Podcasts about halachic

Special care must be taken to protect the honor of sacred books, such as Siddurim, Humashim, and all books of Torah literature. It is strictly forbidden to allow bodily waste in the presence of sacred books. When young children are being toilet trained, parents must not allow the children to use the portable "potty" in a room containing sacred books, and doing so constitutes a grave infraction on the honor of these texts. The Mishna Berura writes about a family that kept a bedpan in a small room which they used as a restroom, and the stench spread into the main room where there were Torah books. The family suffered as a result – the homeowner's son abandoned religious observance, and the family endured considerable humiliation. The Mishna in Pirkeh Abot (4:6) warns that one who disgraces the Torah will be punished with disgrace, and the Mishna Berura pointed to this unfortunate incident as an example of such a transgression. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in his Anaf Etz Abot, likewise applies the Mishna's warning to those who fail to show proper respect to Torah books, such as by placing a child's potty in their presence, or having marital relations in a room with Torah books. (It is similarly customary not to allow young children near the Shabbat candles when they are unclothed, due to the sanctity of the Shabbat lights.) Many people carry small books or papers in their pockets throughout the day – such as a small Siddur for Minha, a small Birkat Ha'mazon, or a pocket-sized Gemara or Torah pamphlet. If one has such a text with him when he needs to use the restroom, he should remove the sacred text from his pocket before entering the restroom. If this is not possible, such as if one is in a public area, then he may enter the restroom with a book in his pocket. A sacred book may be brought into the restroom if it is under two coverings, and when necessary, one may consider the binding one covering, such that the pocket is considered the second covering. Preferably, one who often carries a small Siddur or Torah book with him should wrap it with an additional covering. If one keeps a small Birkat Ha'mazon card in his wallet, he is certainly permitted to enter the restroom with the wallet, as the wallet is considered one covering and the pocket is considered the second. A woman who wears a piece of jewelry bearing the inscription of a verse from the Tanach must remove it before entering the restroom. If the jewelry features only a name, it may be brought into the restroom. It is certainly permissible to bring a phone or other device into the restroom even though it contains Torah content, because that content is not being displayed at that time. One who keeps a picture of a Rabbi with him in his pocket may enter the restroom with the picture, as pictures have no Halachic status of sanctity. Of course, one must not treat such pictures disrespectfully, but keeping them in one's pocket in the restroom is permissible. Summary: It is forbidden to allow the presence of bodily waste in the presence of sacred books, such as Siddurim or any books of Torah literature, and therefore young children must not be potty trained in a room where sacred books are present. If one carries a sacred book in his pocket, and he cannot leave it outside when he uses the restroom, he may bring it in his pocket to the restroom, as the binding can be considered one cover, and the pocket is then the second required covering. Preferably, though, the book should be wrapped with an additional covering. One may enter the restroom with a Birkat Ha'mazon card in his wallet, as the wallet is the first covering and the pocket is the second. A woman who wears a piece of jewelry bearing the inscription of a verse from the Tanach must remove it before entering the restroom.

As mentioned in an earlier installment, it is forbidden for a person to pray, recite Berachot, or learn Torah if there is even a tiny amount of bodily waste on his body. For this reason, a person should clean himself with water, or at least moistened paper, after moving his bowls, to ensure that no traces of excrement remain on the body. Young children, quite obviously, cannot be expected to maintain this strict standard of cleanliness. Nevertheless, it is permissible for parents to learn Torah, pray and recite Berachot with their young child, even if it can be assumed that the child had not thoroughly cleaned himself after using the restroom. As long as there is no smell of excrement emanating from the child's body, this is permissible in the interest of Hinuch (the child's religious education). However, once a child reaches the age of 7 or 8, where he can be taught to clean himself thoroughly, with water, parents must ensure that he does so, as maintaining proper hygiene is part of a child's training in Halachic observance.

The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 3:2) writes that when one uses the restroom, he should not reveal his private parts until he sits down, and he should not stand up until after covering himself. This Halacha was relevant in the time when people would crouch on the ground to perform their bodily functions, and they were thus to lift their robes only after crouching. Nowadays, of course, people move their bowels while sitting on a toilet seat, and it is thus impossible to reveal oneself only after sitting, or to cover oneself before standing up. Nowadays, then, the practical application of this Halacha is that one should expose himself right before he performs his bodily functions, and then cover himself immediately afterward. However, one must ensure not to cover oneself after urinating until ensuring that no more drops need to exit the body. Just as one should minimize the duration of his exposure, he should also minimize the amount of his body that he exposes. The Halachic sources mention revealing only one Tefah (handbreadth) when defecating, and slightly more when urinating, to ensure that no drops fall on one's clothing. (The concern was that if people see someone with urine stains on his garment, they might conclude that he suffers from a urological condition, and thus suspect that his children were fathered by a different man.) Once again, in today's reality, this Halacha is not applicable, though one must make an effort to ensure that no bodily waste ends up on his garments. Likewise, although the Halachic sources forbid urinating while standing – due to the concern that some drops will ricochet from the ground back onto the person – this does not apply in modern-day bathrooms, which are specifically engineered to maximize sanitation when relieving oneself. One should ensure to close the door to the restroom even if nobody is home. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that if there is an intolerable odor in the restroom, then one may leave the door open as long as nobody is present at home. Otherwise, the door must remain closed. The requirement of modesty when performing one's bodily functions overrides the prohibition against restraining oneself and delaying relieving oneself. Therefore, it is proper to restrain oneself when necessary until he finds a private place for performing his bodily functions. The accepted position is that the prohibition against restraining oneself was introduced by the Sages, and is not a matter of Torah law. Hence, it is overridden by the concern of Kebod Ha'beriyot (preserving human dignity). The Ben Ish Hai distinguished in this regard between defecation and urination, maintaining that one who needs to urinate may not restrain himself until he finds a private restroom, and must, if necessary, relieve himself in public view. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, ruled that since nowadays public urination is considered indecent – and is even a punishable crime in many countries – it is clear that one may not do so, and must instead restrain himself until he finds a private place. Rav Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986) maintained that if a man uses a public restroom, and can choose between using a urinal or a private stall, he should use the private stall in the interest of maximizing privacy. If, however, no stall is available, then he should use the urinal and not wait for a stall to become available. When constructing public restrooms, Rav Moshe added, it is proper to build dividers between the urinals for the purpose of privacy. Two people should not use a private restroom together at the same time. Children, too, must be accustomed to use the restroom alone, with the door closed. One should not have conversations while using the restroom. The Shulhan Aruch writes that one should not push too hard when moving his bowels, as this could be harmful to the body. If a person must take a urine test, he is allowed to restrain himself before his visit to the medical office to ensure that he will be able to provide the required sample.

In earlier installments, we saw that one may not delay using the restroom when he needs to perform his bodily functions, and delaying transgresses the prohibition of "Ve'lo Teshakesu Et Nafshotechem" – "You shall not make yourselves repulsive" (Vayikra 20:25). A number of Poskim cite a work entitled Shulhan Shelomo as applying this rule also to nasal secretions, which is a form of bodily waste that needs to be discharged. Delaying the expelling of these secretions from the nose – like delaying the expelling of bodily waste – qualifies as "repulsive" and is thus forbidden. Rav Yisrael Bitan explains that the Shulhan Shelomo follows consistently with his ruling elsewhere that one is required to wash his hands after touching nasal secretions. The Shulhan Shelomo equated nasal secretions with other bodily waste, and so he felt that one must wash his hands after coming in contact with such secretions, and that one may not delay expelling them from the nose. The consensus among the Poskim, however, does not require hand-washing after touching nasal secretions. (Needless to say, this is recommended as a matter of basic hygiene, but it is not a Halachic requirement.) By the same token, there is no prohibition against delaying cleaning one's nose. Rav Efrayim Greenblatt (Memphis, 1932-2014), in his Ribebot Efrayim, brings a source for the position of the Shulhan Shelomo – a passage in the work Yesod Ve'shoresh Ha'aboda (by Rav Alexander Ziskind of Grodno, d. 1794), where the author describes how he would always clean his nose immediately when he needed to. He writes that he deemed it disrespectful to stand before the Almighty with filth, and so even when he was involved in some important activity, he would right away clean his nose as soon as this became necessary. However, Rav Bitan noted that this practice was perhaps followed as a measure of special piety, and this passage in the Yesod Ha'shoresh Ha'aboda was not necessarily intended as a halachic ruling. Moreover, it seems likely that the author referred to situations where the nasal secretions already became visible outside the nose, in which case it is certainly appropriate to clean the nose immediately. This does not necessarily indicate that one must always ensure the inside of his nose is clear of nasal discharge. Regardless, the Poskim write that one should preferably blow his nose before beginning to pray, as a buildup of nasal secretions could compromise one's ability to concentrate on his prayer. (As an aside, Rav Bitan writes that some people had the practice of ensuring not to clean the nose with the right hand, but this is unnecessary.) Gas in the body is not considered bodily waste with respect to the prohibition against delaying expelling waste from the body. Therefore, one who needs to pass air is permitted to restrain himself when he is public, and of course this is the proper thing to do to avoid embarrassment and in order not to cause distress to other people. Moreover, one is required to restrain himself from passing air when wearing Tefillin, as passing air while wearing Tefillin infringes upon the sanctity of Tefillin. If a person cannot restrain himself from passing air until he removes his Tefillin, he should at very least move the Tefillin Shel Rosh out of place. Summary: Halacha does not treat nasal secretions as bodily waste. As such, one is not required to wash his hands after touching such secretions (though of course this is recommended as a matter of hygiene), and there is no prohibition against delaying cleaning one's nose like there is against delaying using the restroom. Nevertheless, it is proper to clean one's nose before beginning to pray to help ensure he can remain focused on the prayer.

Send us Fan MailHalachic status of the Kotel plaza

The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 2:6) writes that one must not walk "Be'koma Zekufa" – fully upright, with his head held high. This is based on the Gemara's teaching in Masechet Berachot (43b) that if a person walks in an overly confident, arrogant manner, he "crowds out" the Shechina. Elsewhere (Sota 4b), the Gemara states that an arrogant person is considered like a heretic, and like an idol-worshipper. G-d refuses to live together with an arrogant individual, because the world was created for His honor, not for the honor of human beings, and thus G-d's honor is meant to fill the entire earth. The Gemara later (Sota 5a) comments that a Torah scholar must have "one-eighth of one-eighth" – meaning, a smidgen – of arrogance, but only for the purpose of unyieldingly upholding the Torah's values and principles. Otherwise, arrogance has no place at all in the life and mindset of a Torah Jew. (The Vilna Gaon offered a different interpretation of the Gemara's comment, according to which even a Torah scholar is not permitted to have even a smidgen of arrogance.) The trait of humility must be reflected even in the way a person walks, and thus one should not walk with his head fully upright, appearing overly confident and self-assured. Some have noted that the Gemara's teaching seems to call into question Rashi's comment to a verse toward the end of the Book of Vayikra (26:13). There Hashem tells Beneh Yisrael, "Va'olech Etchem Komemiyut" – "I have led you upright," and Rashi explains, "Be'koma Zekufa" – that they walked tall and proud. How can Rashi's comment be reconciled with the Gemara's stern warning against walking about in such a manner? The Seda La'derech (work on Rashi's Torah commentary by Rav Yissachar Ber Eilenburg, c. 1550–1623) suggests that Rashi used this term figuratively, as a reference to Beneh Yisrael's unique stature. He draws a comparison to the difference between human beings – who walk upright – and animals, which walk on four legs. Animals walk looking toward the ground, because they are incapable of conceiving of lofty, spiritual matters or pursuing spiritual goals, whereas humans walk upright because they are to be focused on the heavens, on spiritual ambitions. We, who received the Torah, are to live with a special degree of "uprightness" in this sense, which our heads directed heavenward. According to the Seda La'derech, this is the meaning of the verse, "Va'olech Etchem Komemiyut" – that Hashem has granted us the privilege of living with a special connection to the heavens and spirituality. The Petah Ha'debir (Rav Binyamin Pontremoli, Turkey, d. 1784) answers differently, explaining that this verse foresees the time when the enemy nations will fear Beneh Yisrael. At that time, it will be permissible for Am Yisrael to walk "Be'koma Zekufa" in order to intimidate those peoples who might otherwise think to attack and persecute the Jewish Nation. The Petah Ha'debir also suggests an additional answer, explaining that we must display humility when we walk because of the sin of Adam and Hava in Gan Eden, which resulted in an inherent spiritual deficiency that we must always be cognizant of and that should bring us humility. In the future, however, when the sin of Adam and Hava will be fully rectified, this will no longer be necessary, and the verse "Va'olech Etchem Komemiyut" refers to that time, when we will, indeed, be allowed to walk with our heads held high. Hacham Ovadia Yosef asserted that this law, requiring one to avoid walking fully upright, applies only as a Midat Hasidut (measure of piety), and not on the level of a strict Halachic obligation. He draws proof to this conclusion from the story told of the time when Rav, the great Amora, passed away, and each of his leading disciples chose to adopt one of his unique religious practices. Rav Yehuda adopted the practice of ensuring not to walk four Amot (cubits) fully upright. This clearly proves that refraining from walking "Be'koma Zekufa" is a measure of piety, for if it constituted an outright Halachic requirement, then Rav Yehuda would have adopted this practice even before Rav's passing. Nevertheless, the Shulhan Aruch writes that this is a practice which everyone should follow. The definition of "Koma Zekufa" is walking with one's head turned upward such that his eyes cannot see the ground, thus requiring him to walk more slowly. The Aruch Ha'shulhan (Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein, 1829-1908) emphasizes that one does not need to walk with his back hunched; he must simply ensure not to walk with his head turned upward. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) similarly writes that one should avoid walking in a manner that expresses arrogance, but does not need to lower his head as he walks. A Torah scholar has an obligation to walk with a special degree of dignity. This means not only that he should avoid walking with his head held high, but also that he should not run in public. Some Rabbis would make a point of avoiding conversation in the street, deeming this undignified for a Torah sage. Although it is unbecoming for a Rabbi to run in public, he also should not walk about slowly and leisurely, as though he has nothing to do. He should walk quickly and with a sense of urgency, showing that he is constantly occupied with Torah learning, teaching, and Misvot. One must be especially careful with how he walks about in a synagogue or Bet Midrash, as these are, in a sense, the "houses" of the Almighty, and so one must conduct himself in these buildings with a sense of reverence and humility. One of the commentaries to Pirkeh Abot cites a passage from the Midrash relating that King David was once reprimanded by Ahitofel for walking with his head held upright in the Bet Midrash, in violation of the requirement to carry oneself reverently in the study hall, and David accepted the criticism. Several writers noted the seeming implication of the Midrash that walking upright is improper only in the Bet Midrash, but not in other places – in direct contradiction to the Halacha we have been discussing. Hacham Ovadia Yosef suggested that as a king, David was permitted to walk about with his held up high in order to earn the respect of the people, but in a Bet Midrash this is forbidden even for a king. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) explained that David walked about in the Bet Midrash not with his head held high, but rather in a loose, carefree manner which is not proper in a Bet Midrash, and for this was he criticized. Returning to Hacham Ovadia's explanation – that a king is allowed to walk with his head held high – this is the opinion of the Bet Obed, cited by the Petah Ha'debir. Some, however, challenged this view, noting that the Torah requires a king to exercise greater humility than all other people and to avoid all feelings of superiority (Ramban, Debarim 17:20). The answer, it would seem, is that a king must make a special effort to remain in his heart humble and subservient to the Almighty, but outwardly may – and in fact must – carry himself with an aura of authority in order to earn the reverence of his subjects.

This episode discusses how during the First Crusades the Jews who were faced with the oncoming mob chose to take their own and their children's lives, and what was the halachic justification for that.

The Rebbe discusses the importance of precise language in prayer and how different formulations reflect varying levels of halachic obligation. He explains that even within ideal practice, there are multiple gradations, emphasizing the significance of nuanced expression. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/igroskodesh/017/010/6421

It is clear that one may not speak words of Torah while he is unclothed. However, we saw in an earlier installment that Hacham Ovadia Yosef permitted silently thinking words of Torah while unclothed, because Halacha follows the opinion that thinking is not equivalent to speaking. Hacham Ovadia goes even further, allowing one to think about Torah matters while bathing. Halacha explicitly forbids thinking about Torah matters in unclean places – such as a restroom or a bathhouse. However, Hacham Ovadia maintains that a private bathing room in one's home, which is generally kept clean, differs from a public bathhouse (such as a Mikveh) in this regard. Therefore, if one has a separate room for bathing, which is not in the same room as the toilet, it is not considered an "unclean place" like a public bathhouse, and thus one may think Torah matters there while showering or taking a bath. This applies even if the bathing room is adjacent to the restroom and one can see the toilet from the bath. As long as one bathes in a separate room from the restroom, he may think Torah matters. Hacham Ovadia extends this ruling to listening to recorded Torah classes. Although there is a general Halachic principle of "Shome'a Ke'oneh" – that listening to somebody recite words is akin to saying those words – Hacham Ovadia explains that this does not apply to an electronic reproduction of somebody's voice. This yields a stringency in that one may not fulfill the obligation of Megilla reading on Purim, for example, by listening to a recording of somebody reading the Megilla (even a livestream) because listening to a recording is not akin to saying the words. In the case of a person bathing, this yields a leniency – that he is permitted to listen to a recording of a Torah lecture, because he is not considered to be saying the words he hears. We emphasize once again that this applies only if the room with the bath or shower is not also used as a restroom. Furthermore, this applies only to a recording or livestream of a Torah class. If one is bathing near a place where a Torah class is taking class, he may not listen to the Rabbi talking as he bathes. Summary: It is permissible to silently think Torah matters while unclothed, and this is allowed even while one bathes in his private bath or shower at home (as opposed to a public bathhouse, such as a Mikveh where this is forbidden), as long as the room where he bathes does not also have a toilet. One may even listen to a recorded Torah lecture while bathing if the room does not have a toilet.

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

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

Rabbi Zvi Goldberg and Rabbi Baruch Beyer discussed the halachic issues associated with travel. Rabbi Beyer also discussed his recent trip to Israel. Topics included what to consider when: Renting an Airbnb | Staying in a hotel | Traveling to extreme locations | Traveling on a Friday (First aired June 2026)

#497> To purchase the book: https://amzn.to/4y8bJkq> To listen to the episode with R' Simcha Lauer z"l: https://seforimchatter.com/episodes/6a4c14f8247e852cae5386c0> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp community: https://chat.whatsapp.com/DZ3C2CjUeD9AGJvXeEODtK> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp status: https://wa.me/message/TI343XQHHMHPN1>  To support the podcast or to sponsor an episode follow this link: https://seforimchatter.com/support-seforimchatter/or email seforimchatter@gmail.com (Zelle/QP this email address)Support the show

This letter discusses the controversy over Radzin tekhelet, noting opposition from leading Torah authorities and the Rebbe Rashab's firm stance against its use. The writer emphasizes that, according to Kabbalah, tekhelet will only be restored in the future era. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/igroskodesh/017/010/6382

Yesterday marked the 50th anniversary of the Israeli rescue operation at Entebbe. Last week, newly released Israeli government documents and cabinet meeting minutes reveal a more complex picture of the deliberations that led to one of Israel's most celebrated military operations. Before anyone knew whether the mission would succeed or fail, another debate was taking place. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef examined the operation through the lens of classical Halachic sources and issued what remains the only major Halachic ruling written during the crisis itself, before the outcome was known. Entebbe became more than a military triumph. It marked a turning point in how Jewish law addressed the responsibilities of a sovereign Jewish state - protecting its citizens, weighing national risk, and applying timeless Torah principles to the realities of modern statehood. Fifty years later, the questions raised by Entebbe continue to shape Israel and the development of Halachah itself. 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.

This class explores the significance of water in Parshas Pinchas, delves into the halachic requirements for constructing a kosher mikveh, and discusses innovations such as the Rebbe Rashab's design. The session highlights both technical details and the spiritual impact of mikveh use. https://www.torahrecordings.com/classes/by_parsha/004_bamidbar/008_pinchas/016

Source material: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1KDabJeKKpcl-4eL7Mn36tvwL5tOq-E5OIKOuhwSgqec/edit?usp=drive_link

The Rebbe clarifies that according to Halacha, the Japanese are not Jewish, and there is no obligation or benefit in attempting to convert them. He emphasizes that redemption depends solely on the teshuvah and good deeds of the Jewish people, not on converting non-Jews. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/igroskodesh/012/006/4154b

People mistakenly believe that the concept of modest dress is relevant only to women, whereas men can dress in any way they like. This is incorrect. There are certain restrictions on dress that apply to men. The basic principle is that one must realize that he is constantly in the presence of G-d. Even when a person is in the privacy of his home, and even alone in his bedroom, he must be cognizant of the fact that Hashem fills the earth and accompanies him at all times. King Shaul was praised for his high standards of modesty, as he went into a dark cave to perform his bodily functions, and even inside the cave, he exposed himself only as needed, out of an awareness of G-d's presence. Accordingly, the Shulhan Aruch rules that a person must put something on before getting out of the bed in the morning. Long ago, people would sleep under their blankets unclothed, and the Shulhan Aruch writes that before a person steps out of bed, he should put his garment on under his blankets so he will not be exposed upon leaving his bed. This applies even if the room is dark, as Hashem can see even in the dark. The Poskim debate the question of whether the Shulhan Aruch intended this instruction as an actual Halachic requirement, or only as an admirable practice, a measure of piety that is recommended for the sake of demonstrating one's awareness of G-d's omnipresence. Rav Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986) maintained that there is no strict halachic obligation for a man to avoid being exposed in private, and the Shulhan Aruch's ruling was written only as a recommended practice, a proper mode of behavior for a G-d-fearing individual. By contrast, the Mishneh Halachot (Rav Menashe Klein, 1923-2011) maintained that this law constitutes an outright Halachic obligation, as the straightforward reading of the Shulhan Aruch and other sources suggests. Likewise, the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that according to some Rishonim, these laws are required on the level of Torah law, and so they should be strictly observed. Nowadays, of course, people generally wear pajamas or undergarments when sleeping, so the Shulhan Aruch's instructions would apply in our time to changing one's clothes under the blanket, so that his private parts are not exposed. Many people would naturally find this difficult. Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, accepts Rav Moshe Feinstein's lenient position, that these guidelines were not presented as actual Halachic requirements, and so he rules that they may be suspended if they would cause considerable discomfort. Thus, if somebody finds it very difficult to get dressed under the blanket, this is not necessary. Hacham David writes that this was the position taken by his father, Hacham Ovadia Yosef. In fact, Rav Moshe himself ruled leniently if dressing under the blanket would take too much time, or if one cannot dress neatly in this fashion. Nevertheless, Rav Haim Kanievsky (1928-2022) taught that one who ensures not to expose his private parts while getting changed is worthy of special blessing. Rav Moshe adds that when walking about, a man must dress in a manner in which he would not feel ashamed appearing before ordinary people. When it comes to Tefila, one must dress in a way he would when greeting a prominent figure. At all other times, Rav Moshe writes, it suffices to dress in a manner that is not embarrassing. One's private parts, however, must of course always remain covered. Rav Haim Kanievsky took a more stringent position, writing that one must ensure not to expose his arms above the elbows, or his legs above his knees. Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) wrote that since people in modern society do not walk about barefoot, one should refrain from doing so even in his home. In fact, the Mishna Berura writes that since the feet are normally covered, it is proper to put one's socks on before getting out of bed in order not to expose his feet. The Piskeh Teshubot concluded that one may walk about barefoot in his home under hot weather conditions, when covering the feet is uncomfortable. However, even the Mishna Berura conceded that in Mediterranean countries, where many people walk about barefoot, it is permissible to do so. It thus stands to reason that the guiding principle is the accepted practice in any given locale. In communities where it is not deemed acceptable to walk about with exposed feet, or in short sleeves or shorts, one should abide by the community's standards. In places where these modes of dress are acceptable, then they are allowed. Indeed, Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that one is allowed even to pray wearing very short sleeves or short pants if this mode of dress is accepted in his community (though he added that a person dressed this way should not serve as Hazan). Likewise, despite the Mishna Berura's aforementioned ruling that one should put on his socks before getting out of bed, numerous later Poskim – including the Hazon Ish, the Steipler Gaon, and Hacham Ovadia Yosef – ruled leniently in this regard. This is likely due to the fact that it has become more acceptable to walk about with sandals without socks, and thus exposing one's feet is no longer considered undignified. By the same token, a man may take off his shirt when swimming in a pool or at the beach, as this is the accepted mode of dress in these areas. However, some Poskim ruled that if one is not swimming at the beach, but is playing ball or walking, he should wear a shirt. A man who goes to the Mikveh should not walk about the Mikveh unclothed, and should instead cover himself with a towel or robe on his way to and from the water. Some Poskim allow one to be unclothed in a restroom that has a bath or shower, as such a room has the status of a Bet Ha'merhatz (bathhouse), where it is permissible to be unclothed. Others, however, rule that this is not allowed unless one is planning to bathe. Summary: Men, like women, must adhere to appropriate standards of modest dress. The basic rule is that one must dress in a manner that is deemed respectable and dignified in the place where he is. In some communities, it is inappropriate to walk about in shorts, whereas in others this is allowed. At the beach or swimming pool, a man may remove his shirt. Nowadays it is generally deemed acceptable in most communities to wear sandals without socks, so this is permitted. When one needs to expose himself – such as when dressing, when bathing, when using the restroom, or in a Mikveh – one should expose himself only to the extent necessary, remaining cognizant of G-d's presence.

The Rebbe thanks Rabbi David Ovadia for his book and notes the rare citation of Admor HaZaken and tzt"z in it. He encourages referencing their works more, highlighting their widespread acceptance and importance in halachic discourse. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/igroskodesh/007/005/2005

The Rebbe addresses the use of artificial ice in a mikveh, expressing reluctance to issue a halachic ruling due to differing opinions and local sensitivities. He suggests repairing the existing mikveh and links proper mikveh observance to the blessing of rain. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/igroskodesh/007/007/2063

The Rebbe addresses whether it is permissible to cut down a fruit tree that is mostly dry, noting there are differing halachic opinions. He advises refraining from permitting it, especially since the questioner experienced an unsuccessful outcome previously. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/igroskodesh/007/009/2123

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.