Podcasts about halachic

It is customary to remain awake throughout the first night of Shabuot and study the special "Tikkun" text that appears in the book "Keri'eh Mo'ed." Most synagogues serve food and drinks, such as tea and coffee, during the night to help people remain awake and focused on their learning. The question arises as to whether or not one should recite a Beracha each time he drinks during Shabuot night. For example, if a person drinks a cup of coffee and then returns to his learning, and an hour and a half later he decides to have another drink, should he recite a new Beracha of "She'hakol"? Or, does the Beracha one recites when he drinks the first time cover all subsequent drinks that he has throughout the night? This issue is subject to a debate among the Halachic authorities. Hacham Ben Sion Abba Shaul (Israel, 1923-1998) maintained that each time one drinks on Shabuot night, he should have in mind for his Beracha to cover only the cup he drinks at that point. Thus, when he decides to drink again later, he must recite a new Beracha. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, disagrees. Based upon the ruling of the Maharash Alafandri, Hacham Ovadia writes that to the contrary, one should have in mind when he drinks the first time on Shabuot night that the Beracha he recites should cover all his drinks throughout the night. Then, he does not have to recite any other Berachot over drinks that night, even if there is a lengthy break between drinks. Once a person has in mind that his first Beracha should cover all his drinks throughout the night, then even if he drinks in long intervals of seventy-two minutes or more, he does not recite any Berachot. Our custom is to recite Birkat Ha'Torah on Shabuot morning, after Alot Ha'shahar (daybreak), even if one has not slept at all during the night. Some Ashkenazim have the practice not to recite Birkat Ha'Torah in a case where one had remained awake all night, but our practice follows the view that one recites Birkat Ha'Torah even in such a case. Regarding Netilat Yadayim, the Shulhan Aruch records a debate among the authorities as to whether one must wash his hands in the morning if he had not slept at all during the night, and our custom is therefore to wash Netilat Yadayim but without reciting a Beracha. Of course, one who uses the restroom recites the Beracha of "Asher Yasar" as usual. Summary: On Shabuot night, when we remain awake throughout the night, one should have in mind when he drinks for the first time that his Beracha should cover all his drinks throughout the night. He then does not recite a Beracha when he drinks later, even if there was a lengthy break in between drinks. Our custom is to recite Birkat Ha'Torah even if one did not sleep at all during the night, and to wash Netilat Yadayim without a Beracha.

The holiday of Shabuot is included among the three "Regalim" ("pilgrimage festivals"), when there is an obligation of Simha – to rejoice and be festive. The Gemara says that according to all views among the Sages, there is an obligation to enjoy oneself on Shabuot. Beyond the spiritual enjoyment that we experience by studying Torah, there is also a Halachic obligation to rejoice through physical enjoyment. The Sages teach that for men, this means indulging in meat and wine. Although there is a widespread custom to eat some dairy meals on Shabuot, one should make a point of eating meat on Shabuot, as well. One can fulfill this obligation with red meat, which resembles the meat of the sacrifices that were brought in the Bet Ha'mikdash on the holidays, or even with poultry, if that is what he enjoys, even though it does not technically qualify as "meat." If a person does not enjoy meat and wine, then he should eat whatever foods and drinks he enjoys. There is certainly no Misva on Yom Tob to eat foods that one does not enjoy. One is also obligated to make his children happy on Yom Tob. The Rambam (Rabbi Moshe Maimonides, Spain-Egypt, 1135-1204) writes that this is done by giving them treats, candies and the like. The Misva also requires making one's wife joyous, and the Rambam writes that one should purchase new clothing or jewelry for his wife before the festival. If one's wife does not need new clothing or jewelry, then he should buy her other gifts, even fine foods and the like. It is proper to immerse in a Mikveh on Ereb Shabuot to purify oneself in honor of the festival and in honor of the commemoration of Matan Torah.

Unsung HeroinesA businesswoman saves thousands from the Inquisition and rebuilds Jewish life across the Mediterranean, and a female Torah scholar shapes Halachic discourse while raising a family, feeding students, and caring for the sick—see the secret ways women shaped Jewish history.

It is standard medical procedure for expectant mothers to undergo periodic ultrasound examinations, during which the physicians see the fetus so it can be carefully examined to ensure it is developing properly. During this examination, the doctor can easily identify the fetus' gender, and doctors generally pass on this information to the parents. The question arises whether it is proper, from a Torah perspective, for the parents to learn the fetus' gender during pregnancy. The Torah commands, "Tamim Tiheyeh Im Hashem Elokecha" ("You shall be innocent with Hashem your G-d" – Debarim 18:13), which is understood as an obligation not to concern ourselves with the future, to conduct ourselves the way we see fit, placing our trust in Hashem, without trying to access information about the future. Does finding out a fetus' gender violate this principle? We do not find any clear-cut basis in Halachic literature to forbid such a practice, and it would appear that learning a fetus' gender does not indicate a lack of faith in G-d or an inappropriate attempt to access information about the future. There is, however, one interesting passage in the Midrash which perhaps leads us to discourage this practice. The Midrash (Kohelet Rabba) lists several pieces of information which G-d withheld from human beings. For example, nobody knows when he will leave this world, and, quite obviously, G-d arranged this intentionally so that we will always conduct ourselves properly, rather than wait and repent shortly before we die. As we do not know when we will leave this world, we have no choice but to approach every day as potentially our last, and conduct ourselves accordingly. The Midrash also includes in this list the thoughts of other people. G-d does not empower us to read other people's minds, because if people could access each other's thoughts, the world would be overrun by animosity. The Midrash lists a fetus' gender as one of the pieces of information which G-d withholds from us. No reason is given, but we can reasonably assume that if the Midrash includes a fetus' gender in this list, there must be a valuable reason for this information to be denied to us. Perhaps, if the mother was hoping for one gender, then knowing that the infant is the other gender could cause her distress, which might be detrimental to the child. Or, perhaps to the contrary, knowing the gender during pregnancy diminishes from the excitement when the baby is born. In any event, the Midrash clearly indicates that it is for our benefit that G-d conceals from parents their child's gender during pregnancy. While this Midrash certainly does not suffice to establish a Halachic prohibition against finding out a fetus' gender, it would seem that this is something which should be discouraged, unless there is a particular reason to obtain this information. In some situations, the parents need to know ahead of time whether a Berit Mila must be arranged, and there might be circumstances where for purposes of Shalom Bayit (harmony between husband and wife) this information is valuable. When such a need arises, it is certainly acceptable to be told the gender, as this does not violate any Halachic prohibition. We should add that if the father is a Kohen, there might actually be value in the parents' finding out the fetus' gender. The Mishna Berura (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin, 1839-1933) addresses the question of whether a woman who is married to a Kohen may come in contact with Tum'at Met (the impurity generated by a human corpse) during pregnancy, such as by visiting a cemetery or entering a home where a corpse is present. All male Kohanim, including infants, are included in the prohibition which forbids Kohanim from coming in contact with Tum'at Met, and the question thus arises as to whether a pregnant wife of a Kohen should avoid Tum'at Met, in case she gives birth. The Mishna Berura rules that this is permissible, because it is a situation of "Sefek Sefeka" – where two uncertainties are involved. First, it is uncertain whether the fetus is a boy, who is forbidden from coming in contact with Tum'at Met, or a girl, who is not forbidden. Second, it is possible that the infant will be stillborn, Heaven forbid, in which case, of course, there is no prohibition. On this basis, the Mishna Berura permits the pregnant wife of a Kohen to go to a place where there is a human corpse. However, in a situation where Halacha permits something because of a "Sefek Sefeka," if it becomes possible to resolve one of the uncertainties, there is an obligation to do. Therefore, in the case of a wife of a Kohen who is pregnant, there is value in determining the gender in order to resolve the first uncertainty. Then, if she is carrying a boy, she would be required to avoid exposure to Tum'at Met, and if it is a girl, this would not be necessary. It should be noted that the Magen Abraham (Rav Abraham Gombiner, 1633-1683) maintained that the pregnant woman in any event would be permitted to go to a place where there is Tum'at Met, because the prohibition does not apply in such a case. Therefore, in consideration of this opinion, we would not go so far as to require a Kohen's pregnant wife to determine the child's gender. (Parenthetically, we should note that a Kohen's wife is certainly allowed to go to a hospital to deliver the child, despite the high probability that there is a human corpse in the hospital, because this is a situation of Pikua'h Nefesh – a potentially life-threatening circumstance. Additionally, the spread of Tum'a from one room to another and one floor to another in the hospital likely occurs only Mi'de'rabbanan (on the level of Rabbinic enactment), such that there is greater room for leniency.) Summary: There is no Halachic prohibition against finding out a fetus' gender during pregnancy, though it is preferable not to, unless there is a particular need, or if not knowing could compromise Shalom Bayit. If the father is a Kohen, it might, according to some opinions, be preferable to find out the gender, so that the mother will avoid places of Tum'at Met if it's a boy, and will not have to avoid such places if it is a girl. If the couple does not know the gender, the woman is nevertheless allowed to visit places where there is Tum'at Met.

Our Sages in several contexts emphasized the importance and value of the Misva of Hachnasat Orehim – welcoming guests. The Gemara comments that Hachnasat Orehim is even greater than "Kabbalat Peneh Shechina" (greeting the Shechina). Elsewhere, the Talmud teaches that a place where guests are not welcome will be destroyed, just as happened to the sinful city of Sedom, where hospitality was not allowed. Furthermore, the Mishna in Pe'a includes Hachnasat Orehim in its list of Misvot for which one is rewarded both in this world and the next. And other sources mention many Berachot that are earned through this Misva, including children, rain in its proper time, longevity, and others. Among the Halachic issues that arise when hosting guests is whether the hostess is permitted to pour wine or other alcoholic beverages for a male guest. We know that when a wife is a Nidda, she is not allowed to pour wine or other alcoholic beverages for her husband, unless she does so in an abnormal manner (such as by pouring with her left hand if she normally pours with her right). According to some Halachic authorities, this applies also to a married woman serving a man other than her husband, and thus a hostess should not pour for her male guests in the interest of modesty. By contrast, the work Ezer Mi'siyon writes that this restriction applies only to a married couple when the wife is a Nidda, and a hostess is permitted to pour alcoholic drinks for her guests. In practice, Rav Shayo, in his work Petah Ha'ohel (p. 87; listen to audio recording for precise citation), rules that generally a hostess should not pour wine for a male guest, and if she does, the guest should ensure not to look at her as she pours. However, if the hostess is hosting a large meal, with many guests around, then according to some Halachic authorities it is permissible for the hostess to pour for her guests. Summary: Generally speaking, a hostess should not pour wine or other alcoholic beverages for a male guest, unless she is serving a large meal and there are several other people at the table with them.

Is it permissible according to Halacha for a man to shake a woman's hand? The Ben Ish Hai (Rabbi Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) addresses this question in his work Od Yosef Hai (Parashat Shofetim, 22; listen to audio for precise citation). He records there the practice that had become customary in Europe for guests to tightly grasp the hands of the host and hostess upon arriving in the home. The Ben Ish Hai writes that since a handshake serves to express mutual feelings of friendship and affection, it falls under the Halachic category of "Derech Hiba" – affectionate contact with a member of the opposite gender – and is forbidden. In this context the Ben Ish Hai cites a comment of Rabbi Yehuda Ha'Hasid (Germany, late 12th-early 13th century), in his Sefer Hasidim (1090), forbidding shaking hands with a gentile woman, even if the woman's hand is covered with a glove. The Ben Ish Hai explained that although the Sefer Hasidim speaks here specifically of gentile women, it did not intend to permit shaking hands with Jewish women. Rather, the Sefer Hasidim seeks to dispel the possible misconception that one would be allowed to shake a gentile woman's hand in order to avoid the ridicule that might result from refusing to shake her hand. The Sefer Hasidim thus emphasized that a man may not shake hands even with a gentile, but it goes without saying that shaking hands with a Jewish woman is forbidden. Thus, it is strictly forbidden for a man to shake a woman's hand, regardless of whether or not she is Jewish; this prohibition applies even in professional contexts, where the accepted protocol is to shake hands even with members of the opposite gender.

What is the “heart of the Beit Din”? And can synagogue furniture be used for a Bat Mitzvah?Rabbanit Shira Marili Mirvis and Rabbanit Hamutal Shoval discuss a halachic concept about changing the designated use of a donation — in the Gemara, a living animal dedicated as a sacrifice; in our times, donations for sacred use. They explore the ability (or inability) to repurpose such items, what happens when they're unused, and the principle known as “the heart of the Beit Din.”A Daf of Their Own – Thought-provoking Talmudic discussions in a friendly, accessible style with Rabbanit Shira Marili Mirvis and Rabbanit Hamutal Shoval#DafYomi #MasechetShevuot #ADafOfTheirOwnLearn more on Hadran.org.il

A situation recently arose concerning a family in Montreal who lost a relative, Heaven forbid, living in Miami. The family in Montreal did not to travel to join the other relatives at the funeral, which was held two days later, and they therefore faced the question of when to begin Aveilut (mourning). Does the period of Aveilut begin only after the funeral, in which they case they should call the relatives in Miami to find out when the funeral concluded and then begin Aveilut, or should they begin immediately? Although generally mourning observances begin only after the funeral, perhaps in this case, when the relatives are not attending the funeral, they should begin observing Aveilut immediately upon hearing of the unfortunate news. This issue is subject to a debate among the Halachic authorities. Many authorities, including the Sedei Chemed (Rabbi Chayim Chizkiya Halevi, Israel, 1832-1904) and Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Israel, 1910-1995), ruled stringently, and held that the period of Aveilut cannot begin until after the funeral. Others, however, including Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986), in his Iggerot Moshe (Yoreh Dei'a, vol. 1, 253), held that relatives who do not travel to the funeral begin observing Aveilut immediately upon learning of the passing. This is the view taken by Rabbi Shemuel Wosner (contemporary, Israel), in his work Shevet Ha'levi. Rabbi Shemuel Pinchasi, in his work Chayim Va'chesed (3:13), cites both opinions. Chacham Ovadia Yosef (ibid) ruled that in situations where Yom Tov begins after the person's death but before the funeral, relatives who do not travel for the funeral may follow the lenient position and begin the Aveilut immediately. In such a case, following the stringent view would require delaying Aveilut until after Yom Tov, which might cause considerable difficulty. A person in this situation may therefore follow the lenient position and begin Aveilut immediately upon hearing of the relative's passing, such that the onset of Yom Tov will cancel the rest of Aveilut. In all other situations, however, Chacham Ovadia requires delaying Aveilut until after the funeral. As for the final Halacha, from my consultation with several leading Rabbis in our community it emerges that we follow the lenient view, and allow mourners who are in a different city and are staying there, to begin observing Aveilut immediately. This applies to all cases of a person who does not attend a relative's funeral when in a distant location. Summary: If a person loses a family member, Heaven forbid, in a distant location, and he does not travel to the funeral, some authorities maintain that he may begin Aveilut immediately, whereas others require that he delay Aveilut until after the funeral. The general practice in our community is to allow the individual to begin Aveilut immediately.

The Rebbe advises turning to a local observant rabbi for a Torah ruling on a legal matter tied to state law. He sees the question as Divine Providence and encourages the writer to strengthen their connection to Chassidus, Torah, and mitzvos, which bring Hashem's blessings. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/igroskodesh/015/008/5412

We discuss situations where a food is present at the time of Bracha but then a Halachic concern presents itself which would preclude eating from it.

**Today's Halacha is dedicated f or the refuah and haslacha of Ronnie, Sharon, Eli and all the children of CARE** It is customary each night during the Omer period for the Chazan to recite the Beracha and count the Omer aloud, before the congregation recites the Beracha and counts. This practice developed due to the concern that people may mistakenly count the wrong number, in which case they would not fulfill the Mitzva and would recite a Beracha Le'vatala ("wasted" Beracha). As it was assumed that Chazanim would know the correct number for the counting, the custom developed that the Chazan would first count aloud before the congregation. This practice is mentioned already by the Rashba (Rabbi Shlomo Ben Aderet, Spain, 1235-1310), in one of his responsa (126), and is discussed as well by Rabbi Chayim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868) in his work Mo'ed Le'kol Chai (5:19). Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (the "Ba'al Ha'tanya," Russia, 1745-1813), in his code of Halacha (Shulchan Aruch Ha'Rav, 489:12; listen to audio for precise citation), notes an interesting Halachic dilemma that results from this custom. There is a debate among the authorities as to whether a person fulfills a Mitzva by performing the given action without intending to satisfy his Mitzva obligation ("Mitzvot Tzerichot Kavana" or "Mitzvot Einan Tzerichot Kavana"). According to one view, a person fulfills his obligation regardless of whether or not he has the Mitzva in mind while performing the given act. If so, Rabbi Shneur Zalman notes, once the Chazan publicly counts the Omer, everybody who hears his counting has fulfilled their obligation of Sefirat Ha'omer. Even though they did not intend to fulfill their obligation by listening to the Chazan's counting, and the Chazan did not have in mind for his counting to fulfill their obligation, they nevertheless fulfill the Mitzva by hearing his counting. Rabbi Sheur Zalman adds that with regard to Mitzvot De'Rabbanan (obligations ordained by the Rabbis, as opposed to Torah law), all authorities agree that intention is not indispensable for the fulfillment of the Mitzva. Therefore, since we generally follow the view that Sefirat Ha'omer nowadays is required on the level of Rabbinic obligation, according to all opinions one fulfills his obligation to count by hearing the Chazan's counting. Seemingly, then, it should be forbidden to count with a Beracha after one hears the Chazan count the Omer. Since one fulfills his obligation by listening to the Chazan, even if he did not intend to fulfill his obligation in this manner, he may no longer count with a Beracha. Chacham Ovadia Yosef addresses this issue in his work Chazon Ovadia (Laws of Yom Tov, p. 228). He writes that in order to avoid this dilemma, one should verbally declare each year towards the beginning of the Sefira period that throughout the period he does not intend to fulfill his obligation by listening to somebody else's counting. By making such a declaration, one establishes that he intends on fulfilling his obligation only by personally counting the Omer, and he may thus count with a Beracha even after listening to the Chazan's counting. Summary: It is customary for the Chazan to count the Omer aloud with the Beracha before the congregation counts. One should verbally declare at the beginning of the Sefira period that throughout the Omer he intends to fulfill his obligation to count only through his personal counting, and not by listening to the Chazan or other person's counting.

In this episode Rabbi Shalom Rosner discusses the Halachot of Melabein and Cleaning Fabrics on Shabbat. Follow along using Tzurba Volume 21Tzurba is a revolutionary Halacha sefer guiding the learner through the Halachic process from the Talmudic source through modern day halachic application. Each volume contains clear and concise color-coded sections with a modern English translation alongside the original Hebrew text.The Tzurba Hilchot Shabbat Program is a 2 year cycle in which one can master all of Hilchot Shabbat by learning weekly with Tzurba's signature seforim and style.Tzurba seforim are all available on Amazon worldwide (for those in Israel you can purchase on our website)Have a question for Rabbi Rosner? Want to sponsor a shiur? Contact us at neil@tzurbaolami.com or WhatsAppFollow us on social media for more content:WhatsAppInstagramTwitterYouTubeLearn more about The Lax Family Tzurba M'Rabanan Series

**Today's Halacha is dedicated f or the refuah and haslacha of Ronnie, Sharon, Eli and all the children of CARE** The Rishonim (Medieval Halachic authorities) debate the question of whether a person can fulfill his obligation of Sefirat Ha'omer by listening to the Hazan's counting. The famous Halachic principle of "Shome'a Ke'one" establishes that a person can fulfill his obligation to recite a certain text by listening to its recitation by somebody else. So long as both parties – the person reciting the text and the listener – have in mind that the listener fulfills his obligation by hearing the recitation, he indeed fulfills the requirement in this fashion. Seemingly, then, if the Hazan has in mind when he counts the Omer that his recitation should fulfill the obligation for those listening, those in the congregation who wish to fulfill the Misva by listening to the Hazan's counting should be able to do so. Some Rishonim, however, claimed that Sefirat Ha'omer marks an exception to the rule of "Shome'a Ke'one." The Torah presents the obligation to count the Omer with the expression, "U'sfartem Lachem" ("You shall count for yourselves" – Vayikra 23:15), which suggests that it refers to a personal obligation, like the Misva of Lulab on Sukkot. If so, then one would be required to count personally, just as one must take the Lulab personally. The word "Lachem" ("for yourselves") in this verse emphasizes that each individual must count for himself, rather than hear the counting from somebody else. Other Rishonim, however, counter that the word "Lachem" means something else entirely. One might have thought that the obligation of Sefirat Ha'omer is cast solely upon Bet Din, who should count the days until Shabuot on behalf of the rest of the nation. The word "Lachem" was therefore added to instruct that each individual bears this obligation. This is not to say, however, that the standard principle of "Shome'a Ke'one" does not apply. In light of this debate, it is proper for each individual to personally count the Omer, rather than simply listen to the Hazan's counting. It must be emphasized that the Hazan customarily counts aloud before the congregation not so that the congregation fulfills its obligation through his counting, but rather to inform everybody of which number day they must count that night. Interestingly enough, the custom in Egypt was, at one point, for the congregation to count before the Hazan, in order to avoid the misconception that one can fulfill his obligation through the Hazan's counting. The Egyptian communities changed their practice, however, because people frequently counted the wrong day. In any event, one must ensure to count the Omer himself, rather than rely on the Hazan's counting. Summary: One must count the Omer personally; the Hazan customarily counts the Omer aloud before the congregation only to inform them of which number day to count, and not for them to fulfill their obligation by listening to his counting.

In the Haggadah, the Pasuk V'nitz'ak el Hashem Elokei Avoteinu refers to the Jewish people crying out to Hashem in prayer, a moment that occurred following the death of the King of Egypt. Immediately after this, the Pasuk states, Vayishma Hashem Et Kolenu —"And Hashem heard their voices," leading to their redemption. What is the connection between the king's death and the Jewish people's cries to Hashem? The Rashbatz offers an explanation: for many years, the Jewish people had anticipated that the death of the harsh king would ease their suffering. However, when a new king arose and the oppression became even more severe, they recognized that their only hope lay in Hashem's salvation. It was at that moment of realizing that only Hashem could help them, that their prayers became earnest, and they were answered. This serves as a valuable lesson. Often, when people face challenges, they devise multiple plans in their minds to address the situation. Even as they pray, they may subconsciously rely on these plans, leading to less sincere prayers. It is crucial to recognize that no matter how many potential solutions seem available, without Hashem's intervention, none are truly meaningful. It's easy to beg Hashem for help when there are no other apparent options, but the true test comes when multiple avenues appear open to us. If, in such moments, we can pray with the same sincerity as though no alternatives exist, our prayers hold greater value. This reflects true emunah — the realization that Hashem alone controls our fate. The effort lies in the mind; we must internalize the belief that Hashem, and only Hashem, has ultimate authority over all things. A man named Jack shared an interesting story that illustrates this concept. Just before Rosh Hashanah, he received an unexpected request from his mother. She asked him to arrange for his father to be a sandak (the person who holds the baby during a Berit Milah) for a third time that year, as she had heard that performing certain actions in pairs could be a bad omen. (Note: although the Gemara suggests that performing actions in pairs might expose one to negative influences, contemporary halachic authorities no longer consider this a concern.) Jack found himself at a loss. Being chosen as a sandak is an extraordinary honor, one that is rarely given. Great Torah sages would travel great distances for the privilege of this mitzvah. Halachic authorities even rule that the sandak holds greater honor than the mohel or the father of the newborn, granting him precedence for an aliyah on the day of the Berit Milah. The Zohar HaKadosh compares the act of performing a Berit Milah to bringing a korban to Hashem, with the sandak's lap serving as the altar upon which the korban is offered. The Maharil draws a comparison between the sandak and the kohen offering the ketoret in the Beit HaMikdash, while the Migdal Oz advises striving to perform the mitzvah of being a sandak, even at great personal expense. Some even suggest that being a sandak can be a segulah for wealth. Understanding the rarity and importance of this honor, Jack realized that finding an opportunity for his father to serve as a sandak, especially on such short notice, would be incredibly difficult. After hanging up with his mother, Jack turned to Hashem in prayer, saying, "I don't know how to make this happen, but I know that only You can help me. Please grant me success." That evening, Jack attended a simcha where he was unexpectedly approached by an old acquaintance. This man asked Jack if he knew anyone who would be willing to serve as a sandak at a Berit Milah the next day for a Baal Teshuvah. Jack, astonished, immediately responded that his father would be honored to take the role. The next day, Jack drove his father to the Berit Milah, fulfilling his mother's request. This story illustrates the power of sincere prayer. While prayer is always effective, it is especially potent when we approach it with the understanding that only Hashem can grant our requests. Such prayer carries immense spiritual value. May we all strive to pray with full emunah, trusting completely in Hashem's control over our lives.

**Today's Halacha is dedicated f or the refuah and haslacha of Ronnie, Sharon, Eli and all the children of CARE** The Sha'ar Hakavanot (collection of Kabbalistic teachings) writes that after one counts the Omer – meaning, after reciting the Beracha and then counting that day's number – one should offer a prayer for the rebuilding of the Bet Hamikdash. The text of this prayer is, "Harahaman Hu Yahazir Abodat Bet Hamikdash Limkomah Bimhera Beyamenu Amen" ("The Merciful One shall restore the service of the Temple to its place, speedily and in our days, Amen"). The reason for this practice is that according to most Halachic authorities, the Misva of counting the Omer applies nowadays Mi'de'rabbanan – by force of Rabbinic enactment – as opposed to Torah law. The Torah obligation of Sefirat Ha'omer applied only in the times of the Bet Hamikdash, when we offered the special Omer sacrifice, whereas nowadays, in the absence of Bet Hamikdash, when we cannot bring this offering, our counting is only commemorative. Therefore, after we count the Omer each night, we pray to God to rebuild the Bet Hamikdash so we can offer the Korban Ha'omer, and then we will be able to count in fulfillment of the actual Misva. And even according to those authorities (such as the Rambam) who maintained that Sefirat Ha'omer is required by Torah law nowadays, we offer a prayer that the Temple will be rebuilt so we can offer the Korban Ha'omer. This also answers the question addressed by the Halachic authorities as to why we do not recite the Beracha of "Shehehiyanu" the first time we count the Omer each year. As we know, whenever we perform a Misva that presents itself on infrequent occasions, we recite the Beracha of "Shehehiyanu." Seemingly, this should apply to Sefirat Ha'omer, as well, yet Halacha does not require reciting this Beracha before the counting of the Omer. The reason is that when we count the Omer, we are mindful of the fact that we count only as a commemoration of the actual Misva, which we cannot fulfill in its true form due to the absence of the Bet Hamikdash. The counting of the Omer thus evokes a degree of sorrow, and does not warrant the recitation of the festive "Shehehiyanu" blessing. Summary: It is customary to recite immediately after Sefirat Ha'omer a brief prayer for the rebuilding of the Bet Hamikdash: "Harahaman Hu Yahazir Abodat Bet Hamikdash Limkomah Bimhera Beyamenu Amen."

**Today's Halacha is dedicated f or the refuah and haslacha of Ronnie, Sharon, Eli and all the children of CARE** If a person forgot to count the Omer at night, and also forgot during the following day, but remembered shortly after sundown, may he still count the Omer? Let us take the example of a person who forgot to count the 26th night of the Omer, and forgot also the following day, until a few minutes after sunset. It is obvious that he cannot count with a Beracha, since one does not recite the Beracha if he forgot to count at night and counts the following day. The question, however, is whether he can count the 26th day without a Beracha and then count the 27th day that night, after dark, with a Beracha, just as one would if he counted during the day before sundown. The 13.5-minute period immediately after sunset, which is called "Ben Ha'shemashot," is a time of "Safek" (uncertainty), which means that it is uncertain whether it is regarded as daytime or nighttime. The question thus becomes whether counting the Omer during this period fulfills the previous day's counting, or whether we must consider the possibility that the subsequent day has already begun, such that it is too late to count the previous day's counting. This issue is subject to a debate among the Halachic authorities. The Hid"a (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806), in his Birkeh Yosef, writes that in such a case one cannot continue counting with a Beracha. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, in his Hazon Ovadia – Hilchot Yom Tov (p. 238), disagrees, and claims that counting the Omer during "Ben Ha'shemashot" suffices to allow one to continue counting with a Beracha. He adds, however, that a person in this case must ensure throughout the remaining nights of the Omer to count after "Ben Ha'shemashot." Since he has established that he considers this period daytime, he can no longer do the nighttime counting during "Ben Ha'shemashot," as he would then be acting in a self-contradictory manner. Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer (Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939), in his Kaf Ha'haim (#83), writes that a person in this case should ensure henceforth to hear the Beracha recited from somebody else, rather than actually recite the Beracha, in order to satisfy all views. One who wishes to follow this stringency may certainly do so, but according to the strict Halacha, an individual in this case may continue counting with a Beracha, provided that he ensures to count after "Ben Ha'shemashot," as discussed. Summary: If one forgot to count the Omer at night and also during the next day, but he counted during the 13.5-minute period after sundown, he may continue counting on subsequent nights with a Beracha. He must, however, ensure from that point on to count after this 13.5-minute period, since he has established that he treats this period as daytime. One who wishes to be stringent and satisfy all views should try to hear the Beracha from somebody else for the rest of the Omer period, rather than recite the Beracha himself.

In this episode, we explore the detailed laws of muktzeh on Shabbat, particularly focusing on items that have become broken or have unclear utility. We discuss when such items can or cannot be moved, based on their functional designation before Shabbat and whether they were discarded. The discussion covers practical cases like broken earthenware, stones, candle wicks, and detached doors, highlighting key principles from traditional sources.

**Today's Halacha is dedicated f or the refuah and haslacha of Ronnie, Sharon, Eli and all the children of CARE** A father bears the obligation to train his sons to perform the Misva of Sefirat Ha'omer once they reach the age of Hinuch (training in Misva observance), which is generally defined as approximately six or seven years of age. He should therefore recite the Beracha and count the Omer with his sons each night during Sefirat Ha'omer. Even if a child missed a day of counting, the father should nevertheless have him count on the remaining nights with a Beracha. Although an adult who misses a day of counting does not recite the Beracha when he counts on the subsequent nights, in the case of a child, he should nevertheless be taught to recite the Beracha as part of his training in the proper performance of this Misva. An interesting Halachic irony arises in the case of a boy who becomes Bar-Misva during the Omer period. We follow the position of the Behag ("Ba'al Halachot Gedolot"), that the forty-nine days of counting constitute a single Misva, such that one missed day undermines the fulfillment of the Misva even with respect to the other days. For this reason, as mentioned, a person who misses a day of counting no longer counts the Omer with a Beracha. By the same token, Hacham Ovadia Yosef rules that if a child becomes Bar-Misva during the Omer period, on the day he turns thirteen he must discontinue reciting a Beracha before counting. During the previous days of the Omer, he counted as a minor, who is not, strictly speaking, obligated in Misvot, and he has therefore not performed an official "counting" of the Omer until his thirteenth birthday, when he becomes obligated. Hence, he cannot perform the complete forty-nine-day counting – just like a person who missed a day or several days of counting. Therefore, ironically enough, even though he had been counting with a Beracha before his Bar-Misva, upon reaching the age of Bar-Misva he may no longer recite a Beracha before counting the Omer. Hacham Ben Sion Abba Shaul (Israel, 1924-1998) disagreed with this position, and held that a young man in this situation should continue counting the Omer with a Beracha. Nevertheless, in light of the fundamental rule of "Safek Berachot La'hakel" – we do not recite Berachot in situations of Halachic doubt – a boy in this situation should not recite the Beracha, in accordance with the ruling of Hacham Ovadia. Summary: A father must train his children to count the Omer each night with a Beracha once they have reached the age of Misva training. If a child missed a day of counting, he should still count with a Beracha on the subsequent nights of the Omer. If a child becomes Bar-Misva during the Omer period, he should count without a Beracha from the day he becomes Bar-Misva until the end of the Omer period.

**Today's Halacha is dedicated f or the refuah and haslacha of Ronnie, Sharon, Eli and all the children of CARE** The Afikoman must be eaten with Heseba – meaning, while leaning on the left side. The Sages forbade eating after the Afikoman so that the taste of the Afikoman will remain in one's mouth for the duration of the night. Therefore, after one finishes eating the Afikoman, he may not eat anything else, and should immediately recite Birkat Ha'mazon. Furthermore, one may not drink anything after eating the Afikoman besides the final two cups of wine. It is permissible, however, to drink water after the Afikoman, including carbonated water, and the Halachic authorities rule that one may also drink tea or coffee. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in Od Yosef Hai, writes that if one needs to add some sugar to the tea or coffee in order to be able to drink it, he may do so. Hacham Abraham Antebe (Aleppo, 1765-1858) was likewise lenient in this regard, and this was also the practice among the Jewish communities in Egypt, as documented in the work Nehar Misrayim. This ruling is mentioned by the Hid"a (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806), as well, and this is the position of Hacham Ovadia Yosef. Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Israel, 1923-1998) recommends drinking the tea or coffee without sugar, but he rules that one may add sugar if necessary. (This is also the Halacha regarding drinking before Shaharit in the morning; one may drink tea or coffee, and he may add sugar if he needs.) Other beverages, however, may not be drunk after eating the Afikoman. In the "Ha'rahaman" section of Birkat Ha'mazon, we add the special "Ha'rahaman" for Yom Tob ("Hu Yanhilenu Le'yom She'kulo Tob"). It should be noted that the custom in Halab (Aleppo), as documented in the work Derech Eretz, was not to add special "Ha'rahaman" prayers on Shabbat or Yom Tob, and to recite only the standard prayers that are included in the regular weekday Birkat Ha'mazon. Clearly, however, our community has since adopted the widespread custom to add the special "Ha'rahaman" prayers for Shabbat and Yom Tob. Immediately after Birkat Ha'mazon, one drinks the third cup of wine while leaning on his left side. One who drank without leaning must drink another cup of wine. After drinking the third cup, some have the custom to pour a special cup in honor of Eliyahu Ha'nabi and to leave it on the table throughout the remainder of the Seder. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles of Cracow, 1525-1572) cites a custom among Ashkenazim to then open the door as an expression of faith that Hashem will protect us on this special night, in the hope that Mashiah will come in the merit of our faith. As Eliyahu will come to herald our redemption, a special cup is poured in his honor. However, although this is the custom in many communities, the custom among Syrian Jews is to neither pour this cup for Eliyahu nor open the door. The Hallel is then recited, slowly and with festive song. The Shulhan Aruch writes that it is preferable to arrange for a Zimun (three or more men) to be present at the Seder so that the Hallel can be recited responsively, as it was in ancient times, when one person would recite "Hodu L'Hashem Ki Tob," and the others would respond, "Ki Le'olam Hasdo." Nevertheless, if a Zimun is not present, the Hallel may still be recited. The custom among Syrian Jews is to recite the regular full Hallel, followed by the chapter of Tehillim (136) "Hodu' Le'Hashem" ("Hallel Ha'gadol"), "Nishmat," "Yishtabah" (until just before the end), and then the Beracha of "Yehalelucha." The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 12269-1343) ruled that "Yehalelucha" should be recited immediately after the standard chapters of Hallel, but our custom follows the view of the Bet Yosef (commentary to the Tur by Maran, author of the Shulhan Aruch) to recite "Yehalelucha" at the very end. After reciting the concluding Beracha of "Melech Mehulal Ba'tishbahot," we drink the fourth cup of wine, without first reciting "Boreh Peri Ha'gefen." One must drink a Rebi'it and then recite the Beracha Aharona. Some people do not drink the fourth cup until the very end of the Seder, after singing the traditional songs, but this is improper; the fourth cup should be drunk upon the conclusion of Hallel. The Shulhan Aruch writes that if one forgot to lean while drinking the fourth cup of wine, and he must therefore drink another cup, he recites a new Beracha of "Boreh Peri Ha'gefen," as this cup was not covered by the Beracha recited earlier. However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef (Hazon Ovadia – Teshubot, Siman 49) clarifies that this applies only if one realized his mistake after drinking the entire cup of wine. If some of the wine was left in the cup, then he adds some wine and drinks a new cup while leaning without first reciting a new Beracha.

* This week's Derasha is dedicated in memory of Avraham ben Gemilah* Toward the end of Maggid – the main section of the Haggadah, when we discuss Yesiat Misrayim in fulfillment of the obligation to speak about the miraculous Exodus from Egypt on this night – we cite a Halachic ruling of Rabban Gamliel regarding the obligation of the Seder. Rabban Gamliel stated that one must discuss at the Seder the meaning of the Korban Pesach (paschal sacrifice), the Masa, and the Marror, and if one does not, then he does not fulfill his obligation. At my Seder, when we reach this point, I make sure that everyone who had left the table – such as the women arranging the food in the kitchen – returns to the table, and that this passage is read in both in Hebrew and English, so that it will be clearly understood by all. One of the questions that arise regarding this section is its sequence. Rabban Gamliel lists the three Misvot which must be discussed in the order of Pesach, Masa and Marror. Seemingly, this order is incorrect; the Marror should be discussed first. After all, the Marror commemorates the bitterness of slavery, whereas the Korban Pesach commemorates the miraculous plague of the firstborn on the night of Yesiat Misrayim, and the Masa commemorates our ancestors' hasty, frantic departure from Egypt. Quite obviously, Beneh Yisrael first experienced the bitterness of slavery, and then the miracle of the plague of the firstborn. The correct order, therefore, should be Marror, Pesach, Masa. Why did Rabban Gamliel move the Marror to the end of the list? To answer this question, we need to revisit the meaning and significance of the Marror. The Gemara instructs that the best option for Marror is "Hasa," which we call Romaine lettuce. Although this lettuce is not particularly bitter, it is the preferred choice because of its name – "Hasa" which alludes to the fact that "Has Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu Alenu" – Hashem had mercy and compassion upon us. This seems very strange. If the entire purpose of the Marror is to remind us of the "bitterness," the pain and suffering that our ancestors endured, then why would we associate the Marror with compassion? Hashem's compassion was shown at the time of Yesiat Misrayim, not during the years of bitterness. Why, then, do we want the name of the vegetable used for Marror to allude to Hashem's mercy? The answer is that, indeed, the "bitterness" of slavery was an expression of Hashem's mercy and compassion. To understand how, let us consider an analogy to mortgage payments. A person with a mortgage can choose different payment plans. One possibility is to pay small, relatively easy sums each month, for a lengthy period of time. But he could also choose to "tighten his belt,", cutting back on other expenses so he can afford to pay more of his debt each month. This way, he is able to get out of debt faster. For reasons we do not fully understand, Hashem had told Abraham Abinu that his descendants would endure a 400-year period of slavery. However, Hashem saw that Beneh Yisrael would not survive such a lengthy period of exile. Beneh Yisrael were submerged in the impurity of Egypt, and had they remained there for 400 years, they would have plummeted to the lowest depths, from which they could not recover. Hashem therefore decided to increase the "monthly payments," so-to-speak, by intensifying the workload, so they could leave 190 years early – after just 210 years of slavery. The suffering the people endured during those 210 years amounted to the suffering they were to have experienced over the course of 400 years of bondage. It turns out, then, that the "bitterness" was a crucial component of the redemption from Egypt. Beneh Yisrael were able to leave Egypt only because they suffered not only exile, but "bitterness," such that 400 years' worth of exile was condensed into 210 years. Had this not happened, they could never have been redeemed. This easily explains why we eat "Hasa" as our Marror – because the bitterness commemorated by the Marror was indeed a manifestation of Hashem's boundless kindness and compassion for His beloved nation. With this in mind, we can return to Rabban Gamliel's statement. He listed "Pesach, Masa, Marror" in this sequence because it was only after the "Pesach" and the "Masa" that Beneh Yisrael understood the nature of the "Marror." While they were suffering, everything appeared "bitter." But later, in retrospect, after they left Egypt, they understood that the bitterness of those 210 years allowed them to "pay" their "debt" more quickly, which was critical for their survival as a people. We therefore discuss first the Korban Pesach and Masa, the redemption from Egypt, and then we are in a position to properly understand the Marror, the indispensable role played by the "bitterness" of slavery in the process of redemption. This might also be the reason why we dip the Marror in the sweet Haroset – to symbolize the fact that the bitterness of slavery was actually "sweet," as it ensured our ancestors' survival and eventual redemption. This is something we must remember during our own "bitter" periods, when we face challenges and hardship. At the moment, we see nothing "sweet" or beneficial about the difficult situation that we are experiencing. But we must trust that this "Marror," as "bitter" as it feels, is actually to our benefit. As regarding our ancestors' bondage in Egypt, Hashem is acting kindly toward us even when we endure hardship. This belief helps us remain strong and confident even in life's more challenging moments, as we will trust that everything we are going through is, in truth, to our benefit.

The Mishna in Masechet Pesahim lists the various vegetables that may be used to fulfill the Misva of Marror on the night of the Seder. The Rabbis teach us that these vegetables are listed in descending order of preference, and thus the first vegetable mentioned – Hazeret – is the most preferred vegetable to use for Marror. The Gemara identifies Hazeret as "Hasa," which alludes to the fact that the Almighty had mercy ("Has") on the Jewish People on the night of the Exodus. "Hasa" is generally understood as referring to lettuce. Strictly speaking, even iceberg lettuce may be used for Marror, though it is customary to use Romaine lettuce (perhaps because it is generally cleaner). The Bet Yosef (commentary to the Tur by Maran, Rav Yosef Karo, author of Shulhan Aruch) writes that although iceberg lettuce does not have a bitter taste, it is nevertheless suitable for Marror because it becomes bitter when it is left in the ground. The vegetable used for Marror does not have to actually taste bitter, but rather must be a vegetable that in general has a bitter taste. Thus, although the iceberg lettuce that is generally eaten has been removed from the ground before turning bitter, it may be used for Marror, and, as mentioned, it is in fact the preferred vegetable. Some Ashkenazim have the custom to use horseradish ("Chraine" in Yiddish), which is the third vegetable mentioned by the Mishna – "Tamcha." It appears that lettuce was not available in Ashkenazic lands, and so they had to resort to horseradish, and this then became their custom. We follow the custom of the Arizal (Rav Yishak Luria of Safed, 1534-1572) to place "Ulshin" – endives – at the center of the Seder plate, and then place lettuce on the bottom. It should be noted that one does not have to eat the endives, neither for Marror not for Korech (when we eat Masa and Marror together), though some have the custom to add some endives for Korech. One may, if necessary, combine different vegetables to reach the required quantity of Ke'zayit. Thus, one may combine some lettuce and some endives to reach a Ke'zayit. Likewise, an Ashkenazi who uses horseradish but finds it difficult to eat a Ke'zayit may add some lettuce or endives. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles of Cracow, 1525-1572) writes that if one cannot obtain any of the vegetables mentioned by the Mishna, then he may use any vegetable that has a bitter taste. The final item listed by the Mishna is "Marror," which could be understood to mean that if none of the other items are available, one may use any bitter-tasting vegetable. The Halachic authorities write that in such a case, one should not recite the Beracha of "Al Achilat Marror." Of course, one who uses lettuce for Marror must ensure that the lettuce is clean and free of insects, as otherwise he would be violating a prohibition by eating the Marror, as opposed to fulfilling a Misva. Nowadays one can purchase lettuce grown hydroponically or through other means that avoid infestation, and Hacham Ovadia Yosef strongly encouraged the use of this lettuce. Summary: According to Sephardic custom, Romaine lettuce should be used for Marror. One must ensure that the lettuce is free of insects. Although it is customary to use Romaine lettuce, one may, strictly speaking, use iceberg lettuce, as well. Our custom is to place endives in the center of the Seder plate, and place the lettuce at the bottom. One does not have to eat the endives, though some people add some endives to the Korech. If necessary, one may comine different forms of Marror to reach the required quantity of "Ke'zayit." If one cannot obtain any of these vegetables, he may use for Marror any bitter-tasting vegetable, but the Beracha of "Al Achilat Marror" should not be recited in such a case.

152

In this episode Rabbi Shalom Rosner discusses the Halachot of Melabein and Cleaning Fabrics on Shabbat. Follow along using Tzurba Volume 21Tzurba is a revolutionary Halacha sefer guiding the learner through the Halachic process from the Talmudic source through modern day halachic application. Each volume contains clear and concise color-coded sections with a modern English translation alongside the original Hebrew text.The Tzurba Hilchot Shabbat Program is a 2 year cycle in which one can master all of Hilchot Shabbat by learning weekly with Tzurba's signature seforim and style.Tzurba seforim are all available on Amazon worldwide (for those in Israel you can purchase on our website)Have a question for Rabbi Rosner? Want to sponsor a shiur? Contact us at neil@tzurbaolami.com or WhatsAppFollow us on social media for more content:WhatsAppInstagramTwitterYouTubeLearn more about The Lax Family Tzurba M'Rabanan Series

A Halachic walkthrough of the Seder, discussing minhagim, halachos, and shiurim.

Rabbis Jeffrey and Josh explore the current state of Conservative Judaism. Rabbi Matt is out this week but will be back for the next episode. Jeffrey and Josh are both Reform Jewish rabbis who took the leap into Conservative Jewish congregations.  The two of them discuss the simiilarities and differences between Reform and Conservative Judaism and reflect on the current state of the Conservative Jewish movement. Along the way they  reflect on the meaning of Jewish law and ritual and its significance in contemporary Jewish life and where things might be headed   *Note: The audio of Rabbi Josh's voice is terrible in the first part of the conversation. Our apologies! 

Join us as we continue our discussion on what is permissible to read on Shabbat. We explore the halachic perspectives on reading captions, secular literature, war stories, and newspapers, and how these rulings reflect broader concerns about maintaining the sanctity of the day. Delving into the implications of reading romantic or provocative content, we also touch on the significance of language in halacha and its impact on what may be allowed. Tune in for an insightful analysis of these nuanced topics and their relevance to modern-day practice.

Torah Class - Passover/Pesach: Matzah without Charoset?The Halachic debate that reveals the true meaning of the seder night.

In this episode Rabbi Shalom Rosner discusses the Halachot of Constructing an Ohel. Follow along using Tzurba Volume 21Tzurba is a revolutionary Halacha sefer guiding the learner through the Halachic process from the Talmudic source through modern day halachic application. Each volume contains clear and concise color-coded sections with a modern English translation alongside the original Hebrew text.The Tzurba Hilchot Shabbat Program is a 2 year cycle in which one can master all of Hilchot Shabbat by learning weekly with Tzurba's signature seforim and style.Tzurba seforim are all available on Amazon worldwide (for those in Israel you can purchase on our website)Have a question for Rabbi Rosner? Want to sponsor a shiur? Contact us at neil@tzurbaolami.com or WhatsAppFollow us on social media for more content:WhatsAppInstagramTwitterYouTubeLearn more about The Lax Family Tzurba M'Rabanan Series

Episode dedicated in honor of Rav Breitowitz by anonymous

In this episode, we explore the laws of speech on Shabbat, focusing on what types of conversations are permitted and which should be avoided. Delving into classical sources, we discuss the prohibition against discussing weekday activities, the nuances of speaking about mitzvot, and whether discussing post-Yom Kippur meals is acceptable. Additionally, we examine the halachic perspective on speaking about financial matters and indirect requests to non-Jews. Tune in for a deep dive into how our words shape the sanctity of Shabbat.

Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (contemporary) records the practice of the "Medakdekim" (those who are especially meticulous in their Halachic observance) not to rely on any Kashrut certification of Masot, and instead eat on Pesah only Masot that they baked personally (listen to audio recording for precise citation). He ruled that it is therefore preferable for people to form groups that bake Masot and personally oversee the entire process, including cleaning the utensils, to make sure that the Masot were baked properly. The reason for this custom is that Masa is the product that can most easily become Hametz. Therefore, it is worthwhile for communities to form Haburot (groups) to bake Masa themselves, rather than rely on the industrial manufacturers, even those with valid Kashrut supervision, given the mistakes that could occur in the industrial manufacturing process. This would certainly be an advisable practice for synagogues, to go as a group to a Masa factory several months before Pesah to bake the Masot that they then eat on Pesah. The Mishna Berura (459:10) writes that those baking Masot must work especially rapidly when placing the Masot into the oven. The area right outside the oven is, of course, very hot, and the intense heat could cause the dough to ferment and become Hametz before the Masa has a chance to bake. It is therefore critical not to delay at all near the oven, and to place the Masa from the stick into the oven immediately. A question was once brought to Rav Elyashiv concerning a bakery where one Masa was held on the stick for several moments before being put down in the oven, while the baker searched for a suitable spot inside the oven. This Masa was later mixed with the other Masot in that batch, and the question arose whether perhaps the entire batch should be deemed unsuitable, given the possibility that the Masa in question had become Hametz due to the delay in placing it inside the oven. Rav Elyashiv ruled leniently, noting that we may rely on the possibility that the Masa had already begun to bake inside the oven, and thus did not have a chance to become Hametz. In any event, the fact that the question was raised demonstrates the importance of working rapidly during the process of placing the Masot into the oven. Rav Elyashiv ruled that when possible, each stick used for placing Masot into the oven should be used only once. The stick absorbs some of the dough, and that dough may become Hametz inside the wood of the stick and then affect the Masot that are placed upon it subsequently. This is a measure of stringency that may not be feasible in an industrial system, and this is yet another reason why it is preferable, for this who are able, to bake their own Masot, as they are able to maintain the highest standards, which are not always practical in large-scale production. The custom is to examine each Masa that comes out of the oven and discard any "Masa Kefula," meaning, a Masa that has folded over, and is not perfectly flat. The concern is that the dough in the folded area was not fully baked and thus became Hametz, and therefore any "Masa Kefula" is broken and then put to the side and considered Hametz. Rav Elyashiv ruled that if a "Masa Kefula" had been placed on top of another Masa, the Masa on the bottom is permissible for use on Pesah. We do not have to go so far as to suspect that the bottom Masa became Hametz from the top Masa. Summary: It is worthwhile, when possible, to bake one's own Masot for Pesah, rather than rely on the supervision of Masa factories. When one bakes Masa, he must ensure not to allow the Masot to stand still for even a moment right near the oven; they must be placed from the stick into the oven immediately, without any delay whatsoever. It is customary to discard Masot that doubled over during baking, and are not perfectly flat. The Masot that were underneath such a Masa are permissible for Pesah.

In this episode Rabbi Shalom Rosner discusses the Halachot of Constructing an Ohel. Follow along using Tzurba Volume 21Tzurba is a revolutionary Halacha sefer guiding the learner through the Halachic process from the Talmudic source through modern day halachic application. Each volume contains clear and concise color-coded sections with a modern English translation alongside the original Hebrew text.The Tzurba Hilchot Shabbat Program is a 2 year cycle in which one can master all of Hilchot Shabbat by learning weekly with Tzurba's signature seforim and style.Tzurba seforim are all available on Amazon worldwide (for those in Israel you can purchase on our website)Have a question for Rabbi Rosner? Want to sponsor a shiur? Contact us at neil@tzurbaolami.com or WhatsAppFollow us on social media for more content:WhatsAppInstagramTwitterYouTubeLearn more about The Lax Family Tzurba M'Rabanan Series

**Today's Halacha is dedicated f or the refuah and haslacha of Ronnie, Sharon, Eli and all the children of CARE** A number of different applications are available providing the entire text of the Siddur of one's smartphone. Is it permissible to pray using such an application? The Gemara in Masechet Berachot (23) establishes that while praying the Amida, it is forbidden to hold in one's hand certain objects – such as Tefillin, a Sefer Torah, money, and a knife. We find among the commentators two explanations for this Halacha. Rashi explains that the items mentioned by the Gemara are items which one worries about falling, either because they are sacred items, because they might hurt him if they fall, or because they are expensive items which could break or get ruined if they fall. When holding such an item, one's mind is preoccupied, ensuring not to drop it, making it very difficult to concentrate, and for this reason, Rashi explains, Halacha forbids holding such items while praying. The Nimukeh Yosef (Rav Yosef Habiba, Spain, early 15th century) explains differently. In his view, the Gemara chose these examples only because these are common items, and in truth, Halacha forbids holding anything in one's hand while praying the Amida. The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 96) clearly follows Rashi's view, citing the Gemara's ruling and then explaining, "…because a person's mind is on them, so that they do not fall," and this will disrupt one's concentration during prayer. The Mishna Berura (Rav Yisrael Meir Ha'kohen of Radin, 1839-1933) clarifies that according to the Shulhan Aruch, only items which one is worried about protecting, or to ensure that they would not fall on his feet, are included in this Halacha. This would include a baby, who one quite obviously must ensure not to drop, as the Mishna Berura cites from the Hida (Rav Haim David Azulai, 1724-1806). The Mishna Berura then notes that some disagree with the Shulhan Aruch, and forbid holding any item during the Amida, referring, of course, to the Nimukeh Yosef's stringent opinion. The Taz (Rav David Segal, 1586-1667) follows the stringent view of the Nimukeh Yosef. It should be noted that the Shulhan Aruch Ha'Rav (Rav Schneur Zalman of Liadi, 1745-1813) maintained that even according to the Shulhan Aruch's view, there is a Misva Min Ha'mubhar (higher standard of Misva observance) not to hold anything at all during the Amida. At first glance, holding a phone which is worth hundreds of dollars, and which could break if it is dropped, would certainly be forbidden according to both opinions. However, the Shulhan Aruch writes in that same chapter that it is permissible while reciting the Amida to hold a Siddur from which one prays, despite the fact that sacred books are generally forbidden to be held during the Amida. Since the Siddur is held for the purpose of Tefila, it does not fall under the prohibition. Holding the Siddur serves to enhance one's ability to pray, rather than compromise his ability to pray, and therefore, this is permissible. This would apply to a smartphone, as well. If one uses the Siddur application on the device, then the device becomes no different from a Siddur, which may be held while reciting the Amida. (Of course, this does not satisfy the "Misva Min Ha'mubhar" not to hold anything during the Amida, as understood by the Shulhan Aruch Ha'Rav, but one who does not know the prayer text from memory must in any event hold a Siddur and thus cannot abide by this standard.) However, this applies on the condition that one first turns off all notifications, and silences the phone. Needless to say, if the phone rings, or if a notification appears on the screen, even for just a moment, this causes a distraction during prayer. Therefore, one must ensure before praying with a smartphone that he disables all functions which could potentially distract him during the Tefila, so that the smartphone at that time serves only as a Siddur. Additionally, although it is permissible to pray from a mobile phone, this should not be done unless it is necessary. Firstly, Rav Gamliel Rabinowitz (contemporary) cites a passage from the Sefer Hasidim warning that one's prayers are not answered if he prays from a Siddur which was published by a wicked person. Quite obviously, we do not know the people who produced any given mobile device. Although this is not a Halachic consideration which would lead us to forbid the use of a mobile device for praying, it suffices to make it preferable to use a standard Siddur. More importantly, using a mobile phone during prayer compromises the aura of sanctity in the synagogue. There is a certain ambiance of holiness and reverence which must characterize a house of prayer, and this ambiance is diminished, at least to some degree, by the sight of a person looking at his phone. Therefore, while it is Halachically permissible to use such a device for prayer, this should be done only when one has no alternative, when he finds himself in a place without a Siddur and he does not know the prayer text from memory. In conclusion, it is worth nothing the famous Halachic dictum, "En Kategor Na'asa Sanigor" – "a prosecutor cannot become a defender." This principle has certain applications for the service on the High Holidays, forbidding the use of certain things which are associated with sins which our nation has committed. But it might also be relevant to the question of using a smartphone for prayer. If one uses his phone for improper activities, such as wasting time, or worse, then it is a "prosecutor" against him, Heaven forbid, which cannot then be used as his "defender" in helping him pray to G-d and ask for His compassion and assistance. Summary: It is Halachically permissible to pray from a Siddur application on one's mobile phone, as long as one disables calls, notifications and all features which could disrupt his prayer. However, it is far preferable to use a Siddur, and a phone should be used only when a Siddur is not available.

**Today's Halacha is dedicated f or the refuah and haslacha of Ronnie, Sharon, Eli and all the children of CARE** One of the obligations that apply on the festival of Purim is Matanot La'evyonim – gifts to the poor. People are generally very vigilant with regard to the Mitzva of Mishlo'ach Manot on Purim, and most of the money spent on this festival goes towards the purchase of Mishlo'ach Manot. It should be noted, however, that Halacha requires that one prioritize Matanot La'evyonim; one should limit his spending on Mishlo'ach Manot and even the Purim meal in order to increase his spending on Matanot La'evyonim. Most of the people to whom we give Mishlo'ach Manot do not need our gifts and can celebrate Purim honorably without these packages. The poor, however, need our assistance to properly celebrate the holiday. This is the primary obligation of Purim, and one should therefore allocate more money to this cause than to the other Mitzvot of Purim. Strictly speaking, the obligation requires giving one Peruta – a minimal amount – to two people in need (one Peruta to each). However, the Rishonim (Medieval Rabbinic scholars) write that one should give an amount with which the recipient can purchase a modest meal, consisting of bread and a dip. For us, this would mean approximately $5. Thus, to fulfill this obligation, one must donate $10, so that two people in need receive an amount with which they can purchase a modest meal. Women, too, are included in this obligation, and thus a husband must give a minimum amount of $20, to fulfill his and his wife's obligation. Of course, it is laudable to give more than this amount. Since Matanot La'evyonim constitutes a Halachic obligation, the $10 that one donates for this Mitzva cannot go towards his Ma'aser, the tithing of his earnings. However, if one gives more than $10 for Matanot La'evyonim, the excess amount may, indeed, be counted towards his Ma'aser contributions to charity. The Mitzva requires giving Matanot La'evyonim on Purim day itself. Somebody who knows a needy family may go to that family and personally hand them the money, and thereby fulfill his obligation. Preferably, the donation should be given anonymously, such as by putting the money in an envelope and anonymously leaving the envelope by the recipient's door. In most communities there are people who collect Matanot La'evyonim donations before Purim and distribute the money to the needy on Purim, which is the preferred method for fulfilling this Mitzva. Summary: The obligation of Matanot La'evyonim requires that each person donate a minimum sum of $10 to help needy Jews on Purim, or $20 for a married couple. This obligation should receive budgeting priority over Mishlo'ach Manot and the Purim meal. The money must be given to the poor on Purim day itself; generally speaking, this is done by people who collect donations before Purim and distribute the funds to the poor on Purim.

On "Shabbat Zachor," the Shabbat before Purim, we take two Torah scrolls from the Heichal. After reading the regular Torah portion from the first Torah, we open the second scroll and read for the Maftir reading the final verses of Parashat Ki-Teitzei (Devarim 25:17-19) which command us to recount Amalek's attack on Benei Yisrael. According to many Halachic authorities, including the Shulchan Aruch, the annual reading of these verses constitutes a Torah obligation. The Zachor reading differs in this regard from the standard Torah reading, in that it is a Torah obligation. In light of the unique status of the Zachor reading, is it proper for the congregation to read along with the Ba'al Koreh (reader) from their Chumashim as he reads Zachor? Although some Rabbis indeed encouraged reading Zachor along with the Ba'al Koreh, Chacham Ovadia Yosef, in his work Chazon Ovadia (Laws of Purim, p. 4), rules that to the contrary, this practice is inappropriate. Firstly, he notes that the Torah introduces the obligation to recall Amalek's assault with the term "Zachor" (literally, "Remember") – the same term with which the Torah introduces the obligation of Kiddush on Shabbat (Shemot 20:8). The Sages understood the word "Zachor" as a reference to verbal recitation, thus requiring that one verbally declare the sanctity of Shabbat every Shabbat, and verbally recall the incident of Amalek once a year. As we know, one can fulfill his obligation of Kiddush by listening to its recitation from somebody else. The Halachic principle of "Shomei'a Ke'oneh" establishes that by carefully listening to somebody else's recitation, one is considered to have personally recited the given text. Therefore, one is not required to personally recite Kiddush on Shabbat, and it suffices for him to listen to its recitation by another person. Similarly, the obligation to read the Zachor section can be fulfilled by listening to the reader, and there is thus no need for the congregation to read the verses of Zachor along with the Ba'al Koreh, as they satisfy their obligation by carefully listening to his reading. Furthermore, Chacham Ovadia adds, the Zachor obligation requires reading this section from a proper Torah scroll. Therefore, the congregation can fulfill their obligation only by listening to the Ba'al Koreh's reading, whereby they are considered to have themselves read the Zachor section from a Torah scroll. If they read from their Chumashim, then they do not fulfill their obligation. It is therefore appropriate for the congregation to remain perfectly silent during the Zachor reading and carefully listen to each word read by the Ba'al Koreh. There is some discussion among the Halachic authorities as to whether or not women are included in the obligation to hear the Zachor reading, and therefore many women indeed make a point to come to the synagogue on Shabbat Zachor to hear this reading. Many communities conduct a special Zachor reading on the afternoon of Shabbat Zachor for women who are unable to attend synagogue services in the morning. Some Rabbis discouraged this practice, arguing that it is inappropriate to take the Torah scroll from the Heichal for this reading, since no Beracha is recited over this reading and it is unclear whether or not it is in fact required. Chacham Ovadia Yosef, however (In Chazon Ovadia – Laws of Purim, p. 10), encourages this practice, claiming that reading the Zachor section for women is indeed a worthy enough purpose to warrant removing the Torah from the Heichal. He draws proof to his position from the practice of Rabbi Moshe Greenwald (early 20th-century author of the "Arugat Ha'bosem") to remove the Torah from the Heichal each morning during the first twelve days of Nissan and read from the section of the "Nesi'im" in the Book of Bamidbar (7:1-8:4). Even though reading from the "Nesi'im" section during this period is not required by Halacha, and is merely a Minhag (custom), this practice is deemed worthwhile enough to allow removing the Torah from the Heichal. Certainly, then, it is proper to conduct a special Zachor reading for women in deference to the view among the authorities that the Zachor obligation applies to both men and women. Why is no Beracha recited over the Mitzva of reading Zachor? Many Mitzvot that we perform require the recitation of a Beracha. Seemingly, then, before the Zachor reading we should recite the Beracha "Asher Kideshanu Be'mitzvotav Ve'tzivanu Li'zkor Ma'aseh Amalek." Why did the Rabbis not require the recitation of a Beracha before the performance of this Mitzva? Chacham Ovadia (Chazon Ovadia – Laws of Purim, p. 11) cites those who answer this question on the basis of the Gemara's comment in Masechet Megila (10b) that the Almighty does not rejoice in the destruction of the wicked. Although the wicked people in the world must be eliminated, their death should not be a cause of joy and celebration. Thus, for example, when the ministering angels wished to sing a song of praise upon the drowning of the Egyptians in the sea, God exclaimed, "My creatures are drowning at sea – and you wish to sing a song of praise?!" Therefore, even though we must conduct a special reading to recall the obligation to destroy Amalek, the Sages chose not to require the recitation of a Beracha, which would express a feeling of joy and excitement over the destruction of the wicked. Summary: On the Shabbat before Purim we read for the Maftir reading the section of "Zachor" from a separate Torah scroll. The congregation should remain silent during the reading, rather than read along with the Ba'al Koreh (reader). Some authorities require women to hear this reading, as well. Many communities therefore conduct a special Zachor reading during the afternoon of Shabbat Zachor for women who cannot attend the morning services, and this is a proper practice.

In this episode Rabbi Shalom Rosner discusses the Halachot of Muktzeh. Follow along using Tzurba Volume 20Tzurba is a revolutionary Halacha sefer guiding the learner through the Halachic process from the Talmudic source through modern day halachic application. Each volume contains clear and concise color-coded sections with a modern English translation alongside the original Hebrew text.The Tzurba Hilchot Shabbat Program is a 2 year cycle in which one can master all of Hilchot Shabbat by learning weekly with Tzurba's signature seforim and style.Tzurba seforim are all available on Amazon worldwide (for those in Israel you can purchase on our website)Have a question for Rabbi Rosner? Want to sponsor a shiur? Contact us at neil@tzurbaolami.com or WhatsAppFollow us on social media for more content:WhatsAppInstagramTwitterYouTubeLearn more about The Lax Family Tzurba M'Rabanan Series

Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (a contemporary Halachic authority in Israel), in his Tzitz Eliezer (16:29), addresses two interesting questions relevant to the practice that many people have to keep a charity box in their home and from time to time place money in the box. Firstly, he raises the question of whether a person bears responsibility in the event that the box is lost. Must he pay the lost amount to the institution to which he had been donating? Rabbi Waldenberg rules that the individual does not bear responsibility to replenish the lost funds. When a person is given a charity box to keep in his home, he does not assume responsibility for it. His status with respect to the box is not even that of a "Shomer Chinam" (somebody who guards another person's item without pay), the lowest level watchman, who is responsible to pay only in cases of loss or damage caused by his negligence. In our case, the individual does not assume any responsibility for the charity box, not even at the standard expected of a "Shomer Chinam," and thus he is not required to replenish the lost sum of money should the box be misplaced. Secondly, Rabbi Waldenberg deals with a case where the institution that gave the person the charity box neglected to come collect the money for an extended period of time. May the individual use the money he had placed in the box for a different charitable cause? Rabbi Waldenberg writes that a person in this situation must endeavor to contact the institution and have a representative come collect the money from the box. If this is not possible, then he may perform Hatarat Nedarim – a formal annulment of his "vow" in the presence of three men, whereby he declares that he wishes to use the donated funds for another charitable cause. This procedure effectively annuls his initial donation of the funds, allowing him to now designate them for a different cause. Summary: If a person loses a charity box that he had kept in his home, he is not responsible to replenish the lost funds. If the institution that gave him the box does not come to collect the donated money, he must try to contact the institution. If he cannot, then he may perform Hatarat Nedarim to annul his initial donation, and then donate the money to a different charitable cause.

The 39 Melachos Of Shabbos Series #7 - The Halachic how to of making coffee and tea on Shabbos 11/30/2015

Is it permissible for a person to provide a charity collector – either a poor person, or a solicitor for an institution – with information regarding a wealthy, generous person and advise that he approach him for a donation? At first glance, providing this information violates the admonition in the Book of Mishlei (27:14), "He who blesses his fellow with a loud voice early each morning – this is considered a curse for him." Rashi (classic commentator, France, 1040-1105) in Baba Mesia 23B, explains that information one spreads about his fellow's wealth is deemed a "curse" because corrupt people will now attempt to steal from that wealthy individual. A person should therefore keep such information private, rather than allow it to reach the ears of potential criminals. Likewise, Rashi adds, if people hear that a certain individual is a man of wealth, they may flock to his home and invite themselves in, thereby depleting his resources. Seemingly, then, we should forbid divulging information about a person's wealth to a charity collector. In truth, however, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986) in Igrot Moshe, Y"D, Helek 3, siman 95, ruled that the concerns addressed in this verse do not apply in the context of a charity collector. According to Rashi's first interpretation, the concern is that dishonest people and thieves will devise schemes to steal the wealthy man's money. This concern does not arise in the case of upright, decent people, and therefore if a person knows that the charity collector is honest and decent, he may refer him to a potential donor. As for Rashi's second explanation, the concern is that people might invite themselves into the wealthy man's home and he would be too ashamed to turn them away. In the case of charity solicitation, however, there is no shame involved in refusing a request or giving a lower amount than the solicitor requests. In fact, Halachic sources mention that solicitors for a communal charity fund are allowed to approach all members of the community, and need not be concerned that a given member might feel too ashamed. Refusing a request or making a modest contribution is not looked upon as a source of embarrassment, and therefore we need not be concerned that a wealthy man will feel too ashamed to refuse the request of a solicitor. In conclusion, then, one may refer a charity collector to a wealthy individual, provided that he knows this collector to be an honest, decent and upright person.

Feb. 23, 2025Video: https://vimeo.com/1059527856

The Shulchan Aruch (141:6) rules that although it is permissible according to the strict Halacha to call two brothers or a father and son for successive Aliyot to the Torah, this is not done due to the concern of Ayin Ha'ra (the evil eye). Chacham David Yosef (son of Chacham Ovadia Yosef), in his work Halacha Berura (vol. 7, p. 212), adds that this applies as well to a grandfather and grandson; they should not be called for successive Aliyot due to the risk of Ayin Ha'ra. A Halachic principle establishes that "Benei Banim Harei Heim Ke'banim" – one's relationship to his grandchildren is the same for purposes of Halacha as one's relationship to his children. Thus, just as a father and son should not be called to the Torah for successive Aliyot, so should successive Aliyot not be given to a man and his grandson. Some authorities, however, as Chacham David notes, are lenient in this regard, and allow calling a grandfather and grandson for successive Aliyot. He writes that where it is necessary, such as when a family is celebrating an occasion and many family members are receiving Aliyot, they may rely on the lenient position. Our practice, however, follows the stringent view, which forbids calling a grandfather and grandson for successive Aliyot. This is particularly so in cases of a grandfather and grandson who share the same name; in such a case, according to all opinions they may not be called to the Torah for successive Aliyot. On the following page (p. 213), Chacham David writes that two brothers, a father and son, and a grandfather and grandson may be called for successive Aliyot that are read from two different Torah scrolls. On Yom Tov, for example, a second Torah scroll is opened for the Maftir reading, and it would thus be permissible to call two relatives for the final Aliya read in the first Torah and Maftir. Even though these are two successive Aliyot, nevertheless, the opening of a new Torah scroll for the Maftir reading constitutes a significant enough interruption to allow calling for Maftir a relative of the person called for the previous Aliya. This applies as well in situations where a second Torah is used for the Maftir reading on Shabbat, such as on Shabbat Zachor or Shabbat Rosh Chodesh. Another example of this situation is Simchat Torah, when we open a second Torah for the reading of Chatan Bereishit. A synagogue may call for Chatan Torah and Chatan Bereishit a father and son, two brothers, or a grandfather and grandson, despite the fact that these are successive Aliyot. Once again, the opening of a second Torah marks an interruption that allows calling a relative for the subsequent Aliya. Likewise, on Chol Ha'mo'ed Pesach, the first three Aliyot are read from one Torah, and the fourth from a second Torah. It would thus be permissible to call two relatives for the third and fourth Aliyot, since these Aliyot are read from separate Torah scrolls. Finally, Chacham David rules that a father-in-law and son-in-law may be called for successive Aliyot in situations where this is necessary, such as if a family is celebrating an occasion in the synagogue and many family members are called for Aliyot. The same Halacha we learn here applies to two Kohanim as well, who can be regarding similar to the relationship of grandfather, son, grandson. For more details, see the Halacha entitled "Simhat Torah- Is It Permissible For 2 Kohanim or 2 Leviim To Have A Back To Back Aliyah at the Torah." Summary: A congregation should not call for successive Aliyot to the Torah a father and son, two brothers, or a grandfather and grandson, except for successive Aliyot that are read from two different Torah scrolls. A father-in-law and son-in-law may be called for successive Aliyot – even from the same Torah scroll – in situations where this is necessary.

If a utensil that had yet to be immersed in a Mikveh became mixed with utensils that had been immersed, and one cannot distinguish between them, such as forks or dishes of the same set, the question arises whether these utensils require an additional immersion. Since one cannot discern between the utensil that had not undergone immersion and those that had, any utensil from the group could potentially be the one that still requires immersion. Would one be required to immerse all the utensils before using them with food? According to some authorities, we may apply in this case the standard Halachic principle known in the Talmud as "Chad Be'trei Batil," which means that the majority in a mixture of indistinguishable items effectively negates the minority. In our case, the majority of the forks in the set are permissible for use, and one would therefore be permitted to use all the forks, even though one of them has not undergone immersion. Others, however, including Rabbi Chayim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868), disagreed, claiming that the case of a utensil requiring immersion falls under the category of "Davar She'yeish Lo Matirin," items that could be made permissible. The concept of "Bittul," which allows for a forbidden item to become negated by a majority of permissible items, applies only when the forbidden status is permanent and unshakeable. For example, when dealing with a piece of non-kosher meat that becomes mixed with pieces of kosher meat, there is no mechanism by which the non-kosher meat can become permissible for consumption, and therefore the law of Bittul applies. In our case, however, one has the option of immersing all the utensils and thereby rendering them all permissible for use. In such a case, where there is a readily available means of rectifying the situation, one may not rely on Bittul, and one must therefore immerse all the utensils before using them. Rabbi Chayim Palachi rules that one would even recite a Beracha when immersing the set of utensils. Some authorities disputed this application of "Davar She'yeish Lo Matirin" to this case. They argued that the rule of "Davar She'yeish Lo Matirin" does not apply if some action is required to render the forbidden item permissible. In the case of the immersed utensils that became mixed with non-immersed utensils, the passage of time alone will not remove the utensils' forbidden status; an act of immersion is required. This case thus does not qualify as "Davar She'yeish Lo Matirin," and we may therefore apply the standard rule of "Bittul." As for the final Halacha, Chacham Ovadia Yosef, in his work Halichot Olam (vol. 7, p. 276), distinguishes between different kinds of utensils. When dealing with a set of metal utensils, which require immersion on the level of Torah obligation, one should be stringent and immerse the entire set if one of the utensils has not undergone immersion. However, no Beracha would be recited over this immersion. In cases involving glass utensils, which require immersion only on the level of Rabbinic enactment, one may rely on the rule of Bittul and use all the utensils without immersion. Summary: If a utensil that has yet to undergo immersion mixes with other utensils that had been immersed, and one cannot tell the utensils apart, then in the case of metal utensils one must immerse the entire set without reciting a Beracha. If this occurred with glass utensils, one may use them even without immersing them.

If one acquires a new metal peeler used to peel vegetables or fruits, must he first immerse it in a Mikveh before using it? This question relates to a discussion among the Halachic authorities concerning the knife used for Shehita (slaughtering animals), which comes in contact with meat, but only when the meat is still raw and inedible. The Shulhan Aruch rules that a Shehita knife does not require immersion, since it comes in contact with inedible meat that must undergo several additional stages before it becomes fit for consumption. Tebila is required for utensils that come in contact with edible food, such as the pots and other utensils used in preparing the food, and dishes and cutlery used while eating. The Shehita knife, however, is used at an earlier stage, and therefore, according to Shulhan Aruch, it does not require immersion. The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles of Cracow, 1525-1572) disagrees with this distinction, and rules that a Shehita knife requires immersion, since it comes in contact with meat. It emerges, then, that Ashkenazim and Sepharadim are divided on this issue. Ashkenazim, who follow the Rama's rulings, must immerse a new Shehita knife before it is used, whereas Sepharadim, who follow the rulings of Maran, do not. This issue will affect the status of metal peelers, as well. If a peeler is used only for potatoes, for example, or for another food which is not eaten raw, then it resembles a Shehita knife, and its status vis-à-vis Tebila will thus hinge on the aforementioned debate between Maran and the Rama. Ashkenazim would be required to immerse such a knife, whereas Sepharadim would not. If the peeler is used for other foods, as well, such as carrots, cucumbers, mangos and other foods which can be eaten raw, then its status is determined by its majority use. If it is used mostly for potatoes, and only occasionally for other foods, then it does not require Tebila, since its primary use is with an inedible substance. However, if it is used mainly for other foods, then it requires Tebila, even for Sepharadim. If one is unsure whether the peeler is used mostly with potatoes or with other foods, then it should be immersed without a Beracha. Summary: According to Sephardic practice, if a metal peeler is used exclusively or mostly for potatoes or other foods that are inedible at the time they are peeled, it does not require immersion in a Mikveh. If it used mostly for foods that can be eaten in their state at the time of peeling, then it requires Tebila. If one is unsure as to the majority use of the peeler, it should be immersed without a Beracha. According to Ashkenazic custom, a metal peeler requires immersion under all circumstances.

The Torah obligation of Tebilat Kelim – immersing new utensils – applies only to metal utensils, and the Sages extended this obligation to glass utensils. Utensils made from other materials, such as plastic, nylon, rubber and enamel, do not require immersion at all. This is the ruling of Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in Halichot Olam (vol. 7). The Halachic authorities debate the status of a Teflon pot with respect to Tebilat Kelim. On the one hand, since the pot is made primarily of metal, and the Teflon is just a thin layer of nylon covering the pot, it seemingly should require immersion like other metal utensils. On the other hand, people who acquire Teflon pots are specifically interested in the Teflon, which prevents the food from sticking to the surface of the utensil, and thus perhaps the Teflon should be regarded as the primary material, such that the pot should not require Tebila. As mentioned, the Aharonim (later authorities) debate this question. In light of the difference of opinion in this regard, Teflon utensils should be immersed in a Mikveh, but without a Beracha. Summary: Utensils made from materials other than metal and glass do not require Tebila. Metal utensils lined with Teflon should be immersed, but without a Beracha.

If a person purchases a utensil, such as a plate, to give as a gift, may he first immerse it in a Mikveh to spare the recipient the trouble of immersing the utensil? Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) ruled that immersing a utensil before giving it as a gift is ineffective, and does not absolve the recipient from immersing the utensil after he receives it. The obligation of Tevila (immersion) takes effect only when a person assumes ownership over a utensil for the purpose of using it with food. Therefore, before the gift is given, the utensil is not yet owned for the purpose of using with food; it is owned only for the purpose of being given as a gift. Hence, since the obligation does not yet take effect, the immersion is ineffective, and the recipient would be required to immerse the utensil again upon receiving the gift. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman then addresses the question of whether a person in this situation can give the utensil temporarily to a third party who would receive it on behalf of the intended recipient. There is Halachic concept known as "Mezakeh Al Yedei Acheirim," which means that a person can take possession of an item on behalf of somebody else, and that other person then acquires legal ownership over that object. At first glance, therefore, if one gives the utensil to a third party to acquire on behalf of the intended recipient, the utensil is now under the recipient's ownership, and the immersion should thus be valid. However, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman rules that this technique would not be effective in validating the immersion. Even once a third party takes possession of the utensil on behalf of the recipient, it remains to be seen whether or not the recipient intends to use the utensil with food. He may decide to return it to the store, give it as a gift to somebody else, or use it for some purpose not involving food. Therefore, even at this point, the utensil has yet to come under a person's ownership for the specific purpose of use with food. As such, the Tevila obligation has yet to take effect, and immersing the utensil before giving it as a gift would not absolve the recipient from immersing it after receiving the gift. Therefore, if one gives a new utensil as a gift, he should not first immerse it, and he should instead inform the recipient that it requires immersion. See "Tevilat Kelim" by Svi Cohen, perek8, Halacha 6, and letter from Rabbi Zalman Auerbach Z"L at the end of his book. The Halacha, it is not proper to dip Kellim when you are going to give them to somebody as a gift. You should tell them as a matter of fact that it is not dipped, so they should not be confused and they should dip it themselves.

Before one immerses a new utensil, he recites the Beracha, "Baruch Ata…Asher Kideshanu Be'misvotav Ve'sivanu Al Tebilat Keli." If he immerses more than one utensil on one occasion, then he recites "Al Tebilat Kelim," in the plural form, instead of the singular form of "Al Tebilat Keli." Nevertheless, if one mistakenly recited the Beracha in the plural form for a single utensil, or in the singular form for multiple utensils, he has fulfilled his obligation and does not repeat the Beracha. While reciting the Beracha, one should preferably hold the utensil in his right hand. Furthermore, it is proper to stand while reciting the Beracha, just as one should stand whenever he recites a Beracha over a Misva. Some Rabbis found an allusion for this Halacha in the verse (Tehilim 33:11), "Asat Hashem Le'olam Ta'amod" (literally, "the counsel of God shall always endure"). The letters of the words "Asat" and "Le'olam" are "Ayin," "Sadi," "Tav," "Lamed," "Ayin," "Lamed" and "Mem," which represent the words, "Erub," "Sisit," "Tefilin," "Lulab," "Omer," "Lebana" and "Mila." This verse thus alludes to the fact that when one recites the Beracha over these Misvot, "Ta'amod" – he must stand. This applies to Tebilat Kelim (immersing utensils), as well. Nevertheless, if a person sat while reciting the Beracha before immersing a utensil, he has fulfilled his obligation and does not repeat the Beracha. Tebilat Kelim differs from other Misvot in that it is not an outright obligation; one is not required to immerse a new utensil unless he wishes to use it. As such, there is greater room for leniency, and thus one who mistakenly sat while reciting the Beracha does not repeat the Beracha. One must not speak after reciting the Beracha until he finishes immersing all the utensils he intends to immerse. One may speak in matters related to the immersion, such as asking somebody to bring him another utensil or the scraper to remove stickers. If one spoke in matters unrelated to the immersion after he recited the Beracha and before he began immersing the utensils, he must repeat the Beracha. While immersing a utensil, one should hold it with a loose grip, in order to allow the water in the Mikveh to come in contact with the entire surface of the utensil. Alternatively, one may wet his hands before immersing the utensil, in which case he is allowed to hold the utensil with an average grip during the immersion. Since his hands are already wet, the part of the utensil that he holds will come in contact with Mikveh water by touching his hands. One may even wet his hands with water from a sink for this purpose, as this water will obtain the status of Mikveh water once it enters the Mikveh (due to a Halachic concept known as "Hashaka"). Many people use baskets with holes in the bottom and sides when immersing several utensils at once. They lower the basket into the Mikveh, and the water in the Mikveh enters the basket through the holes and touches the utensils. This is certainly permissible, but on condition that one places the utensils alongside one another, as opposed to on top of one another. When utensils rest on top of one another, the weight of the top utensil might prevent the water from touching the upper surface of the lower utensil. One must therefore ensure that the utensils are lined across, next to one another, without any utensil on top of another. Summary: Before immersing a utensil, one recites the Beracha of "Al Tebilat Keli" (or "Al Tebilat Kelim" for multiple utensils), preferably while standing and while holding the utensil in his right hand. He should not speak in matters unrelated to the immersion until he finishes immersing all the utensils. One should hold the utensil with a loose grip, or wet his hands prior to the immersion and then hold the utensil with an average grip. Perforated baskets may be used to immerse several utensils together, provided that no utensil is placed on top of another.

Is it permissible to prepare instant coffee, hot chocolate or tea on Shabbat, by pouring hot water on the powder or tealeaves? A Halachic principle establishes that when hot water is poured onto raw food from a "Keli Rishon," meaning, from the original utensil in which it had been heated, it cooks the first layer of the food. Accordingly, it is forbidden to pour water directly from an urn or hot water kettle onto raw food. Seemingly, then, it should be forbidden to pour hot water directly from an urn or kettle onto instant coffee or hot chocolate powder. However, there is another Halachic principle which states that one does not violate the Shabbat prohibition of cooking by cooking a food that had already been cooked previously. If a food had already been cooked, cooking it a second time does not constitute "cooking" as defined by Halacha. Therefore, it is permissible to pour hot water directly over instant coffee or chocolate powder. All powders made for instant cooking had already been cooked as part of their processing. Whether it's hot chocolate powder, milk powder or baby formula, the processing of the powder entails cooking. Likewise, instant coffee has already undergone a process of roasting, and cooking a food that had been roasted does not violate the Shabbat prohibition of cooking. Therefore, it is permissible to pour hot water directly from an urn or kettle onto any instant powder or instant coffee on Shabbat. This Halacha does not, however, apply to preparing tea from teabags. The leaves inside the bags are raw, and had not been previously cooked. As such, it is forbidden to pour hot water directly from an urn or kettle onto a teabag. One who wishes to prepare tea on Shabbat must first pour the hot water from the urn or kettle into an empty utensil, and then pour the water from that utensil into the teacup. Tealeaves are classified as "Kaleh Habishul" – a food that is easily cooked - and therefore one may not place them in the "Keli Sheni," meaning, in a utensil into which water had been poured from an urn. Instead, one should pour the water from that utensil into the teacup. He may place the tealeaves into the teacup and pour the water onto the leaves from the "Keli Sheni," or he can pour the water into the teacup and then place the tealeaves in the water in the teacup. Summary: It is permissible to prepare instant coffee, hot chocolate and other powders by pouring hot water on the powder directly from the urn or kettle. To prepare tea, one must pour the water from the urn or kettle into a utensil, and then transfer the hot water from that utensil into the teacup.