride, prepared to begin their new life together. This new beginning, the Aderet explained, could not be built on a shaky foundation, using Halachic leniencies. It was important for the proper Beracha to be recited, even if the wrong Beracha would normally suffice after the fact, so that the marriage would begin on a strong foundation. While as a practical matter, one could question this line of reasoning, the basic concept is an important one – whenever we start something new, we must strive to begin as strongly as possible. We must therefore try hard to begin each day the right way, by waking early in the morning with energy and enthusiasm, ready to serve our Creator.

The Torah in Parashat Shemini tells the tragic story of Nadab and Abihu – two of Aharon's sons, who perished on the very first day they began serving as Kohanim in the Mishkan. After a special series of sacrifices were offered, with Aharon's sons performing the service for the first time, a fire descended from the heavens onto the altar and consumed the sacrifices, signalling the arrival of the Shechina (divine presence) into the Mishkan. Thereafter, Nadab and Abihu brought an incense offering, whereupon a fire came and consumed them. Rashi (10:2) brings different opinions as to the precise sin committed by Aharon's sons. One view – which appears in the Gemara (Erubin 63a) – is that of Rabbi Eliezer, who explains that "Horu Halacha Bi'fneh Moshe Rabban" – Nadab and Abihu were guilty of determining the Halacha without consulting with their Rabbi, Moshe. They reasoned that although a supernatural fire came down onto the altar from the heavens, there was nevertheless a requirement for the Kohanim to kindle a fire of their own on the altar, and this is the reason why they brought their offering. In truth, this conclusion was correct; there was, in fact, such a requirement. Nevertheless, Nadab and Abihu committed a grave offense by acting independently on their line of reasoning without first receiving guidance from Moshe. In Moshe's presence, they did not have the authority to establish Halachic norms on their own. Therefore, although their reasoning was entirely correct, they were guilty of a grievous sin in that they did not submit to Moshe Rabbenu's authority. The Lebush Ha'ora (Rav Mordechai Yoffe, c. 1530-1612) noted that Rabbi Eliezer's understanding of this episode is rooted in a careful reading of the text. In telling of Nadab and Abihu's offering, the Torah writes that they offered an "Esh Zara Asher Lo Siva Otam" – "a foreign fire which He did not command them." If the problem with the Nadab and Abihu's act was the offering itself, then the Torah should have simply stated that they brought an "Esh Zara" – an offering that was foreign, that was unwarranted and hence forbidden. But the Torah added "Asher Lo Siva Otam" – that Nadab and Abihu did not receive the command to bring this offering, suggesting that this was the essence of their sin. Hashem had taught Moshe the rule that the Kohanim were to produce their own fire on the altar, but this information had not yet been communicated to Aharon's sons. Moshe had been commanded to place fire on the altar – but Nadab and Abihu's hadn't. And thus the Torah emphasizes that this was an offering about which Moshe was commanded, but they weren't – and they were therefore punished for acting independently. This tragedy presents us with a crucial lesson in humility. Namely, even when we are confident that we are correct, we must still consult with those wiser and more knowledgeable than us. We must have the humility to recognize our limits, to realize that even things which seem obvious and intuitive to us might not necessarily be correct. We need to acknowledge that there are people with greater knowledge and wisdom whose advice is valuable and even indispensable. We should never feel too confident to ask, to seek guidance, to double check, to consult, to request advice. Even when we are certain, we must humbly question our conclusion and receive instruction and insight from those who know more than we do.

Rabbi Moshe Kurtz serves as the Rabbi of Congregation Sons of Israel in Allentown, PA. He is the author of Meoros Moshe (Aleh Zayis, 2025), a Pirkei Avot anthology of scholarship and stories about HaGaon HaRav Moshe Feinstein zt”l. Rabbi Kurtz writes about contemporary and Halachic issues in forums such as the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society (RJJ Journal), OUTorah, The Lehrhaus, Torah Musings, and Jewsih Action. He hosts the the As I Walk Through the Valley podcast, and is currently working on writing a book based on unpacking the Iggerot. Gems:Education is an area of Halacha that is very important that nobody asks questions about.Never give up on a child!When there is a child who is disturbing the class, remove him from the class and pair him with an older student, if possible.Jewish education is not just about giving over information, and it also can't just be experiential. Jewish education needs to be conveyed through a Rebbe/Talmid relationship, this is how the mesorah is passed down.There needs to be respect for Rebbes.Learning Torah and Jewish education needs to be first and foremost, and everything else revolves around it.Educators must exude that the Torah is our life and length of our days, we must feel it deeply that we live for.Is the Torah driving our agenda, and are we being that example to our students?Parents have an obligation to educate their chilren.Though keeping Torah and Mitzvot are hard, it shouldn't be a question whether parents are going to observe them, and children pick this up.What's the message we're telling our children?Impress upon children the importance of being an honest, upright Jew.There are certain things we do even when we don't feel like it, or don't like to do it.What is the will of Hashem? *Rabbi Daniel Korobkin*Joanna PowersParenting On PurposeThis course will help you better understand your child and build a deeper connection.AmazonWe receive a small commission for any items purchased through my Amazon link.TikvahTikvah focuses on Classical Jewish Education.Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.Support the show

Have any questions, insights, or feedback? Send me a text!Length: 1 hour 50 minutesSynopsis: This week (3/19/26), in our Thursday night Machshavah Lab series for women, we continued the topic we embarked on the week before. First, we revised our understanding of the Rambam's approach and my "Pillow Theory." Then we answered all the questions we raised last time. We then learned through a perek of Rav Kook's Le-Nevukhei ha-Dor, in which he spells out two foundations of the need to be meticulous in halacha. We concluded with a halacha in the Rambam which suggests that he would agree with the first of Rav Kook's foundations, if not the second as well. -----מקורות:רמב"ם - מורה הנבוכים ג:כו, מג, מו, מחרב קוק - לנבוכי הדור פרק ט"Rav Kook's Guide for Today's Perplexed," translated by R. Aryeh Sklarרמב"ם - משנה תורה: ספר קדושה, הלכות שחיטה יד:טז-----This week's Torah content is sponsored by Seth Speiser, in honor of the yahrzeit of his father, Rabbi George Speiser (Rav Yosef ben Dovid). Rabbi Speiser was a kind and gentle soul as well as an Intellectual and a scholar. He received smicha from Rav Hutner at Chaim Berlin. His love for teaching and making puns was only outweighed by his love of family.-----If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.-----Substack: rabbischneeweiss.substack.com/YU Torah: yutorah.org/teachers/Rabbi-Matt-SchneeweissPatreon: patreon.com/rabbischneeweissYouTube Channel: youtube.com/rabbischneeweissInstagram: instagram.com/rabbischneeweiss/"The Stoic Jew" Podcast: thestoicjew.buzzsprout.com"Machshavah Lab" Podcast: machshavahlab.buzzsprout.com"The Mishlei Podcast": mishlei.buzzsprout.com"Rambam Bekius" Podcast: rambambekius.buzzsprout.com"The Tefilah Podcast": tefilah.buzzsprout.comOld Blog: kolhaseridim.blogspot.com/WhatsApp Content Hub (where I post all my content and announce my public classes): https://chat.whatsapp.com/GEB1EPIAarsELfHWuI2k0HAmazon Wishlist: amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/Y72CSP86S24W?ref_=wl_sharel

The Gemara posits the principle that "Yisrael Af Al Pi She'hata Yisrael Hu" – a Jew does not lose his status as a Jew even after he sins. As a general rule, then, a Jew who violates Torah law is nevertheless considered a full-fledged Jew in all respects. There are, however, a number of exceptions. One is a person who commits sins 'Le'ha'ch'is" – with the specific intention to anger G-d. If a person not only transgresses the Torah, but has decided to spitefully reject G-d, and he thus commits Torah transgressions out of anger and resentment – and not due to convenience, for money, or due a lack of self-discipline – then he forfeits his status as a Jew. Such a person, therefore, cannot be counted toward a Minyan. (A fascinating story is told of Rav Levi Yishak of Berditchev, who once saw a Jewish fellow whom he knew eating pork, and he wished him, "Bon Appetit," that he should enjoy it. He explained to his students that this individual suffered from a certain condition that resulted in pain in his stomach when he ate pork, but he nevertheless ate it out of hostility toward religion. Rav Levi Yishak extended to him the wish that he should eat it for the pleasure that it brings, and not out of resentment, so that he would at least retain his status as a Jew.) Another exception – which is far more common – is Shabbat desecration. Since Shabbat desecration is equated with idol-worship, a public Shabbat desecrator is, in certain respects, considered not Jewish. The Hafetz Haim explained this Halacha by way of an analogy to a person who walks by a store which is currently closed. If the sign is still up, then the person will likely assume that the store is still in business, and has closed only temporarily. Once, however, the sign has been taken down, the person will conclude that the store has closed permanently. The Torah refers to Shabbat as an "Ot," a "sign." As long as a person observes Shabbat, he demonstrates that he's "open for business," that he's still "in the game," as it were, even if in other ways he might falter. Therefore, a public Shabbat violator – in principle – is not considered a Jew with respect to certain Halachot, such as being counted toward a Minyan. This applies to public Shabbat violators regardless of the reason why they desecrate Shabbat – whether it's for ideological reasons, out of anger toward G-d, or because of convenience or an unwillingness to make the sacrifices that Shabbat observance requires. The Poskim dispute the question of how often one must publicly violate Shabbat to be disqualified from counting toward a Minyan. Some maintain that this disqualification applies only to habitual Shabbat violators, but others contend that even if a person publicly violated Shabbat just once, he cannot be counted toward a Minyan. This is the view accepted by Hacham Ovadia Yosef. It goes without saying that once a person has performed Teshuba and committed to Shabbat observance, he regains his status as a full-fledged Jew and may be counted. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that one becomes disqualified only by publicly committing an act that is forbidden on Shabbat by force of Torah law. This includes driving, cooking, writing, and carrying in a public domain. If, however, a person publicly commits acts which are forbidden on Shabbat only by force of Rabbinic enactment, he may be counted toward a Minyan. The act of Shabbat desecration must be committed publicly – meaning, in the presence of ten men, the violator included. The Mishna Berura ruled that the act does not need to have been committed publicly, as even if it becomes known to ten people, this qualifies as a "public" act. Hacham Ovadia, however, disagrees, and rules that a person is not considered a public Shabbat violator unless he committed a forbidden act that was seen by ten men at the same time. (Incidentally, these conditions apply also with regard to the prohibition against drinking wine handled by a public Shabbat violator (unless the wine has been previously boiled). This applies only to somebody who committed an act of Shabbat desecration in the presence of ten men.) Hacham Ovadia made a very significant exception to this Halacha, addressing the situation of generally G-d-fearing Jews who work on Shabbat. It was quite common in certain periods that Jews would come to the synagogue, recite Kiddush and eat a Shabbat meal, but then go to work, succumbing to the anxiety of otherwise being unable to support their families. Hacham Ovadia ruled that although such people act incorrectly, nevertheless, since in their eyes, they violate Shabbat under duress, they are not considered intentional Shabbat violators. Hence, they may be counted toward a Minyan (and wine which they handled remains permissible). Additionally, the Mishna Berura writes that if a person violates Shabbat in public, but is too embarrassed to do so in the presence of a Rabbi, then he is not considered a public Shabbat violator with respect to this Halacha. The fact that he still experiences shame shows that he recognizes the sanctity of Shabbat, and so he does not attain the status of a flagrant desecrator who may not be counted toward a Minyan. However, Hacham Ovadia clarified that this applies only if we are certain that this individual would not desecrate Shabbat in view of his Rabbi. Much has been written about whether and how these Halachot apply in our generation. In the case of a person who was raised without a religious education, there is a general consensus that we apply the rule of "Tinok She'nishba" (literally, "an infant who was taken captive"), which excuses from liability a sinner who was never taught about Halachic observance. If someone was not taught to observe Shabbat as Halacha requires, then he is not held accountable for his failure to do so. As such, he does not have the status of a flagrant Shabbat desecrator. Some extend this rule further, asserting that even if a person learned about Shabbat, he cannot be considered a Shabbat desecrator if he was not made aware of the severity of Shabbat. There are people who received some level of Jewish education but their training was not grounded in Halacha, and they were thus never taught about the various Shabbat prohibitions and how they constitute capital offenses. These people, too, might not be considered flagrant Shabbat desecrators. An even more drastic view was advanced by the Hazon Ish (Rav Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz, 1878-1952). He contended that a person does not attain the status of a public Shabbat desecrator unless he was reprimanded for violating Shabbat and then ignored the rebuke he received. Effective criticism is a difficult art, a skill which the vast majority of people do not have in our time. As such, the Hazon Ish wrote, violators can be assumed to not have ever received proper rebuke for their acts of desecration, and they therefore do not have the status of public Shabbat desecrators. This novel ruling of the Hazon Ish should seemingly allow any Shabbat violator to be counted toward a Minyan nowadays, given the assumption that proper rebuke was never administered. However, Rav Yisrael Bitan noted that one might question this conclusion, in light of the fact that technology has made knowledge about Torah law readily available to all, and, moreover, there are many Jews who were raised in Torah homes and received a proper religious education, and then decided to abandon halachic observance. It seems difficult to exclude such people from the category of intentional Shabbat desecrators. Rabbi Bitan therefore concludes that every community Rabbi must determine the policy for his congregation, given the different opinions that exist and different realities in each community. It must be emphasized that we speak here only of being counted toward the minimum quorum of ten men. By no means does Halacha disallow a Shabbat violator from entering a synagogue and participating in the Minyan. Personally, I went into the rabbinate specifically for such Jews, to help Jews grow in their observance, each on their level and in a way that suits them, irrespective of one's current level of commitment. Those who do not properly observe Shabbat should be at least as welcome in the synagogue as fully-observant Jews, if not more so. I am reminded of a story told by Hacham Baruch Ben-Haim of a person who once came to pray in Congregation Shaare Zion and was given an Aliya, and afterward, somebody else approached Hacham Baruch to object. He said that he knew for a fact that this individual who was given an Aliya regularly shaved with a razor – a strict Torah violation – and thus should not be given the honor of being called to the Torah. "Let me tell you a story," Hacham Baruch replied. "Many years ago, there was somebody who came to shul who was not at all serious about Halachic observance. We welcomed him very warmly, and gave him an Aliya. There were those who objected and were angry at me. But gradually, this fellow became more involved, attending prayers and classes, and building a relationship with me and other Rabbis. He ended up raising a fully observant home, and all his children are strictly observant. "As it so happens," the Hacham continued, "that man was your father. You would not be in the synagogue today if I had followed the policy you are advocating." This should be our attitude toward our fellow Jews who are not as observant as we would want. While there is some question about whether or not they may be counted toward the minimum required amount of ten men, and, as we saw, different opinions exist, there is no question about whether they should be warmly welcomed in our synagogues. Our institutions must be inviting for all Jews, regardless of their level of observance, so everyone can grow in a way and at a pace that is appropriate for them.

Have any questions, insights, or feedback? Send me a text!DISCLAIMER: I almost didn't post this shiur because it wasn't as clear as I hoped AND because we revised it in Part 2. I'm happy with Part 2, but I'm posting Part 1 for the sake of thoroughness and transparency. Just know that if you listen to it, you should NOT expect the level of clarity that I typically aim for.Length: 1 hour 47 minutesSynopsis: This week (3/12/26), in our Thursday night Machshavah Lab series for women, we took up a question I've wanted to address for a while: How should we relate to arbitrary halachic details? Of course, this would entail first taking up the question: ARE there arbitrary halachic details? According to the Rambam, the answer is: yes. The plan was to learn through the Rambam's treatment of this topic in Moreh ha'Nevuchim 3:26, through my own idiosyncratic lens, which I refer to as "Pillow Theory." We would then segue to a different guide for the perplexed: Rav Kook's Linevukhei ha-Dor. However, we ended up spending all of Part 1 on the Rambam. I presented my current understanding of Pillow Theory, but we left questions unanswered. In Part 2, we came back, revised Pillow Theory, and answered all our questions before turning to Rav Kook.-----מקורות:רמב"ם - מורה הנבוכים ג:כו, מג, מחתלמוד ירושלמי פאה א:א:טזבראשית רבה מד:א-----This week's Torah content is sponsored by Seth Speiser, in honor of the yahrzeit of his father, Rabbi George Speiser (Rav Yosef ben Dovid). Rabbi Speiser was a kind and gentle soul as well as an Intellectual and a scholar. He received smicha from Rav Hutner at Chaim Berlin. His love for teaching and making puns was only outweighed by his love of family.-----If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.-----Substack: rabbischneeweiss.substack.com/YU Torah: yutorah.org/teachers/Rabbi-Matt-SchneeweissPatreon: patreon.com/rabbischneeweissYouTube Channel: youtube.com/rabbischneeweissInstagram: instagram.com/rabbischneeweiss/"The Stoic Jew" Podcast: thestoicjew.buzzsprout.com"The Mishlei Podcast": mishlei.buzzsprout.com"Rambam Bekius" Podcast: rambambekius.buzzsprout.com"The Tefilah Podcast": tefilah.buzzsprout.comOld Blog: kolhaseridim.blogspot.com/WhatsApp Content Hub (where I post all my content and announce my public classes): https://chat.whatsapp.com/GEB1EPIAarsELfHWuI2k0H

The Torah isolates the Issur of lighting a fire on Shabbos. Why is it singled out from all the other 39 Melachos? Halachic and Mussar ideas Chazal teach about this Mitzvah.Have a good Shabbos

 Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org  Rav Baruch FriedQuestion: One of the people who is considered by halacha to be unable to participate in commerce is a “cheresh”. I have a business partner who is deaf and hears through a cochlear implant. Does he have the status of a cheresh?Answer: Generally, this question is not so relevant because just like there is a takanah of Chazal that a child who understands commerce can engage in business transactions, so too, Chazal enacted that a cheresh who understands commerce can be involved in business. The one exception, however, is real estate. A true cheresh cannot engage in property transactions.If someone with a cochlear implant is involved with real estate, we would have to determine if he is considered a cheresh.Acharonim have long dealt with the question of someone who is technically a cheresh yet is obviously smart and acclimated. As a rule, they are hesitant to say definitively that such a person can ever have the status of a pikeach.In other areas of halacha, if someone cannot hear but he can speak, many Rishonim say that he is considered a pikeach according to halacha. Again, however, they say that real estate is an exception and he cannot engage in transactions involving property.Rav Moshe Feinstein has a teshuva about a person who can speak but cannot hear at all without the aid of a machine (similar to a cochlear implant). He says that such a person is in the category of a medaber v'aino shomea, he can speak but cannot hear, which renders him a regular bar daas for all matters with the exception of doing commerce with real estate.This means that even if the person understands real estate very well, he technically still has the status of a cheresh and he cannot sell or buy properties. Essentially, an apotropus would have to be appointed to manage his transactions on his behalf. The laws of who can and cannot be an apotropus are complex but if he has a business partner, that partner might become his de-facto executor and make deals for him.Even without an apotropus, if a cheresh does sell karkah, the deal is valid as long as no one protests. If the parties are worried that someone may protest at some point in the future and negate the deal, they should technically have an apotropus appointed to mitigate this concern. 

The Shulhan Aruch writes that one who recites Kaddish should bow at five points during the recitation: the first word, "Yitgadal"; "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba"; "Yitbarach"; "Berich Hu"; "Ve'imru Amen" after "Da'amiran Be'alma." Some have the custom to bow also while reciting "Ve'imru Amen" before "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba." A number of Poskim, including Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868) and the Kaf Ha'haim Sofer (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939), cite the Yad Aharon as ruling that one should now each time he says the word "Amen" during Kaddish. It is recorded (in the work Neveh Shalom) that this was the custom in Cairo, and this is the position taken by the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in Od Yosef Hai. By contrast, the Ish Masliah (Rav Masliah Mazuz, 1911-1971) claimed that this custom has no Halachic basis, and should not be followed. This is the opinion accepted by Hacham David Yosed, in Halacha Berura, writing that one should bow only at the five points mentioned by the Shulhan Aruch. In contrast to all these views, the Gaon of Vilna (Rav Eliyahu of Vilna, 1720-1797) ruled that one should not bow at all during Kaddish. The accepted custom among Sepharadim, however, is to bow at the five points mentioned by the Shulhan Aruch, and some bow also while reciting "Ve'imru Amen" before "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba," as mentioned. It is customary to turn to the sides when reciting the words "Be'hayechon U'b'yomechon." This is done as a sign of affection for the congregation, as these words express the wish that Hashem's Name should be glorified with the coming of Mashiah "in your lives and in your days" – during the lifetime of the members of the congregation. Summary: Different customs exist when it comes to bowing during the recitation of Kaddish. The accepted custom among Sepharadim is to bow at the five points mentioned by the Shulhan Aruch, and some bow also while reciting "Ve'imru Amen" before "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba."

There are those who have the practice to rise for Barechu, though this is not the generally accepted custom among Sepharadim. An exception is the recitation of Barechu on Friday night, when many Sepharadim are accustomed to standing, following the teachings of Kabbalah. Some have the custom to momentarily lift themselves off their seats when responding "Baruch Hashem Ha'meborach Le'olam Va'ed" to the Hazzan's declaration of Barechu. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes in his Od Yosef Hai that this was the common practice in Baghdad. He adds, however, that there seems to be no basis for such a practice in the Halachic sources. Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Israel, 1924-1998) opposed this custom, and ruled that one should simply remain seated without moving when responding to Barechu, without moving at all. He explained that it is improper to bow on occasions when there is no Halachic requirement to do so, as this undermines the significance of this gesture. Therefore, as there is no Halachic basis for bowing when responding to Barechu, this should not be done. Summary: Some have the custom to slightly lift their bodies off their seats when responding to Barechu, but some Poskim discourage this practice.

Sephardic practice allows one to remain seated during Kaddish, but if one had been standing when Kaddish begins, then he must remain standing. If somebody sees his fellow about to sit down during Kaddish, then he should remind him of the Halachic requirement to remain standing. Sometimes a person enters the synagogue in the middle of the prayer service, and, seeing that people are sitting, he goes to sit down in his seat, not realizing that the Hazzan is reciting Kaddish. One who sees his fellow about to make this mistake should remind him that he must stand. However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef writes that if one fears that this might embarrass his fellow, then he should not say anything. There is a minority view among the Poskim – that of the Pekudat Elazar – that one is required to remain standing during Kaddish only if the entire synagogue is standing. According to this view, if one enters the synagogue in the middle of the Kaddish, and the congregation is sitting, then he is allowed to sit. Although Halacha does not follow this opinion, it may be relied upon to avoid the risk of making one's fellow uncomfortable by pointing out his mistake. Therefore, if one has reason to fear that the person who is mistakenly sitting might feel slightly embarrassed, it is better to remain silent and not say anything. Summary: If a person who had been standing before Kaddish begins sitting down after Kaddish began, his fellow should point out to him that Halacha requires him to remain standing, unless this would make him uncomfortable, in which case it is preferable to remain silent.

Ashkenazic custom requires standing during Kaddish, whereas Sephardic practice allows sitting during Kaddish (unless one had been standing before Kaddish began). Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) writes that if a Sepharadi is praying in an Ashkenazic Minyan, he must abide by the Ashkenazic custom and stand during Kaddish. If he remains seated, Hacham Bension writes, this would violate the prohibition of "Lo Titgodedu," which forbids following divergent religious practices in the same place. Hacham Bension makes an exception in a case where there are others in the Minyan sitting during Kaddish, such as elderly congregants who have difficulty standing and are thus permitted to sit during Kaddish even according to Ashkenazic practice. Since there are already some people sitting, a Sepharadi is permitted to sit, as well. Hacham Ovadia Yosef disagreed. He argued that the law of "Lo Titgodedu" does not apply when the divergent practices involve a Minhag (custom), as opposed to a strict Halachic obligation. It is thus not relevant to the issue of sitting or standing during Kaddish, and so a Sepharadi is allowed to sit during Kaddish in an Ashkenazic Minyan. Nevertheless, Hacham Ovadia added, if the Sepharadi has reason to suspect that sitting would cause tension and controversy – which we must always try to avoid – then he should certainly stand in the interest of maintaining peaceful relations among Jews. Summary: A Sepharadi praying in an Ashkenazic Minyan is allowed to sit during Kaddish, despite the fact that Ashkenazic custom requires standing. If, however, he suspects that sitting would cause tension and strife, then he should follow the local custom and stand.

Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org 

Parashat Teruma begins with G-d's command, "Ve'yikhu Li Teruma" – that Beneh Yisrael should donate materials toward the construction of the Mishkan. Surprisingly, Hashem here commands that the people donate toward this project with the word "Ve'yikhu," which means "They shall take." Instead of saying that the people should give, that they should donate, Hashem commands them to "take" a donation. This highlights a basic truism about charity – that by giving, we receive. When we give charity, when we donate toward a worthy cause, we receive far more than we give. We lose nothing, and we gain an incalculable amount. The merits earned through charitable donations are worth far more, and are infinitely more secure, than any financial asset. The rewards are both inestimable and guaranteed. But this understanding of the word "Ve'yikhu" actually runs even deeper. The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin speaks of an exceptional case where a bride can be betrothed by giving, instead of receiving. The Halachic mechanism of Kiddushin, whereby a woman becomes formally betrothed to a man, requires the man to give the woman something of value. Of course, this is commonly done by giving the bride a ring. Normally, Kiddushin cannot be effectuated in the opposite manner, through the bride giving something to the groom. If the bride wishes to give the groom a gift, this must not be done as part of the Huppa ceremony, because it must be perfectly clear that the betrothal takes effect through the groom giving the ring to the bride. However, the Gemara establishes that if the groom is a distinguished person, such as a member of the royal court, then his bride can become betrothed to him through her giving him a gift. The reason, the Gemara explains, is that when an ordinary person gives a gift to a person of distinction, the giver derives great benefit by the recipient's acceptance of the gift. The satisfaction that comes from the distinguished person's consent to receive the gift outweighs the value of the gift. Therefore, if the groom is a man of distinction, the bride can become betrothed through the benefit she receives by the groom's acceptance of her gift, because by giving, the bride is actually receiving. This Halacha sheds new light on the command "Ve'yikhu Li Teruma." When we donate for a Misva purpose, we are, in essence, donating to Hashem, as it were. We are so-to-speak giving something to Hashem. Whether it's assisting a family in need, contributing to a charity fund, or supporting a synagogue of yeshiva, we are giving a gift to Hashem – who is, quite obviously, far more "distinguished" than any dignitary or prominent figure. And in this sense, we receive when we give. Anytime we have the opportunity to donate, we are given the privilege of giving a gift to Hashem. This is a privilege we should celebrate – and an opportunity that we should eagerly and enthusiastically seize as often as we can.

Parashat Teruma begins with G-d's command, "Ve'yikhu Li Teruma" – that Beneh Yisrael should donate materials toward the construction of the Mishkan. Surprisingly, Hashem here commands that the people donate toward this project with the word "Ve'yikhu," which means "They shall take." Instead of saying that the people should give, that they should donate, Hashem commands them to "take" a donation. This highlights a basic truism about charity – that by giving, we receive. When we give charity, when we donate toward a worthy cause, we receive far more than we give. We lose nothing, and we gain an incalculable amount. The merits earned through charitable donations are worth far more, and are infinitely more secure, than any financial asset. The rewards are both inestimable and guaranteed. But this understanding of the word "Ve'yikhu" actually runs even deeper. The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin speaks of an exceptional case where a bride can be betrothed by giving, instead of receiving. The Halachic mechanism of Kiddushin, whereby a woman becomes formally betrothed to a man, requires the man to give the woman something of value. Of course, this is commonly done by giving the bride a ring. Normally, Kiddushin cannot be effectuated in the opposite manner, through the bride giving something to the groom. If the bride wishes to give the groom a gift, this must not be done as part of the Huppa ceremony, because it must be perfectly clear that the betrothal takes effect through the groom giving the ring to the bride. However, the Gemara establishes that if the groom is a distinguished person, such as a member of the royal court, then his bride can become betrothed to him through her giving him a gift. The reason, the Gemara explains, is that when an ordinary person gives a gift to a person of distinction, the giver derives great benefit by the recipient's acceptance of the gift. The satisfaction that comes from the distinguished person's consent to receive the gift outweighs the value of the gift. Therefore, if the groom is a man of distinction, the bride can become betrothed through the benefit she receives by the groom's acceptance of her gift, because by giving, the bride is actually receiving. This Halacha sheds new light on the command "Ve'yikhu Li Teruma." When we donate for a Misva purpose, we are, in essence, donating to Hashem, as it were. We are so-to-speak giving something to Hashem. Whether it's assisting a family in need, contributing to a charity fund, or supporting a synagogue of yeshiva, we are giving a gift to Hashem – who is, quite obviously, far more "distinguished" than any dignitary or prominent figure. And in this sense, we receive when we give. Anytime we have the opportunity to donate, we are given the privilege of giving a gift to Hashem. This is a privilege we should celebrate – and an opportunity that we should eagerly and enthusiastically seize as often as we can.

Tracing the journey of Wine, from Roman times and the laws of Yayin Nesech, to Lead Poisoning, wine dilution and Rashi's momentous ruling.   Spanning medieval France, Italy's Rishonim, Provencal responsa and Egyptian challenges, the podcast reveals the halachic debate in times of evolving technology, commerce and travel. As well as instructions for a Seder night without wine.     Timestamps: - 00:00:33 — Podcast intro  - 00:01:09 — Sponsor dedication (Five Towns Central) and contact info.   - 00:01:50 — Series announcement: new multi-part “wine” series; guests planned for week two.   - 00:03:34 — Origins: Georgia and ancient Egyptian wine (Tutankhamun jars).   - 00:05:33 — Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans: amphorae, dilution, and wine practices.   - 00:08:44 — Roman recipes/additives, Posca/Eora, and medicinal uses; Gemara liability notes.   - 00:16:00 — Lead/metal use in wine, health risks, and later glass bottles enabling long aging.   - 00:17:30 — Halachic introduction: yayin nesech and stam yeinam explained.   - 00:20:00 — Ashkenaz/France: cash shortages, wine-as-debt, Rashi's leniencies and barrel-sealing debate.   - 00:30:00 — Provence/Languedoc: stringencies, piquet (second-press), and transport sealing practices.   - 00:32:47 — England: wine shortages and instructions for Kiddush/Seder without wine.   - 00:36:04 — Muslim/Ottoman lands: limited production, taxes/bans, and examples of covert trade.   - 00:42:09 — Italy: Teshuvot hesitancy, later Padua rulings, and varied local customs.   - 00:46:32 — Closing: recap of wine's household role, upcoming guests (Nathan “Yochi” Herzog + halachic expert), and call for listener questions.

A Special Shiur Given to The Community in DetroitParshas Mishpatim 5786This shiur is in: EnglishTo sponsor a weekly shiur⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠To make a donation to the Minchas Asher Foundation ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠To subscribe to the Minchas Asher mailing list ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠For the entire online collection of shiurim from HaGaon Rav Asher Weiss shlit"a please visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.minchasasher.com⁠⁠

Ten men form a Minyan only if they are all assembled in the same room. If the ten are interspersed among two rooms, then even if there is no door between the two adjoining rooms, and they can all see each other, they do not form a Minyan. (However, if ten men are situated together in one room, then others who are situated in the adjoining room are considered to pray with a Minyan.) The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, 1269-1340) cites his father, the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327), as making an interesting exception to this rule. He asserts that if five men are in one room, and five others are in an adjoining room, they combine to form a Minyan if the Hazzan stands in the doorway between the two rooms. As long as all ten men can see the Hazzan – even if they cannot see each other – they are considered a Minyan, as the Hazzan in this case combines them together. Several Poskim extended this Halacha to apply in a case where nine people are in a room, and the Hazzan stands in the entranceway to the room. Normally, a man who stands in the doorway cannot be counted toward the Minyan together with those inside the room. However, if it is the Hazzan standing in the doorway, then, according to this opinion, he combines with nine men inside to form a Minyan. This view is advanced by Rabbi Akiva Eger (1761-1837), who argued that if a Hazzan standing in a doorway between two rooms can combine the men in the two rooms to form a Minyan, then certainly he himself can combine with the nine men of the room when he stands in the doorway. This is the view also of the Perisha (Rav Yehoshua Falk, d. 1614). By contrast, the Peri Megadim (Rav Yosef Teomim, 1727-1792) argued that the Rosh's ruling cannot be extended to the case of a Hazzan standing in the doorway with nine men in the room. The Mishna Berura accepts the lenient ruling of Rabbi Akiva Eger and the Perisha. This is the conclusion also of Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, who noted that different views exist regarding the status of a person standing in a doorway. Although Halacha follows the opinion that he cannot be counted together with the people standing in the room, nevertheless, the opposing view creates a "Sefek Sefeka" – a situation where two Halachic uncertainties are at play. To begin with, there are those who allow counting a person standing in the doorway, and even according to the stringent opinion, some Poskim allow counting him if he is the Hazzan. Hence, we can rely on this leniency, and allow nine men to form a Minyan with a tenth man in the doorway if that tenth man is the Hazzan. Summary: If ten men are together in two adjoining rooms, with some in one room and some in the other, they do not form a Minyan, unless the Hazzan stands in the doorway connecting the two rooms, and everyone in both rooms can see him. Similarly, if nine men are in a room and a tenth man is in the doorway, the tenth man can be counted if he is the Hazzan.

If ten men wish to make a Minyan in a room with a curtain that separates the room into two sections, must they all be together on one side of the curtain, or are they considered a Minyan even if some are on one side and some on the other? The Halacha in this case depends on the purpose of the curtain. If the curtain was hung for privacy purposes, so that people on one side would not see the people on the other, then we can disregard the curtain with respect to the formation of a Minyan. Such a curtain does not constitute a Halachic separation, and thus the men on the two different sides combine to form a Minyan. If, however, the curtain was hung for a halachic purpose, to separate the room into two distinct halachic areas, then these areas are treated as separate rooms with regard to the formation of a Minyan. An example would be a room with a Sefer Torah, where a curtain was hung to allow on the other side of the curtain activities which are not allowed in the presence of a Sefer Torah. Since the curtain was placed for the purpose of making a halachic partition, then the room is considered halachically divided, and thus ten men who wish to form a Minyan must assemble on one side of the curtain. (However, once ten men assemble on one side, those standing on the other side are considered participants in the Minyan.) Importantly, this Halacha applies only if the curtain reaches the ceiling. If it ends more than three Tefahim (handbreadths) from the ceiling, then it does not qualify as a separation, even if it was hung for halachic purposes. Additionally, this discussion pertains only to a cloth partition. If the partition is a solid wall, made from wood or some other firm material, then it constitutes a halachic partition regardless of the purpose for which it was placed, and therefore the ten men must assemble on one side of the partition. Summary: A curtain that reaches the ceiling is considered a halachic partition that divides a room into two separate rooms if it was hung for a halachic purpose, such as to make a separation from a Sefer Torah, allowing on the other side of the curtain activities which are forbidden in front of a Sefer Torah. In such a case, ten men who wish to form a Minyan in the room must gather on one side of the curtain. If the curtain does not extend to within three Tefahim (handbreadths) of the ceiling, or if it was hung for some other purpose, then men on both sides of the curtain can combine to form a Minyan. A solid partition divides the room regardless of its purpose, and thus the ten men must assemble on the same side of the partition.

If ten men wish to make a Minyan in a room with a curtain that separates the room into two sections, must they all be together on one side of the curtain, or are they considered a Minyan even if some are on one side and some on the other? The Halacha in this case depends on the purpose of the curtain. If the curtain was hung for privacy purposes, so that people on one side would not see the people on the other, then we can disregard the curtain with respect to the formation of a Minyan. Such a curtain does not constitute a Halachic separation, and thus the men on the two different sides combine to form a Minyan. If, however, the curtain was hung for a halachic purpose, to separate the room into two distinct halachic areas, then these areas are treated as separate rooms with regard to the formation of a Minyan. An example would be a room with a Sefer Torah, where a curtain was hung to allow on the other side of the curtain activities which are not allowed in the presence of a Sefer Torah. Since the curtain was placed for the purpose of making a halachic partition, then the room is considered halachically divided, and thus ten men who wish to form a Minyan must assemble on one side of the curtain. (However, once ten men assemble on one side, those standing on the other side are considered participants in the Minyan.) Importantly, this Halacha applies only if the curtain reaches the ceiling. If it ends more than three Tefahim (handbreadths) from the ceiling, then it does not qualify as a separation, even if it was hung for halachic purposes. Additionally, this discussion pertains only to a cloth partition. If the partition is a solid wall, made from wood or some other firm material, then it constitutes a halachic partition regardless of the purpose for which it was placed, and therefore the ten men must assemble on one side of the partition. Summary: A curtain that reaches the ceiling is considered a halachic partition that divides a room into two separate rooms if it was hung for a halachic purpose, such as to make a separation from a Sefer Torah, allowing on the other side of the curtain activities which are forbidden in front of a Sefer Torah. In such a case, ten men who wish to form a Minyan in the room must gather on one side of the curtain. If the curtain does not extend to within three Tefahim (handbreadths) of the ceiling, or if it was hung for some other purpose, then men on both sides of the curtain can combine to form a Minyan. A solid partition divides the room regardless of its purpose, and thus the ten men must assemble on the same side of the partition.

The period of Ben Ha'shemashot, which extends for a short while (approximately 10-13 minutes) after sunset, is regarded by Halacha as a time of "Safek" – uncertainty, as it is questionable whether this period is to be considered daytime or nighttime. This uncertainty affects many different areas of Halacha, including the date of a youngster's Bar-Misva, the day when he becomes obligated in Misvot. If a child was born during Ben Ha'shemashot, it is uncertain whether he is considered to have been born during the day, or born during the night. As the Halachic day begins in the nighttime, his birthday is uncertain. Thirteen years later, then, we are unsure which day is the day when he becomes a Bar-Misva and is obligated in Misva observance. Due to this uncertainty, he must begin strictly observing the Misvot on the first of these two days. Less obvious, however, is whether he may serve as a Hazzan in the synagogue on the first day. We would intuitively assume that since he might not be a Bar-Misva until the second day, he should not serve as Hazzan on the first day. However, Hacham David Yosef, in Oserot Yosef, asserts that the boy may serve as Hazzan for Arbit on the night of the first of these two days. He notes that there is a view in the Gemara that conclusively regards Ben Ha'shemashot as daytime, and, additionally, Rabbenu Tam (France, 1100-1171) maintained that halachic sunset occurs 72 minutes after the moment that we consider sunset. According to both these opinions, this boy becomes a Bar-Misva on the first day, thus giving us room for leniency at least during Arbit, when there is no repetition of the Amida, and thus the Hazzan is not fulfilling any sort of obligation on behalf of the congregation. Hacham David goes even further and posits that there is a basis for leniency even during Shaharit and Minha on the first day. In conclusion, then, if a boy was born during Ben Ha'shemashot, and thus the precise date of his birthday is uncertain, he becomes obligated in Misvot on the first day, and may serve as Hazzan for Arbit on the night of the first day. If he wishes to serve as Hazzan also at Shaharit and Minha on the first day, there is a basis for allowing him to do so.

The period of Ben Ha'shemashot, which extends for a short while (approximately 10-13 minutes) after sunset, is regarded by Halacha as a time of "Safek" – uncertainty, as it is questionable whether this period is to be considered daytime or nighttime. This uncertainty affects many different areas of Halacha, including the date of a youngster's Bar-Misva, the day when he becomes obligated in Misvot. If a child was born during Ben Ha'shemashot, it is uncertain whether he is considered to have been born during the day, or born during the night. As the Halachic day begins in the nighttime, his birthday is uncertain. Thirteen years later, then, we are unsure which day is the day when he becomes a Bar-Misva and is obligated in Misva observance. Due to this uncertainty, he must begin strictly observing the Misvot on the first of these two days. Less obvious, however, is whether he may serve as a Hazzan in the synagogue on the first day. We would intuitively assume that since he might not be a Bar-Misva until the second day, he should not serve as Hazzan on the first day. However, Hacham David Yosef, in Oserot Yosef, asserts that the boy may serve as Hazzan for Arbit on the night of the first of these two days. He notes that there is a view in the Gemara that conclusively regards Ben Ha'shemashot as daytime, and, additionally, Rabbenu Tam (France, 1100-1171) maintained that halachic sunset occurs 72 minutes after the moment that we consider sunset. According to both these opinions, this boy becomes a Bar-Misva on the first day, thus giving us room for leniency at least during Arbit, when there is no repetition of the Amida, and thus the Hazzan is not fulfilling any sort of obligation on behalf of the congregation. Hacham David goes even further and posits that there is a basis for leniency even during Shaharit and Minha on the first day. In conclusion, then, if a boy was born during Ben Ha'shemashot, and thus the precise date of his birthday is uncertain, he becomes obligated in Misvot on the first day, and may serve as Hazzan for Arbit on the night of the first day. If he wishes to serve as Hazzan also at Shaharit and Minha on the first day, there is a basis for allowing him to do so.

The Mishna in Pirkeh Abot (5:25) teaches, "Ben Shelosh Esreh Le'misvot" – a youngster becomes obligated in Misvot upon reaching the age of thirteen. At this point, he may be counted toward a Minyan and may serve as Hazzan. The source for this rule is "Halacha Le'Moshe Mi'Sinai" – an oral tradition taught to Moshe at Mount Sinai. The Gemara in Masechet Sukka (5b) teaches that all Shiurim – halachic measurements – were taught as a "Halacha Le'Moshe Mi'Sinai," and this includes the "measurement" of adulthood, when a boy becomes obligated in Misvot. Rashi, however, in his commentary to Abot, finds a Biblical source for this rule. The Torah uses the word "Ish" ("man") in reference to Shimon and Levi when they waged war on the city of Shechem ("Ish Harbo" – Bereshit 34:25), and, as Rashi shows, Levi – the younger of these two brothers – was thirteen years old at this time. This establishes that a boy attains the status of "Ish" – a man – at the age of thirteen. The Maharil (Rav Yaakov Moelin, Germany, d. 1427) refutes this proof, noting that the use of the word "Ish" in this context does not necessarily mean that this word would not be used if Levi was younger. Therefore, the Maharil concludes that there is no textual basis for this rule, and it was transmitted through oral tradition. Some suggested an allusion to this Halacha in a verse in the Book of Yeshayahu (43:21) in which Hashem pronounces, "Am Zu Yasarti Li, Tehilati Yesaperu" – "I have created this nation for Me, that they tell My praise." The word "Zu" in Gematria equals 13 (7+6), thus hinting to the fact that it is at this age when Hashem wants us to praise Him and perform Misvot. There is a debate among the early authorities as to when precisely a boy is considered a Bar-Misva. The She'iltot (Rav Ahai Gaon, d. 752) writes that a boy becomes a Bar-Misva the moment he fully completes his thirteenth year – meaning, at the time of day when he was born thirteen years earlier. Thus, for example, according to this opinion, a boy who was born at 2pm cannot be counted for a Minyan or serve as Hazan on his thirteenth birthday until 2pm, the point at which he has completed thirteen full years. The consensus among the Poskim, however, is that a boy becomes Bar-Misva once the date of his thirteenth birthday arrives, in the evening. This is, indeed, the Halacha. Therefore, regardless of the time of day of a child's birth, he may serve as Hazan already at Arbit on the night of his thirteenth birthday. The Yalkut Yosef writes that the thirteen years are counted from the child's birth even if he was born prematurely and needed to spend a significant amount of time in an incubator. In addition to the requirement of completing thirteen years, a boy must also have reached a certain point of physical maturity to be considered a Halachic adult. Specifically, he must have grown two pubic hairs. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, 1530-1572), based on a ruling of Rav Yosef Kolon (1426-1490), writes that a child who has turned thirteen may be allowed to serve as Hazzan on the assumption that he has reached the point of physical maturity. This assumption may be relied upon with respect to matters instituted by the Sages (as opposed to Torah obligations), and thus, since praying with a Minyan is a Misva ordained by Sages, a child who reached Bar Misva age may lead the service. The Ribash (Rav Yishak Bar Sheshet, Algiers, 1326-1408) went even further, allowing relying on this assumption even with respect to Torah obligations. According to his view, a full-fledged adult may fulfill his Torah obligation of Kiddush on Friday night by listening to Kiddush recited by a boy who has just turned thirteen, on the assumption that he has reached physical maturity. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that those who wish to rely on this position may be allowed to do so. However, Hacham Ovadia's son, Hacham David Yosef, writes in Halacha Berura that one must not assume a boy's physical maturity with respect to Torah obligations such as the Friday night Kiddush, and this assumption may be made only with respect to Rabbinic obligations. All opinions agree that a thirteen-year-old boy may read the Megilla in the synagogue on Purim, since the obligation of Megilla reading was instituted by the Rabbis. If it is known that a young man has not yet reached this stage of physical development, then he is not considered a Bar-Misva even though his thirteenth birthday has passed. In fact, even if he is older than thirteen, he is not considered a Bar-Misva if it has been determined that he does not have the physical properties required to establish halachic adulthood. If, Heaven forbid, a man does not physically develop until the age of 35, at that point he is considered a "Saris" – an adult man who will never experience physical maturity, and he may thus be counted toward a Minyan. Until then, however, he cannot be considered an adult and may thus not be counted toward a Minyan.

The Mishna in Pirkeh Abot (5:25) teaches, "Ben Shelosh Esreh Le'misvot" – a youngster becomes obligated in Misvot upon reaching the age of thirteen. At this point, he may be counted toward a Minyan and may serve as Hazzan. The source for this rule is "Halacha Le'Moshe Mi'Sinai" – an oral tradition taught to Moshe at Mount Sinai. The Gemara in Masechet Sukka (5b) teaches that all Shiurim – halachic measurements – were taught as a "Halacha Le'Moshe Mi'Sinai," and this includes the "measurement" of adulthood, when a boy becomes obligated in Misvot. Rashi, however, in his commentary to Abot, finds a Biblical source for this rule. The Torah uses the word "Ish" ("man") in reference to Shimon and Levi when they waged war on the city of Shechem ("Ish Harbo" – Bereshit 34:25), and, as Rashi shows, Levi – the younger of these two brothers – was thirteen years old at this time. This establishes that a boy attains the status of "Ish" – a man – at the age of thirteen. The Maharil (Rav Yaakov Moelin, Germany, d. 1427) refutes this proof, noting that the use of the word "Ish" in this context does not necessarily mean that this word would not be used if Levi was younger. Therefore, the Maharil concludes that there is no textual basis for this rule, and it was transmitted through oral tradition. Some suggested an allusion to this Halacha in a verse in the Book of Yeshayahu (43:21) in which Hashem pronounces, "Am Zu Yasarti Li, Tehilati Yesaperu" – "I have created this nation for Me, that they tell My praise." The word "Zu" in Gematria equals 13 (7+6), thus hinting to the fact that it is at this age when Hashem wants us to praise Him and perform Misvot. There is a debate among the early authorities as to when precisely a boy is considered a Bar-Misva. The She'iltot (Rav Ahai Gaon, d. 752) writes that a boy becomes a Bar-Misva the moment he fully completes his thirteenth year – meaning, at the time of day when he was born thirteen years earlier. Thus, for example, according to this opinion, a boy who was born at 2pm cannot be counted for a Minyan or serve as Hazan on his thirteenth birthday until 2pm, the point at which he has completed thirteen full years. The consensus among the Poskim, however, is that a boy becomes Bar-Misva once the date of his thirteenth birthday arrives, in the evening. This is, indeed, the Halacha. Therefore, regardless of the time of day of a child's birth, he may serve as Hazan already at Arbit on the night of his thirteenth birthday. The Yalkut Yosef writes that the thirteen years are counted from the child's birth even if he was born prematurely and needed to spend a significant amount of time in an incubator. In addition to the requirement of completing thirteen years, a boy must also have reached a certain point of physical maturity to be considered a Halachic adult. Specifically, he must have grown two pubic hairs. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, 1530-1572), based on a ruling of Rav Yosef Kolon (1426-1490), writes that a child who has turned thirteen may be allowed to serve as Hazzan on the assumption that he has reached the point of physical maturity. This assumption may be relied upon with respect to matters instituted by the Sages (as opposed to Torah obligations), and thus, since praying with a Minyan is a Misva ordained by Sages, a child who reached Bar Misva age may lead the service. The Ribash (Rav Yishak Bar Sheshet, Algiers, 1326-1408) went even further, allowing relying on this assumption even with respect to Torah obligations. According to his view, a full-fledged adult may fulfill his Torah obligation of Kiddush on Friday night by listening to Kiddush recited by a boy who has just turned thirteen, on the assumption that he has reached physical maturity. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that those who wish to rely on this position may be allowed to do so. However, Hacham Ovadia's son, Hacham David Yosef, writes in Halacha Berura that one must not assume a boy's physical maturity with respect to Torah obligations such as the Friday night Kiddush, and this assumption may be made only with respect to Rabbinic obligations. All opinions agree that a thirteen-year-old boy may read the Megilla in the synagogue on Purim, since the obligation of Megilla reading was instituted by the Rabbis.

The Mishna in Pirkeh Abot (5:25) teaches, "Ben Shelosh Esreh Le'misvot" – a youngster becomes obligated in Misvot upon reaching the age of thirteen. At this point, he may be counted toward a Minyan and may serve as Hazzan. The source for this rule is "Halacha Le'Moshe Mi'Sinai" – an oral tradition taught to Moshe at Mount Sinai. The Gemara in Masechet Sukka (5b) teaches that all Shiurim – halachic measurements – were taught as a "Halacha Le'Moshe Mi'Sinai," and this includes the "measurement" of adulthood, when a boy becomes obligated in Misvot. Rashi, however, in his commentary to Abot, finds a Biblical source for this rule. The Torah uses the word "Ish" ("man") in reference to Shimon and Levi when they waged war on the city of Shechem ("Ish Harbo" – Bereshit 34:25), and, as Rashi shows, Levi – the younger of these two brothers – was thirteen years old at this time. This establishes that a boy attains the status of "Ish" – a man – at the age of thirteen. The Maharil (Rav Yaakov Moelin, Germany, d. 1427) refutes this proof, noting that the use of the word "Ish" in this context does not necessarily mean that this word would not be used if Levi was younger. Therefore, the Maharil concludes that there is no textual basis for this rule, and it was transmitted through oral tradition. Some suggested an allusion to this Halacha in a verse in the Book of Yeshayahu (43:21) in which Hashem pronounces, "Am Zu Yasarti Li, Tehilati Yesaperu" – "I have created this nation for Me, that they tell My praise." The word "Zu" in Gematria equals 13 (7+6), thus hinting to the fact that it is at this age when Hashem wants us to praise Him and perform Misvot. There is a debate among the early authorities as to when precisely a boy is considered a Bar-Misva. The She'iltot (Rav Ahai Gaon, d. 752) writes that a boy becomes a Bar-Misva the moment he fully completes his thirteenth year – meaning, at the time of day when he was born thirteen years earlier. Thus, for example, according to this opinion, a boy who was born at 2pm cannot be counted for a Minyan or serve as Hazan on his thirteenth birthday until 2pm, the point at which he has completed thirteen full years. The consensus among the Poskim, however, is that a boy becomes Bar-Misva once the date of his thirteenth birthday arrives, in the evening. This is, indeed, the Halacha. Therefore, regardless of the time of day of a child's birth, he may serve as Hazan already at Arbit on the night of his thirteenth birthday. The Yalkut Yosef writes that the thirteen years are counted from the child's birth even if he was born prematurely and needed to spend a significant amount of time in an incubator. In addition to the requirement of completing thirteen years, a boy must also have reached a certain point of physical maturity to be considered a Halachic adult. Specifically, he must have grown two pubic hairs. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, 1530-1572), based on a ruling of Rav Yosef Kolon (1426-1490), writes that a child who has turned thirteen may be allowed to serve as Hazzan on the assumption that he has reached the point of physical maturity. This assumption may be relied upon with respect to matters instituted by the Sages (as opposed to Torah obligations), and thus, since praying with a Minyan is a Misva ordained by Sages, a child who reached Bar Misva age may lead the service. The Ribash (Rav Yishak Bar Sheshet, Algiers, 1326-1408) went even further, allowing relying on this assumption even with respect to Torah obligations. According to his view, a full-fledged adult may fulfill his Torah obligation of Kiddush on Friday night by listening to Kiddush recited by a boy who has just turned thirteen, on the assumption that he has reached physical maturity. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that those who wish to rely on this position may be allowed to do so. However, Hacham Ovadia's son, Hacham David Yosef, writes in Halacha Berura that one must not assume a boy's physical maturity with respect to Torah obligations such as the Friday night Kiddush, and this assumption may be made only with respect to Rabbinic obligations. All opinions agree that a thirteen-year-old boy may read the Megilla in the synagogue on Purim, since the obligation of Megilla reading was instituted by the Rabbis. If it is known that a young man has not yet reached this stage of physical development, then he is not considered a Bar-Misva even though his thirteenth birthday has passed. In fact, even if he is older than thirteen, he is not considered a Bar-Misva if it has been determined that he does not have the physical properties required to establish halachic adulthood. If, Heaven forbid, a man does not physically develop until the age of 35, at that point he is considered a "Saris" – an adult man who will never experience physical maturity, and he may thus be counted toward a Minyan. Until then, however, he cannot be considered an adult and may thus not be counted toward a Minyan.

The Gemara (Berachot 48a) brings the view of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi that an Ebed – a non-Jewish servant, who is obligated in some Misvot – may be counted as the tenth men for a Minyan. The Mordechi (Rav Mordechai Ben Hillel, Germany, 13 th century) cites Rabbenu Simha as concluding on the basis of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling that a woman may be counted toward a Minyan. Since non-Jewish servants are obligated in the same Misvot that women are, it follows that if a servant can be counted, then a woman may be counted, as well. The Bet Yosef observes that this also seems to have been the position of Rabbenu Tam (France, 1100-1171). However, Rabbenu Tam did not act upon this position, and this practice never became accepted. At first glance, we might have assumed that this position would affect the status of an Androginus (hermaphrodite, somebody with both male and female biological features) with respect to a Minyan. In general, the Halachic status of such a person is a Safek – one of uncertainty, and it is unknown whether to treat this individual as a male or female. Seemingly, when an Androginus is needed for a Minyan, we should apply the rule of "Sefek Sefeka," which allows acting leniently when two uncertainties are at stake. There is one question whether this person should be treated as a man or a woman, and even if an Androginus is regarded as a woman, perhaps Halacha follows the view of Rabbenu Tam that a woman may be counted as a Minyan. However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that Rabbenu Tam's position does not even come under consideration, and therefore we cannot apply the rule of "Sefek Sefeka" in this case. Hence, an Androginus is not counted toward a Minyan. Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi is cited also as allowing counting a minor – a boy under the age of Bar-Misva – toward a Minyan. The Gemara (Berachot 47b) brings Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling that an infant cannot be counted as the third person for a Zimun, but he can be counted as the tenth person for a Minyan. Tosafot cite Rabbenu Tam as accepting this position, and ruling that a child – even an infant – can count as the tenth person for a Minyan. (This is the basis for the Bet Yosef's aforementioned theory that Rabbenu Tam likely allowed counting a woman for a Minyan, as well, as he accepted Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling.) Later Rishonim explain Rabbenu Tam's surprising ruling based on the verse from which the Sages derived the concept of a Minyan: "Ve'nikdashti Be'toch Beneh Yisrael" – "I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel" (Vayikra 22:32). Even infants are considered part of Beneh Yisrael, and thus they qualify to create the conditions in which these special portions of the Tefila may be recited. The Sefer Ha'manhig (Rabbi Abraham Ben Natan, d. 1215) brings Rabbenu Tam's ruling without making any further comments, strongly implying that he accepted this lenient position. By contrast, numerous Rishonim write that Rabbenu Tam never apply this ruling as a practical matter, and never actually permitted counting minors toward a Minyan. (This is why the Bet Yosef, as cited earlier, writes that Rabbenu Tam did not allow counting a woman toward a Minyan.) Nevertheless, there were those who maintained that when necessary, a congregation may rely on Rabbenu Tam's opinion and count a child toward a Minyan. The Orhot Haim tells that Rabbenu Shimshon decreed excommunication upon a village that, in defiance of his strict ruling, counted minors toward a Minyan, but the Orhot Haim adds that this may be done when absolutely necessary, if the town is very small and otherwise will not have a Minyan. In fact, the Orhot Haim writes, the Ra'abad wrote that this was the custom in many communities. By contrast, the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, 1250-1327) cites Rabbenu Yishak as disputing Rabbenu Tam's position, noting that the Gemara brings Mor Zutra as disagreeing with Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi, and asserting that Halacha follows the view of Mor Zutra. The Bet Yosef lists numerous Rishonim who concurred with this stringent ruling of Rabbenu Yishak, and indeed, in the Shulhan Aruch, he writes that a minor may not be counted toward a Minyan under any circumstances, even if otherwise there will not be a Minyan. This is the Halacha for Sepharadim. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, d. 1572) ruled that since some Rishonim allowed counting minors toward a Minyan, this can be done when necessary. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986) accepted this ruling as normative Ashkenazic practice, and thus writes that if a congregation has no other option for praying with a Minyan, they may count a boy who has yet to reach the age of Bar-Misva. Other Ashkenazic Poskim, however, disagreed. The Mishna Berura brings several Poskim who concurred with the Shulhan Aruch's stringent ruling, and disputed the Rama's leniency. Likewise, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) ruled that a child may not be counted toward a Minyan under any circumstances, even if this means that the nine adults will stop coming to synagogue because they will assume there will not be a Minyan. The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 1269-1343) brings those who claimed that if a child holds a Humash in his hands, then he may be counted toward a Minyan. The Bet Yosef cites Rabbenu Tam as ridiculing this view, noting that holding a Humash makes no difference and has no impact upon a child's status. In any event, Halacha does not follow this opinion. If a Sepharadi finds himself together with eight other Sepharadim who want to include a minor as the tenth person for the Minyan, he should leave in order to prevent them from doing so. Since this is not allowed according to accepted Sephardic custom, it is proper to walk away so that the others do not make this mistake which will result in the recitation of Berachot in vain. If a Sepharadi is with eight other Ashkenazim who, in accordance with the Rama's ruling, wish to count a minor as the tenth person in a Minyan, it is questionable whether he should answer "Amen" to the Berachot. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that one may not answer "Amen" to a Beracha which, according to his custom, is recited in vain, even if the person recites it legitimately, following his community's custom. A common example is a Sepharadi praying in an Ashkenazi Minyan on Rosh Hodesh, when Ashkenazim recite a Beracha over the recitation of Hallel but Sepharadim do not. According to Hacham Ovadia, the Sepharadi may not answer "Amen" to this Beracha. Another example is the Ashkenazic custom to recite a Beracha before placing the Tefillin Shel Rosh ("Al Misvat Tefillin"). Hacham Ovadia ruled that a Sepharadi who hears an Ashkenazi recite this blessing should not answer "Amen." According to this opinion, a Sepharadi praying with Ashkenazim who count a child toward the Minyan may not answer "Amen" to the Berachot of the Hazara (repetition of the Amida). By contrast, Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) maintained that if an Ashkenazi recites a Beracha legitimately, following Ashkenazic practice, then a Sepharadi may answer "Amen," even though this Beracha is not recited according to Sephardic custom. Given the different views on this subject, Rav Bitan suggested that a Sepharadi who finds himself in this situation should answer by reciting the verse, "Baruch Hashem Le'olam Amen Ve'amen" (Tehillim 89:53), attempting to conclude the verse just when the others respond "Amen." This way, the Sefaradi answers "Amen" but says this word as part of a verse, which is always acceptable, thus satisfying all opinions. The Hacham Sevi (Rav Tzvi Ashkenazi, 1656-1718) addresses the question as to the status of a human being created with the Sefer Ha'yesira – a mystical book written by Abraham Abinu. This book contains secrets including the way one can create living creatures using certain Names of G-d. (Some explain on this basis how Abraham served his guests meat and butter – suggesting that the animal was created with the Sefer Ha'yesira, such that it wasn't actually an animal, and thus its meat was not Halachically-defined "Basar.") The Hacham Sevi writes that such a creature does not possess a human soul, and thus is not defined by Halacha as a Jewish person who can count toward a Minyan.

The Gemara (Berachot 48a) brings the view of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi that an Ebed – a non-Jewish servant, who is obligated in some Misvot – may be counted as the tenth men for a Minyan. The Mordechi (Rav Mordechai Ben Hillel, Germany, 13 th century) cites Rabbenu Simha as concluding on the basis of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling that a woman may be counted toward a Minyan. Since non-Jewish servants are obligated in the same Misvot that women are, it follows that if a servant can be counted, then a woman may be counted, as well. The Bet Yosef observes that this also seems to have been the position of Rabbenu Tam (France, 1100-1171). However, Rabbenu Tam did not act upon this position, and this practice never became accepted. At first glance, we might have assumed that this position would affect the status of an Androginus (hermaphrodite, somebody with both male and female biological features) with respect to a Minyan. In general, the Halachic status of such a person is a Safek – one of uncertainty, and it is unknown whether to treat this individual as a male or female. Seemingly, when an Androginus is needed for a Minyan, we should apply the rule of "Sefek Sefeka," which allows acting leniently when two uncertainties are at stake. There is one question whether this person should be treated as a man or a woman, and even if an Androginus is regarded as a woman, perhaps Halacha follows the view of Rabbenu Tam that a woman may be counted as a Minyan. However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that Rabbenu Tam's position does not even come under consideration, and therefore we cannot apply the rule of "Sefek Sefeka" in this case. Hence, an Androginus is not counted toward a Minyan. Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi is cited also as allowing counting a minor – a boy under the age of Bar-Misva – toward a Minyan. The Gemara (Berachot 47b) brings Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling that an infant cannot be counted as the third person for a Zimun, but he can be counted as the tenth person for a Minyan. Tosafot cite Rabbenu Tam as accepting this position, and ruling that a child – even an infant – can count as the tenth person for a Minyan. (This is the basis for the Bet Yosef's aforementioned theory that Rabbenu Tam likely allowed counting a woman for a Minyan, as well, as he accepted Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling.) Later Rishonim explain Rabbenu Tam's surprising ruling based on the verse from which the Sages derived the concept of a Minyan: "Ve'nikdashti Be'toch Beneh Yisrael" – "I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel" (Vayikra 22:32). Even infants are considered part of Beneh Yisrael, and thus they qualify to create the conditions in which these special portions of the Tefila may be recited. The Sefer Ha'manhig (Rabbi Abraham Ben Natan, d. 1215) brings Rabbenu Tam's ruling without making any further comments, strongly implying that he accepted this lenient position. By contrast, numerous Rishonim write that Rabbenu Tam never apply this ruling as a practical matter, and never actually permitted counting minors toward a Minyan. (This is why the Bet Yosef, as cited earlier, writes that Rabbenu Tam did not allow counting a woman toward a Minyan.) Nevertheless, there were those who maintained that when necessary, a congregation may rely on Rabbenu Tam's opinion and count a child toward a Minyan. The Orhot Haim tells that Rabbenu Shimshon decreed excommunication upon a village that, in defiance of his strict ruling, counted minors toward a Minyan, but the Orhot Haim adds that this may be done when absolutely necessary, if the town is very small and otherwise will not have a Minyan. In fact, the Orhot Haim writes, the Ra'abad wrote that this was the custom in many communities. By contrast, the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, 1250-1327) cites Rabbenu Yishak as disputing Rabbenu Tam's position, noting that the Gemara brings Mor Zutra as disagreeing with Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi, and asserting that Halacha follows the view of Mor Zutra. The Bet Yosef lists numerous Rishonim who concurred with this stringent ruling of Rabbenu Yishak, and indeed, in the Shulhan Aruch, he writes that a minor may not be counted toward a Minyan under any circumstances, even if otherwise there will not be a Minyan. This is the Halacha for Sepharadim. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, d. 1572) ruled that since some Rishonim allowed counting minors toward a Minyan, this can be done when necessary. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986) accepted this ruling as normative Ashkenazic practice, and thus writes that if a congregation has no other option for praying with a Minyan, they may count a boy who has yet to reach the age of Bar-Misva. Other Ashkenazic Poskim, however, disagreed. The Mishna Berura brings several Poskim who concurred with the Shulhan Aruch's stringent ruling, and disputed the Rama's leniency. Likewise, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) ruled that a child may not be counted toward a Minyan under any circumstances, even if this means that the nine adults will stop coming to synagogue because they will assume there will not be a Minyan. The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 1269-1343) brings those who claimed that if a child holds a Humash in his hands, then he may be counted toward a Minyan. The Bet Yosef cites Rabbenu Tam as ridiculing this view, noting that holding a Humash makes no difference and has no impact upon a child's status. In any event, Halacha does not follow this opinion. If a Sepharadi finds himself together with eight other Sepharadim who want to include a minor as the tenth person for the Minyan, he should leave in order to prevent them from doing so. Since this is not allowed according to accepted Sephardic custom, it is proper to walk away so that the others do not make this mistake which will result in the recitation of Berachot in vain. If a Sepharadi is with eight other Ashkenazim who, in accordance with the Rama's ruling, wish to count a minor as the tenth person in a Minyan, it is questionable whether he should answer "Amen" to the Berachot. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that one may not answer "Amen" to a Beracha which, according to his custom, is recited in vain, even if the person recites it legitimately, following his community's custom. A common example is a Sepharadi praying in an Ashkenazi Minyan on Rosh Hodesh, when Ashkenazim recite a Beracha over the recitation of Hallel but Sepharadim do not. According to Hacham Ovadia, the Sepharadi may not answer "Amen" to this Beracha. Another example is the Ashkenazic custom to recite a Beracha before placing the Tefillin Shel Rosh ("Al Misvat Tefillin"). Hacham Ovadia ruled that a Sepharadi who hears an Ashkenazi recite this blessing should not answer "Amen." According to this opinion, a Sepharadi praying with Ashkenazim who count a child toward the Minyan may not answer "Amen" to the Berachot of the Hazara (repetition of the Amida). By contrast, Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) maintained that if an Ashkenazi recites a Beracha legitimately, following Ashkenazic practice, then a Sepharadi may answer "Amen," even though this Beracha is not recited according to Sephardic custom. The Hacham Sevi (Rav Tzvi Ashkenazi, 1656-1718) addresses the question as to the status of a human being created with the Sefer Ha'yesira – a mystical book written by Abraham Abinu. This book contains secrets including the way one can create living creatures using certain Names of G-d. (Some explain on this basis how Abraham served his guests meat and butter – suggesting that the animal was created with the Sefer Ha'yesira, such that it wasn't actually an animal, and thus its meat was not Halachically-defined "Basar.") The Hacham Sevi writes that such a creature does not possess a human soul, and thus is not defined by Halacha as a Jewish person who can count toward a Minyan.