Podcasts about Hida

The Gemara (Berachot 12) tells that some Sages considered instituting the daily recitation of the Aseret Ha'diberot (Ten Commandments), but this was not done because of the heretics. Rashi explains that there those who spread the heretical belief that only the Ten Commandments are binding, while the rest of the Torah does not need to be observed. Reciting the Aseret Ha'diberot each day would be misunderstood as reinforcing this belief, implying that only these are the obligatory laws. Therefore, the Sages decided against incorporating the Ten Commandments into the daily prayer service. Surprisingly, the Tur writes that one may recite the Aseret Ha'diberot each day if he so wishes. The Bet Yosef explains that although the Gemara concluded that this should not be done, the Gemara refers only to the congregational prayer service. If the Ten Commandments are read each day publicly as part of the congregational Tefila, this might embolden the heretics, but if someone wishes to recite this text each day privately, he may. In fact, the Bet Yosef adds, it is commendable to recite the Ten Commandments each day, to strengthen one's faith in the Revelation at Sinai. The Shulhan Aruch rules accordingly, and the Rama clarifies that this applies only to a private recitation by an individual. By contrast, the Maharshal (Rav Shlomo Luria, Poland, 1510-1573) wrote that it is permissible even to include the Ten Commandments as part of the congregational prayer, and that this was his community's practice. He explained that the Gemara discouraged reading the Aseret Ha'diberot together with Shema, but this section may be recited by the congregation at other points during the prayer service. The Maharshal said that his congregation recited it each day before Baruch She'amar. Rav Haim Vital (1543-1620) writes that he had the custom of reciting the Aseret Ha'diberot each morning before Shaharit, until his mentor, the Arizal, instructed him to discontinue this practice. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) comments that the Arizal apparently felt that even private individuals should not recite the Aseret Ha'diberot each day. Elsewhere, the Hida speculates that the Arizal may have discouraged reciting this section before Shaharit, but did not oppose its recitation after the prayer service. Regardless, our practice is not to recite the Ten Commandments at all, even privately, perhaps because of the Arizal's instruction to his disciple. (However, some Siddurim list the Ten Commandments on the margins alongside the first paragraph of Shema, as these commands are alluded to in this paragraph.) Incidentally, the Rambam, in a famous responsum, strongly opposes the practice followed in some congregations to stand when the Ten Commandments are read from the Torah (on Shabbat Parashat Yitro, Shabbat Parashat Va'et'hanan, and Shabuot). Just as the Gemara forbade the incorporation of the Aseret Ha'diberot into the prayer service, fearing that this would embolden the heretics, the Rambam felt that giving special respect to this section by standing similarly could have this effect. Indeed, our custom is to remain seated for the reading of the Aseret Ha'diberot. If the Rabbi is called for the Aliya that includes the Ten Commandments, and thus the congregation stands out of respect for the Rabbi, they should sit after the Rabbi recites the blessings, before the reading begins. A number of Poskim similarly opposed the practice to display images of the Ten Commandments on the wall in the synagogue, giving them special prominence, as this, too, could embolden the heretics who claimed that only these commands are binding. This objection appears in several works, including Zecher Yehosef (Rav Yosef Zecharia Stern, 1831-1903), and Teshurat Shai ( Rav Shlomo Yehuda Tabak, 1832–1907). This is the ruling of Rav Betzalel Stern (1911-1989), in Be'sel Ha'hochma. Others justified the practice, suggesting that an image of the Ten Commandments serves as a reminder of the fact that the entire Torah was presented at Sinai. However, Rav Yisrael Bitan challenged this explanation, noting that this image could easily be misunderstood as indicating that only these ten laws were delivered at Mount Sinai. Regardless, Rav Moshe Sternbuch (contemporary), in Teshubot Ve'hanhagot, writes that common custom allows featuring such images in the synagogues. He explains that since the commandments are not written out fully, and only one or two words of each commandments appears, there is no concern of a misunderstanding. It should be noted that many synagogues feature the Ten Commandments on tablets which are rounded on top, which is incorrect. The tablets were rectangular, and not rounded.

We welcome back Dr. Hida Nierenburg, director of Headache Medicine at Vassar Brothers Medical Center. WAMC's Ray Graf hosts.

The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 1:5) writes that it is commendable to recite each morning the sections in the Torah – in the beginning of Sefer Vayikra – that speak of each of the Korbanot. People who follow this custom recite the sections discussing the Ola, the Minha, the Shelamim, the Hatat and the Asham. This custom is based on the notion developed by the Midrash that by reciting the verses that speak of a certain Korban, we are considered as having offered that Korban, and this is how we can attain atonement even without a Bet Ha'mikdash. Nevertheless, our custom is not to recite these sections in the Torah. It has been explained that we do not follow this practice because we instead recite the Mishnayot of Ezehu Mekoman – the fifth chapter of Masechet Zevahim – which briefly goes through the procedure for each kind of sacrifice. As discussed in previous installments, we do recite the section in the Torah discussing the Tamid – the daily sacrifice which was offered each morning and afternoon in the Bet Ha'mikdash. We do not, however, recite the sections in the Torah dealing with the other sacrifices. The Shulhan Aruch writes that after reciting the section from Torah of each of the sacrifices, one should recite a prayer asking G-d to regard his recitation as the actual offering of that sacrifice. Those who recite these sections add the prayer after the voluntary sacrifices – the Ola, Minha and Shelamim – but not after the Hatat (sin-offering), which cannot be brought voluntarily. The Hatat is offered only in very specific circumstances where atonement through the offering of this sacrifice is required, and it cannot be offered voluntarily. The Shulhan Aruch explains that those who follow this custom read the section of Hatat in case they have committed an act requiring this sacrifice, but they should not add the prayer asking that it be considered as the actual offering of the sacrifice, since they do not know for certain that they are required to bring this sacrifice. As for the Asham (guilt-offering), the Shulhan Aruch brings two opinions. Some maintain that since the Asham – like the Hatat – is brought only in very specific circumstances, the prayer should be omitted, except after the recitation of the Asham Talui – the Asham brought in situations where one is unsure whether he committed an offense requiring a Hatat. This sacrifice may be brought even if there is a remote possibility that it is required, and so it is valid to ask Hashem to accept the recitation of this section as though the sacrifice was actually offered. Others maintain that this prayer may be recited even after the section discussing other Asham sacrifices. The Shulhan Aruch writes that the first opinion seems more correct. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) writes that if one wishes to observe this practice, he should recite these sections of the Torah after the Amida prayer. He explains that the recitation of the Amida functions as the offering of the daily Tamid sacrifice, and no sacrifice may be offered before the offering of the morning Tamid. Therefore, one must not recite these sections – which are recited in lieu of the offering of the sacrifices – before he recites the Amida. This opinion appears to contradict the justification mentioned above for our custom to not recite the sections in the Torah – that we instead recite the Mishnayot of Ezehu Mekoman. According to the Hida, it would seem, we are not permitted to recite Ezehu Mekoman before the Amida as a substitute for the actual offering of the sacrifices. It stands to reason that since, as mentioned, we recite the section of the Tamid before Ezehu Mekoman, the reading of the Tamid is considered as our offering of the Tamid sacrifice, well before the recitation of the Amida. We are thus justified in then reciting Ezehu Mekoman, which counts as the offering of the other sacrifices. Although we do not follow this custom brought by the Shulhan Aruch, nevertheless, this discussion is important as it underscores for us the significance of the Korbanot section. As we have seen, the Poskim took this recitation very seriously, viewing it as being actually considered as though the sacrifices have been offered. By reciting the Korbanot each morning, we truly have the opportunity to access the power of the sacrifices even though we do not yet have the Bet Ha'mikdash.

A verse in the Book of Hoshea (14:3) states, "U'neshalema Farim Sefatenu" – "We will compensate for the cows with our lips." This means that in the absence of the Bet Ha'mikdash, when we are unable to offer sacrifices ("cows"), we can attain atonement with our lips – by reciting the sections of the Torah that discuss the sacrifices, as through this recitation we are considered to have actually brought these sacrifices. The verse mentions cows, even though other animals were also offered as sacrifices. The Ibn Ezra (Spain, 1089-1167) suggests that since the cow is the biggest animal offered as a Korban, the verse specifies this animal, expressing the idea that even the large offerings can be substituted nowadays with our mouths. Others suggest that the reference to cows alludes to the sin of the golden calf, the grievous sin which our ancestors committed that requires atonement. Finally, there are those who explain that this refers to the situation where the entire nation inadvertently commits a severe misdeed based on a mistaken ruling of the Sanhedrin, a situation which requires the offering a cow for atonement ("Par He'alem Dabar Shel Sibur"). The point being made is that we have the opportunity to attain atonement even for grave sins despite the absence of the Bet Ha'mikdash, through the recitation of the sections of the Torah dealing with the sacrifices. A story told in Masechet Shabbat (12b) seems, at first glance, to contradict this concept. The Gemara there discusses the enactment legislated by the Sages that one may not read by candlelight on Shabbat, as he might tilt the lamp to move the oil toward the flame to make it steadier, which would constitute an act of Shabbat desecration. Rabbi Yishmael Ben Elisha felt confident that he would certainly not make the mistake of tilting the lamp, and so he read by the light of a candle on Shabbat. He ended up mistakenly tilting the lamp. After Shabbat, he wrote in his ledger that when the Bet Ha'mikdash would be rebuilt, he would bring an animal as a Hatat (sin-offering) to atone for this inadvertent violation. It seems that Rabbi Yishmael was not able to atone for this misdeed by reciting the section of the Hatat; he needed to actually bring the sacrifice in order to attain atonement. One explanation might be that reading the section of Korbanot (sacrifices) is effective if one never has the opportunity to actually offer the required sacrifice. But if a person has the privilege of living to see the rebuilding of the Bet Ha'mikdash, then he must offer the sacrifice even though he had recited the section in the Torah. By contrast, the Sapihit Bi'dbash (Rav Hiya Pontremoli, Turkey, 1764–1831), citing the Ma'abar Yabok , asserted that a sin committed during the time of the Bet Ha'mikdash is more grievous, and thus necessitates the actual offering of a sacrifice. After the Temple's destruction, sins lack the same level of gravity, and so they can be atoned even with the recitation of the Korbanot. However, this view appears irreconcilable with the Gemara's account of Rabbi Yishmael, who was obligated to bring a sacrifice for an offense committed after the Temple's destruction. Moreover, the Arizal writes that a person must fulfill all 613 Misvot, and so souls will need to be reincarnated and return after the Bet Ha'mikdash is rebuilt so they can fulfill the Misvot that require a Bet Ha'mikdash. This teaching, too, implies that reciting the Korbanot is not considered equivalent to the actual offering of the sacrifices. A more compelling approach was advanced by the Petah Ha'debir (Rav Haim Binyamin Pontremoli, Turkey, d. 1873), who distinguished between the atonement achieved through the offering of a sacrifice, and the Misva to offer the sacrifice. Reciting the verses that speak of a required sacrifice suffices to atone like that sacrifice, but it does not suffice to satisfy the halachic requirement to bring that sacrifice after committing a misdeed. Therefore, even though Rabbi Yishmael could earn atonement through the recitation of Korbanot, he still bore the obligation to offer a sacrifice when the Bet Ha'mikdash would be rebuilt. Likewise, the Arizal taught that one will have to return after the restoration of the Mikdash to fulfill the Misvot of the sacrifices that could not be fulfilled without a Temple, even though atonement can be achieved even in the absence of the Bet Ha'mikdash, through the reading of Korbanot. One might wonder, then, why we do not read each day the entirety of Parashat Vayikra, which goes through all the different sacrifices which an individual can bring and those which one must bring on certain occasions. If reading about a sacrifice earns a person atonement as though he actually brought the sacrifice, then it would seemingly be recommended to read this entire Parasha each day. Some explain that one attains atonement for his misdeeds through Torah study, and so it is not necessary to read the sections of all the sacrifices every day. Rabbenu Yona (Spain, 1200-1263) writes that when a person makes the decision to perform Teshuba (repentance), he should increase his amount of Torah learning; if he had been accustomed to learning one page a day, then he should learn two pages a day, and so on. This is because Torah study has the ability to erase guilt for one's misdeeds. This is why the blessing in Shemona Esreh in which we beseech G-d to help us repent begins, "Hashibenu Abinu Le'Toratecha" – "Return us, our Father, to Your Torah." As Torah learning is a crucial element of repentance, we ask Hashem to draw us closer to Torah study so we can repent properly. This concept has been understood on the basis of the laws of "Kashering" utensils. The basic principle of "Kashering" is that a non-kosher flavor is expunged from a utensil through the same medium through which it was absorbed. Thus, utensils that were used to cook non-kosher food through direct exposure to fire must be directly exposed to fire to eliminate the forbidden taste so they may become permissible. The Yeser Ha'ra (evil inclination) leads us to sin through the "fire" of forbidden desires, and so we cleanse ourselves from wrongdoing through Torah learning, which is likened to fire. Therefore, some Rabbis explained that it is preferable to immerse oneself in Torah learning to achieve atonement, rather than spend time reading the sections of the Korbanot. Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868) explained that reading all the sections of the Korbanot is unnecessary because we recite the chapter of "Ezehu Mekoman," which goes through all the various kinds of sacrifices, and this is sufficient for us to be considered to have offered any sacrifice we are required to bring. Another approach was taken by the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806). We are required to recite 100 Berachot each day, and we also recite each morning Baruch She'amar, which contains eleven expressions that begin with the word "Baruch" (not including the two instances of "Baruch" that begin and end the concluding blessing of Baruch She'amar). These 111 blessings, the Hida writes, correspond to the 111 verses of Parashat Vayikra, and by reciting them we are considered to have recited all of Parashat Vayikra. This discussion underscores for us the importance of reading the Korbanot section each morning. As we have seen, this recitation is not simply an admirable and worthwhile practice; it actually provides us with atonement as though we brought the sacrifices in the Bet Ha'mikdash. Therefore, one should make every effort to arrive on time in the synagogue so he can recite this section and reap the great benefits that it offers.

It is proper to begin the morning Shaharit prayer – both on weekdays and on Shabbat – with the recitation of Akedat Yishak, the chapter in the Torah (Bereshit 22) that tells the story of the binding of Yishak upon an altar. The Zohar writes that reciting this section is more effective in bringing a person protection than any sacrifice. When a person reads Akedat Yishak, the Zohar adds, a voice from heavens announces that no harm may be inflicted on him. The Seder Ha'yom (Rav Moshe Ben Machir, Safed, 16th century) teaches that since the Akeda marked the ultimate act of sacrifice for Hashem – as Abraham Abinu was prepared to sacrifice his beloved son – we are guaranteed protection when we read this story in times of danger. By reciting Akedat Yishak in the morning before we begin our daily Tefilla, we help ensure the acceptance of our prayers. The Seder Ha'yom urges everyone to try not to go even one day without reciting this section, as this recitation brings great benefit to the person and to the entire Jewish Nation. Furthermore, after the Akeda, Hashem promised Abraham that his descendants would defeat their enemies ("Ve'yirash Zar'acha Et Sha'ar Oyebav" – Bereshit 22:17). Therefore, reciting this section brings us victory over those who seek our destruction, and assures the downfall of all the enemies who have persecuted us. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) writes that one should recite the section of Akedat Yishak with concentration, and reflect on the unbridled devotion to Hashem displayed by Abraham and Yishak at that time. Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son, whom he loved even more than himself, and Yishak – who was already an adult at the time – did not resist, and even happily prepared to be sacrificed for Hashem. When reading this section, we should gain inspiration from this example of self-sacrifice, and resolve to strengthen our devotion to G-d and our willingness to sacrifice for the fulfillment of His will. Additionally, the Hida teaches, reading the Akeda has the power to overcome the forces of harsh judgment in the world. When we recite the words "Va'ya'akod Et Yishak Beno" ("he bound his son, Yishak" – 22:9), we should have in mind to "bind" and constrain the forces of judgment that seek to sabotage our prayers and prevent them from reaching the heavens. The Yafeh La'leb (Rav Rahamim Nissim Yishak Palachi, Turkey, 1814-1907) emphasizes the importance of reciting the Akeda each morning before Shaharit, and assures us that one who recites it with concentration before Shaharit will be able to recite the entire prayer with proper concentration. Preferably, one should already be wearing his Tallit and Tefillin when reciting Akedat Yishak. It is not customary to recite Akedat Yishak before Minha, except on Yom Kippur. The Poskim debate the question of whether a person who arrived late in the synagogue on Shabbat morning, and needs to skip part of the prayer service, should skip Akedat Yishak or the chapters of Tehillim added on Shabbat morning. Some say that since the Akeda is recited every day, we apply the principle of "Tadir Ve'she'eno Tadir, Tadir Kodem" – that precedence is given to the more frequent Misva, and so the chapters added on Shabbat should be skipped. This is, in fact, the accepted Halacha, though it goes without saying that every effort should be made to arrive on time to the synagogue so that one does not need to skip any part of the Tefilla.

Last episode we briefly talked about what happened when Ōama passed away, including the apparent conspiracy around the Royal Prince Ōtsu, and then the question as to why his son, Crown Prince Kusakabe, didn't then succeed him to the throne. This episode we are taking a look at that period, but more focused on the rituals and what went into a royal funeral, and then take a look all the way to the eventual ascension to the throne of not Crown Prince Kusakabe, but instead his mother, Ōama's queen, Uno no Sarara. She would eventually be known as Jitō Tennō. For photos and links to other episodes, check out our blog post: https://sengokudaimyo.com/podcast/episode-148   Rough Transcript Welcome to Sengoku Daimyo's Chronicles of Japan.  My name is Joshua and this is Episode 148: A Nation Mourns Crown Prince Kusakabe approached the temporary palace structure that had been hastily assembled in the courtyard in front of the Kiyomihara Palace.   Solemnly arrayed around him, dressed in their court garments, were the ministers and government officials.  Together, they approached the palace building, where the Crown Prince's father, Ohoama, also known as Ame no Nunahara oki no Mabito, lay in state.  He had passed away, and according to the imported Confucian values of filial piety, Kusakabe was now expected to mourn in ritual fashion. The court ritualists had seen to every detail of what should be done and even said, to the extent that the crown prince's actions almost felt like a performance of grief, rather than a heartfelt tribute.  And yet, Kusakabe could not help but feel some emotion at the sight of his father, once the most powerful man under heaven, now laid out in this place of temporary interment.  There would be many more ceremonies and rituals before the final mausoleum would be built and the former sovereign's body finally laid to rest.  Until then, even though Ohoama's spirit had left, his body would remain as a symbol to the people, and as the centerpiece of an elaborate ritual, designed, in part, to continue to bolster the state he had helped to create.   Last episode we went into some of the shenanigans around the death of Ohoama and the succession to the throne.  As we saw, not everyone was apparently on board with the idea that Crown Prince Kusakabe would take the throne, leading to the arrest and execution of Prince Ohotsu.  However, we noted that Crown Prince Kusakabe didn't end up on the throne after all: for whatever reason, he never ascended to the honor, and died in 689 – not even three years after the death of his father.  And so we saw Uno no Sarara, Ohoama's wife and queen and mother of Crown Prince Kusakabe, formally take the reins of state and go on to reign as the sovereign, the Sumera Mikoto, or Tennou, until 697.  From there she would become the first ever Retired Sovereign, keeping her hand in government until her death in 703. This episode we are going to look a little more in depth regarding everything that went on around Ohoama's death and the various rites accompanying his passing. Ohoama's was obviously not the first royal death that we have seen in the Chronicles.  It is perhaps, however, one of the best documented in terms of the funerary arrangements and the various rituals that accompanied his passing.  Some of those arrangements are mentioned previously in the Chronicles, but not to the same extent as we see for Ohoama.  This leaves me wondering: are we seeing something novel—new rites for a new type of sovereign, perhaps?  Or was this just the first time the ritual had been documented to this level of detail?. Before jumping into what we see this time around, we should probably look back at what we have seen around the death of previous sovereigns, and which are still going on here.  First and foremost is the creation—or at least the designation—of a "Palace of Temporary Interment".    This is the Mogari no Miya, with "mogari" being the term for the period between an individual's death and their eventual burial.  In the Nihon Shoki we see this practice go back to the earliest times.  After all, most deaths do not occur on a set schedule, and once someone has passed away, funerary arrangements would need to be made.  Now, if all you are doing is putting a body into a box and lowering it into the ground, you can probably bring it all together rather quickly. However, for centuries the burial practices on the archipelago had been significantly more elaborate.  Even those without royal blood might be afforded a special mound, or kofun.  There would be giant stones selected to create the chamber, and then tons of earth and pebbles placed on top.  There might also be haniwa—clay cylinders—which then might even be topped with special figures.  All of this had to be planned out and taken care of, and in some cases, such as the creation of haniwa, it appears as there was a major industry involved in funerary preparations. In the case of royal family members things got even more elaborate, and based on the size of many of the kofun that we see one can assume that their construction took time.  In fact, I would not be surprised if the construction of a new tomb mound might not have kicked off on or near the ascension of the sovereign just to make sure it would be ready, but even still it would take time for all of the rites associated with a royal burial to be ready to go. And so it was common practice that one would have to wait before a burial could actually take place.  Since you couldn't just leave a body out in the open in the community, the corpse would be deposited, instead, in a temporary building.  These are sometimes referred to as mogari huts,  which would likely be placed well away from others.  Here we should also take into account the general pollution associated with death in its various forms.  So you would want to have the body kept out of sight and away from people as best you could while you prepared for the actual burial at some later date.  For sovereigns, this mogari hut, or hut of temporary interment, was eventually referred to as a "miya", or "palace".  In some cases it seems as if one of the buildings of the sovereign's old palace was used for this purpose, while a new palace was then also built for the new reign. In addition to the place of temporary interment, one of the common traditions we see in funerals in the Chronicles is the role of the eulogy.  While a person lay in state during their temporary interment, we are told that people could come to eulogize and lament.  In the case of a sovereign, the high ministers and politically connected would come together and deliver speeches.  This served multiple purposes.  On the one hand, these rituals reinforced concepts of the State and the central authority in the body of the sovereign.  On the other hand, they also served as markers of status for those delivering the speeches, and provided opportunities to be seen and heard, signaling their support of the system that provided them their own power and authority. So all of this  process and ritual that we see for Ohoama is familiar, from previous royal deaths.  However, it's interesting to note that in the most recent years before Ohoama's funeral, a lot of these traditions seem to have been scaled back.  For one thing, there was the decline of large, keyhole shaped kofun, ever since the introduction of Buddhism in the 6th century and the move to memorial temples over large tombs. Furthermore, as part of the Taika era reforms we see regulations on how long temporary interment may last for those of princely rank and below—though nothing is clearly stated for the sovereign themselves.    Let's look at the most recent royal death's before Ohoama's, but since the beginning of the Taika era.  There are at least three we've talked about.  First off is the death of Karu, aka Koutoku Tennou.  Karu's death is barely remarked upon—he was buried about two months after he passed away, and very little fanfare is given.  One can't help but wonder if this was, in part at least, due to the fact that Naka no Oe was actually in charge and running things at the Crown Prince. Takara hime, aka Saimei Tennou, would pass away in the middle of the Baekje war against the Silla-Tang alliance.  Her body was sent back to Yamato, but the Crown Prince and many of the elites established themselves in Tsukushi—modern Kyushu—to better conduct the war on the peninsula.  Not only was her interment thus delayed, but Naka no Oe's own ascension wouldn't take place for several more years, possibly because of the new capital he was building in Ohotsu.  Naka no Oe's own funerary arrangements were interrupted by the events of the Jinshin no Ran.  In fact, the building of his tumulus was used by the government as a cover to bring in soldiers to prepare for the conflict.  There may have been various funerary rituals planned or even carried out by the Afumi court, but if so they were overshadowed by the civil war that broke out between the two claimants to the throne. As such, Ohoama's appears to be the first royal funeral of this magnitude in a while, and in this case they really pulled out all the stops.  There were various activities and rituals associated with Ohoama's passing up through the 11th month of 688, over two years later, when he was finally buried.  So let's go over what happened and maybe what dragged it out so much longer. First off were the immediate lamentations and eulogies.  Ohoama passed away on the 9th day of the 9th month, according to the Nihon Shoki.  It was the year 686 according to the western calendar.  Two months later the erection of the temporary palace of interment began in the southern courtyard—presumably the area south of the Asuka Kiyomihara palace, where they had previously held the various archery competitions. This took a couple of weeks, and Ohoama's body was finally placed in the temporary palace as of the 24th of that month. While ritual lamentations were raised at the start of the building of the mogari palace and when the sovereign's body was interred, the major rites appear to have started three days after he was laid to rest, on the 27th day,  proceeding for the next three days, from the 27th until the 30th. The rites started with Buddhist monks and nuns who arrived before sunrise and began to perform lamentations in the courtyard of the mogari.  Later that day, we see food offerings, apparently for the first time in the Chronicles. Offering food to the dead is not unique to Japan.  Some in Japan will offer food to their ancestors, especially during the Obon festival.  People will also offer food to kami.  In the case of Obon, a bowl of rice is often served with two chopsticks sticking straight out of it.  This has actually led to a social taboo on leaving your chopsticks "stuck" in food, as it looks as though you are offering the food up to the dead.  Instead, chopsticks will be placed on a chopstick rest, on the table, or even across the top of a dish, just not sticking up out of the food, especially the rice. In this case it isn't clear exactly how the food offering was done, nor what happened to the food afterwards.  In the case of food offered to the kami, it is often the case that once the kami have had enough time to partake of the aura of the food—its spiritual essence—the food will then be removed and often consumed by people.  So for Ohoama's funerary offerings, something similar may have happened—possibly with a feast of some kind to which the various nobles were also invited. Along with the offering of food, we are told of a whole list of individuals who gave eulogies—though we aren't told what the content was.  It is likely that these eulogies were largely ritual utterances—stock phrasing by the participant to demonstrate their active performance of the rituals, rather than a deeply thought sermon about the sovereign.  After all, this seems to have gone on at a rather constant pace for the next several days.  The ritual order seems to have stayed the same, with priests and nuns kicking things off with lamentations in the courtyard, and various nobles presenting their eulogy.  The third day, the 29th, was the same. On the fourth day, the 30th, the last day of the month, the priests and nuns raised lament, and the eulogies were given by a Baekje prince in exile, on behalf of his father, as well as the various Miyatsuko of the various provinces.  In addition there were all performances of all manner of singing and dancing—which makes it sound more like a wake than anything else. With the close of the 9th month, we have a break in the tale of Ohoama's funeral, as the narrative switches over to the next part of the Chronicles covering the reign of Uno no Sarara, aka Jitou Tennou.  The first order of business—other than telling us who Uno no Sarara was and covering some of her history—was to deal with the Prince Ohotsu conspiracy.  So we see Prince Ohotsu arrested, along with 30 conspirators.  Prince Ohotsu was killed at his residence, where his wife and consort ran to him and took her own life as well.  That all happened the 2nd and 3rd days of the 10th month.  The 30 co-conspirators were apparently held for about twenty-seven days while the court debated what to do with them.  Finally, the decree was made to pardon all except Toki no MIchidzukuri, who was only banished instead of executed, and the monk Heng-sin, who was exiled to a temple in Hida, over on Kyushu.  The month after that, Ohotsu's sister, Royal Princess Ohoku, returned to the capital from Ise Shrine where she had been serving as the Shrine Princess—though we aren't told who replaced her. And so it isn't until the twelfth month that we see what appears to be the rites for Ohoama's passing seem to resume.  This takes the form of a universal great assembly held in Ohoama's name at the Five temples, listed as Daikandaiji, Asukadera, Kawaradera, Toyoradera in Woharida, and Sakadadera.  This is an interesting list, as one would have expected that the rites would have occurred at the National Temples established previously—for more on the National temples, we talked about that back in Episode 142.. Daikandaiji, Asukadera, and Kawaradera were, of course, national temples.  Yakushiji is not mentioned, probably because it was still under construction.  At this date it's only been dedicated, and we won't see it show up in the Chronicles until 688—a year and change from the current gathering.  Toyoradera was the nunnery of Toyoura temple, and Sakada temple appears to be another nunnery, formerly known as Kongoji.  It is said to have been in MInabuchi, and ruins of a temple are found in the southeast of Asuka, in an area known today as, funnily enough, Sakada.  There is also a modern temple known as Kongoji nearby, though I can't tell if there is any connection between the two other than the name— whether its a true successor temple or just given that name because of the proximity of the ruins. Either way, in this phase of the funerary rites, we have a combination of temples and nunneries involved.  I wonder if that was so that men and women could gather in spaces for them.  Either way, it is clear that these rites  were held specifically to build merit for Ohoama.  This was probably also the intent behind the actions of the court a week later, when presents of cloth and silk were made to orphans, as well as childless, widowed, and elderly men and women of the capital—those who didn't have someone else to look after them or who were assumed to not have a stable income. Come the first day of the new year of 687, we see a return to the palace of temporary interment, and this time it is in a new and different fashion.  We are told that the Crown Prince, accompanied by ministers and public functionaries, proceeded to the Palace of Temporary Interments and made lament.  We are told that it was the Nagon, Fuwe no Ason no Miaruji, who performed the eulogy, after which everyone once again raised a lament.  Then the common people raised a lament.  Then Ki no Ason and others of the High Stewards of the Palace made food offerings.  After this, the Uneme of the Steward's department raised a lament and then music was performed by the officials of the Department of Music. This clearly indicates an involved ceremony, with set roles and functions.  It is being headed by Ohoama's son, Crown Prince Kusakabe, and attended by all the high ministers, and it is being held on the first of the year in place of other festivities for that day.  Other than the timing, the basic pattern of events is similar to the other rituals of lamentation.  .  The contents of the ceremony might be different, and it was always someone new who was chosen to give the formal eulogy, but there does seem to be some ritual and pattern to the rites performed.  For major ceremonies, we are told of the Crown Prince, the ministers, and the various public functionaries who are there, in attendance, but in other instances we are just told of who is providing the lamentations or the eulogy.  For example, on the 5th day of the first month—four months after the big ceremony, we are told that everyone—Crown Prince down to the common people—proceeded to the Palace of temporary interment and made lamentations. Either way, the period for the next year and change is filled with various ceremonies either at the palace of temporary interment, where Ohoama's body lay in state, or elsewhere in the capital, such as at various temples.  There were also various gifts from the court.  All of this was as much political spectacle as it was grieving.  There are some suggestions that, according to Confucian tradition, a son was expected to mourn the loss of his father for up to three years.  So perhaps that is part of what was happening—the royal family was participating in some costly signaling to both raise Ohoama—and thus, themselves—up on a pedestal and to try to demonstrate the virtue of Crown Prince Kusakabe.  After all, the Queen and her son had been effectively running the government before Ohoama had passed, so it wasn't like there was any actual change and only minor risk.  The timeframe also allowed the court time to send messengers out to inform the far reaches of the archipelago of Ohoama's passing and give them time to come and do homage.  They even sent messengers to Silla, no doubt to both let them know about what had happened and possibly to solicit a condolence embassy.  All of that would also play into the pageantry and mythmaking of the moment, further strengthening the position of the Yamato court, which was, of course, under the control of Uno no Sarara and her son. And so we see numerous, and quite public, displays.  Besides the lamentations and the eulogies, we see repeated gifts to the underprivileged, like giving gifts of coarse and floss silk to those residents of the Capital who were at least 80 years old, as well as to invalids with little hope as well as to the poor people who had no other means to support themselves.  All of it being done in Ohoama's name, even though the reputation no doubt was actually accruing to his son and widow. In the third month we see a special mention: an ornamental chaplet of flowers, known as a mikage, was offered at the Palace of Temporary Interment.  Today, flowers are often found in abundance at Japanese funerals.  Certain flowers may be "gifted" to the deceased as a last gift from mourners, and large, elaborate flower constructions are often used to decorate the funeral parlor where the corpse is laid out.  Groups and individuals may pay exorbitant sums to place flowers with a name card indicating who donated it, and some flowers may be for the grieving family to take home.  There are meanings behind the type of flowers, and often white flowers are preferred, as white is often seen as the color of death.  Some of this appears to be influenced by the West, but flowers have long been symbols and used in various ceremonies and rites.  It is possible that some of this was influenced by Buddhist and Tang court rituals.  Or maybe they just wanted something that was sweet smelling to help cover up the inevitable odor that no doubt resulted from leaving a body out for about six months at that point. Whatever the purpose, we aren't given too many details on just what this floral display was.  Aston calls the "mikage" a "chaplet" and Bentley simply describes it as decorative flowers placed at the mogari palace—the palace of temporary interment.  Once the flowers were placed, then Taji no Mabito no Maro performed the ceremony of the eulogy. Next, in the 5th month, we see the Crown Prince and various government officials once again involved.  This time they were accompanied by the chiefs of the Hayato and the Ata of Ohosumi, accompanied by their people, advancing and providing a eulogy.  The Hayato and the Ata were both indigenous groups of people from southern Kyushu, who were considered to be outside of the Yamato polity, with distinct cultural differences.  It is unclear if they were ethnically Wa people.  Evidence from that area suggests that the people there, whatever their ethnicity, had adopted many of the Yayoi and Kofun cultural life-ways.  This was not without some differences, such as distinct burial practices, such as underground burial chambers.  Hayato were also known in Yamato for their shields, which are often depicted as long, thin pentagonal shapes with red, white, and black figural paintings. The propaganda-slash-merit making continued over the next few months.  In the 6th month we see an amnesty, where criminals were pardoned, and in the 7th month the court unilaterally cancelled out any interest on debts contracted in the year 685 or earlier.  In cases where the debtors already owed service to their creditors, for some reason, they made it so that the creditors could not demand that they provide additional service.  People still had to pay back the balance, but they didn't have to pay back anything extra. The next ceremony at the palace of temporary interment wasn't for about three months later, in the 8th month of 687.  We are told that offerings of food were made, and that only awokimono—green things—were offered.  Bentley translates this passage to say that it was the feast of first fruits, the Niinamesai, and they do use the character for "namé", but not the full name.  As for "Awokimono" – Aston translates this as plain, boiled rice, and says it is meant that it was without meat of any kind.  Indeed, the characters appear to be for blue or green cooked rice.  There is another reading for "Awokimono" as "Hijikioono", and Aston suggests that there may have been some hijiki, or seaweed, involved.  Regardless this appears to have been specifically a funerary tradition. A day after the food was offered—and we aren't told who did that—the elderly people of the capital, both men and women—some possibly with new duds thanks to the silk they had received earlier—came and made lamentation west of the bridge.  I suspect that this means they didn't enter the actual courtyard where the palace of temporary interment was set up, but simply gathered on the west side of the Asuka River, which flowed past the west side of the courtyard.  Later that month, we see another Buddhist ceremony.  Fujiwara no Ason no Ohoshima and Kibumi no Muraji no Ohotomo invited 300 Buddhist dignitaries, known as Ryuuzou and Daitoku, to Asukadera.  There they gave each one of them the present of a kesa—a Buddhist sash worn as part of their vestments.   Kesa were typically stitched together from cloth donated by Buddhist laypersons, and we are told that these kesa were made from the garments of the late sovereign.  The language of the decree itself was apparently so painful—Aston translates it as pathetic—that it couldn't be fully set forth.  That sounds to me like someone forgot to write it down. Eleven days after the assembly at Asukadera, a national Buddhist feast was sponsored at all of the Temples in the capital.  The day after that, a feast was sponsored at the mogari palace. Later that same month, Silla ambassadors arrived at the archipelago.  The Dazai, the viceroy of Tsukushi, met with them and informed them of what had happened.  It is likely that they had left before any word had reached the peninsula, so this was the first they heard of it.  Nonetheless, they all put on mourning clothes, turned to face the East, and bowed three times and raised lamentations.  This was all being done in Kyushu, but nonetheless it was clearly important to the people who were recording these interactions. A similar note in the record appears on the 23rd day of the first month of the following year, where we are told that Ohoama's death was announced to the Silla ambassador, Gim Sangnim, and his colleagues.  They, in turn, made their lament three times.  It is possible that these are records of the same event, and I even wonder if one was recorded on the date they arrived and the other was recorded on the date that they were formally told what was happening.  Either that, or the events of the 9th month of 687 were an informal notice, so that they could get ready, after which they traveled the three months and change to Asuka, where they then were given the formal notification. Moving on to finish out the year 687: on the 22nd day of the 10th month, the Crown Prince and government officials, along with all of the governors and Kuni no MIyatsuko—and not forgetting the common people—all began work on the sovereign's tomb.  This is one of the few tombs that we have some confidence in, though it isn't a keyhole shaped kofun like many others from previous eras.  Today it looks mostly like a round hill, but originally it seems to have been an eight-sided tomb with five distinct levels.  Eight sides suggests a Buddhist influence, as eight is an auspicious number, such as in the 8-fold path.  I can't help but wonder if the five levels were connected to concepts of five in Confucian and Daoist teachings.  For instance, there was the idea of five Confucian virtues as well as the Wuxing, or Gogyou, where we have five specific elements.  Given the importance and influence of continental thinking at the time, neither one would surprise me. The tomb would take almost a year to complete, which almost doesn't seem like enough time given everything that they did.  It is possible that they had already prepped much of what they needed and that the 10th month of 687 was simply the date they broke ground, but either way it was an impressive feat. Meanwhile, as the construction was ongoing, the public displays of mourning continued.  Once again, new year's day celebrations of 688 were postponed in favor of public mourning, with the Crown Prince and all of the ministers making their lamentations on the first day of the year, followed by a company of priests the following day. On the 8th day of the first month of the year we are told that there was a public great congregation of priests held at Yakushiji.  This is the first official event held at Yakushiji, and so presumably the temple was now finished—or at least finished enough.  Since Ohoama isn't mentioned, it is certainly possible that this wasn't directly connected to the ceremonies around the official mourning of Ohoama.  On the other hand, Yakushiji was commissioned by Ohoama for the health of his wife, Uno no Sarara, so I have a hard time thinking that there weren't any connections at all. In the second month of 688, we get a decree that has a few different interpretations.  The decree states that, "in the future, on all days of national mourning, it is absolutely necessary that abstinence be practiced."  Bentley translates this to mean that there would be a feast on the day of national mourning every year after.  The key contention appears to be whether or not the day of mourning was a monthly or annual thing.  The court appears to have been creating a national holiday around the memory of Ohoama, and it may have chosen the second month for that day of mourning and remembrance.  Alternatively, this was for a day of mourning each month of the current year.  The wording is vague.  It is like the question of whether or not "Bi-weekly" means twice a week or once every two weeks, and I don't know that there is any consensus.  Still, it is interesting that they created their own holiday to remember Ohoama, and as far as I can tell this is the first such example of a holiday being used to remember a person in this way. Once again on the 22nd day of the third month, flowers were again presented at the palace of temporary interment.  This was only two days different from when the mikage had been set up in the previous year, so it would seem that the timing was significant—possibly because it was spring and the flowers were blooming.  Fujiwara no Ason no Ohoshima, the same individual who had helped gather the various priests together at Asukadera to hand out kesa made of the sovereign's own garments, presented the eulogy. The ceremonies are then put on hold for a bit.  There is an account from the 11th day of the 6th month where prisoners guilty of capital crimes would have their punishment mitigated one degree while those in prison for lighter offenses would be pardoned altogether.  In addition, only half of the commuted taxes were to be levied.  This might have been more merit-working for Ohoama or it may have been because the nation itself was undergoing a drought and they were seeking the Buddha's favor to bring the rains. Once again in the 8th month we see offerings of food are made, and a lament raised inside the palace of temporary interment.  This time the eulogy was performed by Ohotomo no Sukune no Yasumaro.  The day after that, Prince Ise was given commands regarding how the upcoming funeral was to be handled, which was to happen three months later. The 11th month kicked off with the Crown prince and the ministers once more going to the palace of temporary interment, this time on the 4th day of the month.  They had with them guests from the "frontier lands" as Aston notes—Bentley says foreign countries.  Offerings of food were made, and the Tatefushi dance was performed.  This was a dance with shields and swords, according to later records.  It seems that the dancers also wore armor, or something to approximate armor.  All of the ministers then advanced, each in turn, and pronounced a eulogy, with each recounting the services that their ancestors had rendered to the throne. The following day, there was further ceremony as over 190 Emishi brought tribute in on their backs, and pronounced a eulogy for the departed sovereign. Six days later, on the 11th day of the 11th month, Fuse no Ason no Miaruji and Ohotomo no Sukune no Mimiyuki both pronounced eulogies, and then Tahema no Mabito no Chitoko recited, as a eulogy, the succession to the throne of the royal ancestors.  And when that was finished, Ohoama's body was finally placed in the Ohouchi tomb and the tomb was sealed. And with that, the sovereign was put to rest, after over two years of mourning and ceremony, specifically designed to put on display the court's apparent grief.  Whether they were actually grieved or not, the importance was the performance of grief through the rituals set forth by the state.  Individuals and groups demonstrated their loyalty through their participation.  Noble families used the platform to recount their service and thus demonstrate their own history and pedigree and thus why they were deserving of their status in the court. Furthermore, during all this ceremony around the funerary arrangements, to try to  also have an ascension ceremony for the new sovereign was probably a little too much to try and push through.  It would have also meant that they would been holding a ceremony that should be joyful and august under the pall of the mourning period.  For the Crown Prince to don the robes of office while his father's body lay in the courtyard was probably, as they say, a bad look.  And, as I mentioned earlier, it wasn't like it was making any real, practical difference.  The ship of state was hardly rudderless, with Kusakabe and his mother both guiding it through the various ceremonies. Sure enough, in the following year, 689, the new year ceremonies were no longer about mourning and lamentation.  The queen gave an audience to all the lands in the Front Hall, and the following day the Ministry of Education presented 80 wooden staves, presumably for an old form of the Setsubun festival.  Today, Setsubun, the day before Spring, is celebrated with soybeans, which are tossed at characters in oni masks, and then inside the house.  The cries ring out "Oni ga soto" – "Demons Out" and then again, "Fuku ga uchi" – "Good luck inside!"  Thus evil spirits are kept at bay and good fortune is welcomed into the home.  In the older version of a similar ritual, it seems that wooden staves were used to symbolically drive the demons out, rather than just a handful of auspicious beans. The first month of year 689 continued to look a lot like previous years, prior to Ohoama's death.  There was a banquet given to the Ministers, and gifts of clothing were handed out to them.  And then, halfway through the month, the various officials brought presents of firewood to the palace.  And then a meal was given to the various public functionaries. A few days after that, Queen Uno left to visit the Yoshino palace for a few days, returning two days later. There is something that is not mentioned in all of this that I suspect was happening.  First of all, they had no doubt torn down the palace of Temporary Interment, and they were likely preparing for Crown Prince Kusakabe's ascension.  There are some that suspect Prince Kusakabe was waiting until three years had passed before taking the throne, mimicking a tradition sometimes observed on the continent, but nothing is explicitly said. Instead, we see that on the 24th day of the 3rd month there was another amnesty across the realm,  and we are explicitly told that crimes that hadn't been pardoned in ordinary amnesties were also excepted in this amnesty.  Amnesties typically seem to be part of merit-making to either prevent disaster or to celebrate something auspicious.  Was this clearing the way for the ascension ceremony to take place?  Or had something befallen the royal family? We aren't given many details, but on the 13th day of the 4th month, we are simply told that Crown Prince Kusakabe died.  We aren't told that he had previously been ill, or that anything in particular had happened.  It is just a simple line in the text.  And yet, this must have had tremendously serious consequences.  I think we can fairly safely assume that he was prepared to ascend the throne—unless he was thinking of pulling something like Naka no Oe and running things from behind the scenes.  However, there is plenty of evidence that Uno no Sarara was more likely to be the one to step back and be the power in the shadow.  She had operated from that position before. Whatever the plan was, clearly that plan was no more.  Crown Prince Kusakabe was dead, and his only heir was still a young child.  He also had no brothers to take the throne.  The Chronicles don't mention it, but this must have been a moment of incredible weakness for the court and the Queen.  History as we know it could have turned out very differently from this point. Also, sidebar—Prince Kusakabe's death is recorded on the 13th day of the 4th month.  While 13 would not necessarily be an inauspicious day until the Western superstition was introduced in recent times, the number 4 has long been associated with death because the pronunciation, "Shi" is the same as—or at least very similar to—the pronunciation of the character for death.  This is also the case in Chinese, and so the number four is often avoided and seen as unlucky.  Sometimes hotels will skip both the 4th and 13th floors in Asia to avoid any inauspicious vibes.  In Japanese, the numbers 4—"Shi" and seven—"Shichi"—will often be pronounced with their kun'yomi readings, so "yon" and "nana" respectively.  So I just find it rather an unfortunate coincidence that Crown Prince Kusakabe died on the 13th day of the 4th month.  Yikes. Anyway, if there was any wavering or grief by Uno no Sarara, it isn't mentioned in the Chronicles.  They continue to march on.  Later that same month, Prince Kasuga passed away.  Prince Kasuga was a non-royal prince, and the death of Prince Kasuga and the Crown Prince were met with an equal lack of fanfare or explanation.  Compare to the death of Prince Ohotsu, who was given an entire eulogy about how he was really well liked. Instead, the Chronicle simply moves on.  The rest of the year passes by as though nothing had happened.  The government continued with Uno no Sarara at its head.  In the first day of the first month of the following year, Uno no Sarara formally ascended to the royal dignity in a ceremony where Mononobe no Maro set up the shields, Nakatomi no Ohoshima recited a prayer for the blessings of Heaven, and Imbe no Shikofuchi delivered the divine seal, sword, and mirror to her majesty.  At that point all of the ministers and government officials made their obeisance in turn, clapping their hands as  they did so. One has to wonder if this ceremony wasn't a little bittersweet, given everything that had happened. A few things about the ceremony to note.  First are the three families mentioned:  Despite the fact that the Mononobe house had been defeated by the Soga centuries back, here they stand in their traditional role as soldiers, raising up the shield.  Then we see Nakatomi no Ohoshima—earlier mentioned as Fujiwara no Ohoshima—as the director of the Ministry of Kami matters, handling the ceremony.  And then there is the Imbe, in some ways the rival to the Nakatomi and their descendants, the Fujiwara, who is handling the regalia. Also of note is that the three regalia here are not the jewel, sword, and mirror, but the seal, sword, and mirror.  We mentioned this many episodes back when we had seen these same three used for the ascension ceremony, and noted then that a royal seal appears to be used, rather than mention of a jewel.  The character used, on the continent, referred to the imperial seal of the dynasty, which itself would have been carved into jade, or a jewel.  And in Japan the character is also said to refer to the "Yasakani-magatama", the sacred jewel.  So was it the jewel, and they just called it the seal?  Or is that a later attribution to try and maintain the concept that the three regalia remained the same?  I couldn't honestly say, but either way we see the concept of these three regalia as central to the ceremony. And with that, Uno no Sarara, known to us as Jitou Tennou, ascended the throne.  She would continue the process of making updates to the court and to the laws and regulations.  She would also see the creation of the Fujiwara palace and accompanying city—designed as the first permanent capital city in all of Japan.  She would also take a hard line with Silla and make her mark on the world stage, as well.  But we'll talk about that in future episodes. And so, until next time, if you like what we are doing, please tell your friends and feel free to rate us wherever you listen to podcasts.  If you feel the need to do more, and want to help us keep this going, we have information about how you can donate on Patreon or through our KoFi site, ko-fi.com/sengokudaimyo, or find the links over at our main website,  SengokuDaimyo.com/Podcast, where we will have some more discussion on topics from this episode. Also, feel free to reach out to our Sengoku Daimyo Facebook page.  You can also email us at the.sengoku.daimyo@gmail.com.  Thank you, also, to Ellen for their work editing the podcast. And that's all for now.  Thank you again, and I'll see you next episode on Sengoku Daimyo's Chronicles of Japan.

The Gemara (Bava Mesia 23b) establishes that a Torah scholar is permitted to speak untruthfully in regard to three matters, one of which is "Masechet." Rashi explains that if a scholar is asked whether he has thoroughly studied a certain Masechet, he is permitted to untruthfully answer in the negative in order to avoid sounding boastful about his proficiency. The Gemara's teaching, then, instructs that when necessary, one is allowed to distort the truth for the sake of humility, in the interest of concealing one's achievements. Both humility and honesty are critically important religious values, but sometimes they might clash. And when they do, the value of humility overrides honesty, and one may untruthfully deny his accomplishments in order to remain humble. Interestingly, however, the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) noted that not everyone accepts this interpretation of the Gemara. The Rambam understood the Gemara to mean that a scholar can dishonestly deny having learned a Masechet to avoid being questioned about that Masechet. If a scholar fears that he will be asked about a certain Masechet and then suffer embarrassment when he is unable to answer questions about the topic, then Halacha allows him to avoid embarrassment by saying that he had not yet studied the material. According to the Rambam's reading of the Gemara, it does not provide a source for allowing dishonesty in the interest of humility. Regardless, the Hida brings a different source – the story told in the Gemara (Ketubot 77b) of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's encounter with Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai in Gan Eden. Rabbi Shimon asked Rabbi Yehoshua if a rainbow ever appeared in the sky during his lifetime, and Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi said that indeed it did. A rainbow is an inauspicious sign, indicating G-d's anger, that He considered bringing another flood, and so it does not appear in the lifetime of especially pious Sadikim whose merit sustains the world. Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi was indeed on this unique level, and a rainbow never appeared during his lifetime, but he answered in the affirmative in the interest of humility. This shows that it is permissible to speak untruthfully for the purpose of concealing one's achievements. Others cite the Yosef Ometz (by Rav Yosef Yuzpa, Germany, 1570-1637) as advancing a different line of reasoning. Halacha famously allows distorting the truth for the sake of peace. If being precisely truthful will cause tension or hostility between people, then the value of maintaining harmony supersedes the value of honesty, and it is preferable to speak imprecisely. The Yosef Ometz reasoned that this can be applied also to humility, because arrogance causes tension to the soul. An arrogant person is at odds with himself, whereas the humble person is at peace with himself. Therefore, the rule allowing dishonesty for the sake of peace can be extended to allow speaking dishonestly for the sake of maintaining humility, as maintaining humility means maintaining inner peace. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in his Ben Yehoyada (Bava Mesia 23b), suggested a different proof, from the story told in Masechet Baba Batra (8a) about Rabbi Yonatan falsely denying his scholarly achievements. However, the Ben Ish Hai then refutes this proof, noting that in that story, Rabbi Yonatan needed to speak untruthfully to avoid deriving benefit from his scholarly status. As it is strictly forbidden to use one's Torah scholarship for personal gain, it was necessary for him to falsely deny his credentials, and so this does not prove that one may do so in the interest of humility. Nevertheless, Halacha indeed allows one to falsely deny his spiritual and scholarly achievements for the sake of humility. It is worth adding in conclusion that as important as it is to be humble, and to conceal one's achievements, it is equally important to strive for greatness so that one has something to hide. Indeed, it is no coincidence that Moshe Rabbenu is described as the humblest of all men – precisely because he was the greatest of all men. It is because he had what to be humble about – more than any other person in world history – that he was able to excel in humility by concealing his greatness. The Sages famously explain that G-d chose to give the Torah specifically on a relatively low mountain – Mount Sinai – as opposed to the taller mountains in the region, in order to teach us the importance of humility in Torah study and practice. The Sefat Emet (Rav Yehuda Aryeh Leib Alter of Ger, 1847-1905) noted that although G-d wanted to teach us humility, He decided to give the Torah on a mountain, and not in a valley, or a canyon. The reason, the Sefat Emet explains, is because Hashem wants us to strive for great heights, to achieve greatness, to excel to the very best of our ability, to rise like a mountain – but while maintaining our humility. This is the symbolism of Mount Sinai – a mountain that extends into the air, but not as high as other mountains, showing us that we are to strive for excellence while concealing our accomplishments rather than putting them on display.

Another episode, another new reign--same old problems.  This episode we talk about what happened after Ohoama, aka Temmu Tenno, passed away.  We'll touch on the fact that it wasn't entirely a smooth transition, and there are certainly hints that not everyone was in agreement as to what should happen.  And then there were other problems, such that the heir apparent never actually took the throne.  So what happened? For more information on the main characters in this episode, check out the blogpost at https://sengokudaimyo.com/podcast/episode-147  (Also apologies ahead of time--my voice was not in great shape, and that may come through on the audio) Rough Transcript Welcome to Sengoku Daimyo's Chronicles of Japan.  My name is Joshua, and this is episode 147: Here We Go Again   Iki no Hakatoko looked around the spacious room and recognized many of the faces he saw there.  There were various nobles from around the court present.  All of them were familiar, even if they were not the closest of acquaintances—they ran in similar circles and were connected to each other over various political positions.  Some were connected by marriage, some were just allies, and others were almost rivals—but they were all there for a common cause. The open chamber had been buzzing as all of those elites of Yamato talked about why they might have gathered.  Of course, the big news was the death of the sovereign.  Ohoama had passed away, and the court was formally in mourning. And yet the government seemed stable.    The Queen was at the helm, guiding t he government, and her son was beside her as the Crown Prince.  So what was everyone doing here, gathering for what they could only assume were… other options? Finally, the buzzing started to die down as the doors to the chamber were closed and guards posted.  And then, the host for the discussion arrived, as Royal Prince Ohotsu stepped out and greeted all of his soon-to-be co-conspirators….     This episode, at long last, we are about to dive into a new reign.  And if you haven't picked up by now, this, the end of the 7th century, was a turbulent time.  Although the court had been instituting reforms to be more like the courts on the continent—and it wasn't like Ohoama died without any heir whatsoever—things were still unstable.  I know, shocker, right? So what happened? Let's go over the history some, and the main players, and then we can see what happened and the aftermath. Before that, however, let's talk about what we might expect to have happened, if everything had worked like clockwork. While Ohoama passed away in 686, it wasn't as if he hadn't made any plans.  His wife and Queen, Uno no Sarara, was deeply entrenched in governmental affairs, and their son, Prince Kusakabe, had been named Crown Prince in 681.  This meant that both were in positions of significant power within the current government.  All things being equal, and assuming a Confucian model, one would expect that upon Ohoama's passing, Kusakabe would step up and take the reins of the government, ascending to the throne as the new ruler.  Uno would oversee the transition and take her place as the Queen Mother, remaining in the palace and helping to shepherd the new rule, while one of Kusakabe's wives—probably Abe-hime, who, like her half-sister Uno, was also a daughter of Naka no Oe—would become his queen. And yet that is not what happened.  Prince Kusakabe does not show up in our list of sovereigns, and we are told he never ascended the throne.  Instead, his mother, Uno no Sarara, came to power.  So what exactly happened?  Why would she not have handed over power to her only son and set him up on the throne?  To understand all of that, I think there are several things we need to discuss, first of them being just how tenuous and fragile transitions like this were. If you've been listening to the podcast for a while, you might be nodding in agreement with this statement: for more than a century, at this point, whatever high-minded ideals the rulers of Yamato may have espoused, their path to the throne had been covered in blood.  Let's roll back to the events of 587.  We talked about this in Episode 91, when the Soga and Mononobe families had each lined up behind different aspirants to the royal throne.  The Mononobe were a powerful family, known to be warriors for the throne, and the head of the Mononobe, the Ohomuraji, Moriya, was one of the most influential people at court.  However, in recent years, the Soga family had been on the rise.  Soga no Iname had married his daughters to members of the royal family, and he and his son, Umako, were known as the Ohoomi.  The Mononobe were not having it with these uppity newcomers, but the Soga seem to have built their power, anyway, likely using their connections to the continent to do so.  In a series of succession disputes, the Soga came out on top, defeating the Mononobe and eventually killing Moriya.  It was a bloody fight, but eventually the Soga's royal relatives won out. This brought Hasebe Wakasasagi, aka Sushun Tennou, to the throne.  For a time, Wakasasagi and Soga no Umako ruled the land, but eventually Wakasasagi grew suspicious of Umako—perhaps jealous of his power.  He considered taking him out, but Umako caught wind and had the sovereign assassinated, instead.  Umako then put his own niece, Kashikiya Hime, on the throne, where most know her as Suiko Tennou. Kashikiya was no stranger to the court, having served as the wife of her own half-brother, Nunakura, aka Bidatsu Tennou.  Kashikya is thought to have been a compromise candidate, chosen specifically to avert any further power struggles.  Certainly, Umako did not want a repeat performance of what had just happened with Wakasasagi.  And though she reigned, power was apparently shared between Soga no Umako, Kashikiya Hime, and Kashikiya Hime's nephew—Umako's grandnephew—Crown Prince Umayado, aka the legendary Shotoku Taishi.   By all rights, it seemed like things should have gone smoothly.  Umako, the eldest, would pass away to be succeeded by his niece, and it would make sense that after Kashikiya Hime's passing, Umayado would assume the throne.  Instead, Umayado would be the first to pass, creating uncertainty as to the future of the throne.  Then Umako would follow several years later.  Finally, Suiko would pass away soon thereafter. So, in about six years the three most powerful people in court all passed away.  Soga no Umako's son, Soga no Emishi, was still coming out from under his father's shadow.  Furthermore, it was not clear who should sit the throne—should it be Prince Yamashiro no Oe, the son of the Crown Prince, Umayado?  After all, his father would have likely inherited the throne and then it would have no doubt been passed to him.  And yet, there was another contender: Prince Tamura.  Ultimately Soga no Emishi backed Prince Tamura, a man with ties to Nunakura through both his father and mother, and yet who was not truly a royal prince in that his own parents had never held the throne.  Then again, neither had Umayado.  Eventually, Prince Yamashiro no Oe would back down from his claim to avoid bloodshed—and yet blood would be shed anyway.  When Prince Tamura died,  in an apparent bid to keep Soga power and quash any resistance before it started up, Soga no Emishi had Tamura's wife, Takara hime, aka Kougyoku Tennou, installed—but Prince Yamashiro no Ohoe was still alive, and his heirs were still out there.  Soga no Emishi appeared to be content, but his son and heir, Soga no Iruka, was not. And when his father was ill and Iruka had a free hand, he ordered the destruction of Prince Yamashiro no Oe, presumably to avoid a future challenge to the throne and thus to the Soga family's hold on power. This move shocked many, and rather than preventing conflict, it seems to have stirred up ill feelings against the Soga for their heavy hand in the politics of the period.  This would lead Prince Naka no Ohoe and several co-conspirators to rise up, killing Soga no Iruka in court, and then attacking his father, Soga no Emishi, in their home.  See episode 106 for more on that, known as the Isshi Incident.  Naka no Ohoe and his supporters would take their place in the court, but Naka no Ohoe would not ascend to the throne, himself – at least not yet.  Instead, he took the position of Crown Prince, and his uncle, Prince Karu,aka Kotoku Tennou,  took the throne.  However, that still left a loose end.  Prince Furubito no Oe, who had appeared to be the favorite for the throne under the Soga, was still alive.  Furubito no Oe was the son of Tamura and a Soga consort—Hotei no Iratsume, the daughter of Soga no Umako.  Although the Chronicles do not mention it, he seems to have been well placed to be Crown Prince in place of Naka no Oe, especially in a Soga dominated court.  Without that backing, however, his claim may not have been quite so strong.  He had gone into exile in Yoshino, but opponents of Naka no Oe's faction and their bloody coup began to use him as a rallying point.  It is unclear if Prince Furubito himself had any ambitions, but the fact remained that he was a threat, nonetheless, and Prince Naka no Oe had him taken out. By controlling things from behind the throne, Prince Naka no Oe seems to have been able to keep things fairly stable.  When his uncle Karu  passed away, the throne went back to his mother, who is known as Saimei Tennou in her second reign, but Naka no Oe was still in a place of considerable power, and the continuity likely helped keep things on track.  Then Takara Hime passed away in the midst of a national crisis—the mobilization to support Baekje against the Silla-Tang alliance.  That military effort turned out to be less than successful, but by that point, there does not seem to have been much question over who was in charge – it was finally Naka no Oe's turn to take the throne, and he did, as Tenji Tennou. And so it wasn't until Naka no Oe's own death that we again see major violence.  Naka no Oe's brother, Ohoama, is said to have been the Crown Prince, but then Naka no Oe's son, Ohotomo, came of age.  He was made the Dajo Daijin and supported by the most powerful nobles in court.   It is clear that there were divergent factions within the court itself, though, with some supporting Ohotomo and others supporting Ohoama.  In the midst of this, Ohoama chose to bow out, at least while his brother Naka no Oe was still on the throne.  However, Ohotomo and his supporters could not leave Ohoama out there as a loose end.  They knew that he still had a claim and supporters, and they started to make plans to move against him after Naka no Oe's death.  They were too slow, however—Ohoama caught word and moved against the court, instead.  In a bloody struggle that upended the politics of the court one more time, Ohoama came to the throne.  That struggle, the Jinshin no Ran, was covered in detail in episodes 129 to 132. So if we look back we can see that for all of the thoughts of inheritance and legitimacy, most of those who had ascended the throne had done so by eliminating their rivals—either before or just after they assumed the royal mantle.  As such, this is something that Ohoama was, himself, quite concerned about, and he took several steps to try to avoid a repeat of this scenario. First, and perhaps somewhat confusingly, he ensured that those in positions of authority in the government were largely tied by blood to the royal family.  The royal and non-royal princes were all nominally related in one way, shape, or form.  If nothing else this meant that the nobility— those elites without direct blood ties to the throne—were not, themselves, gaining the kind of power and authority that had previously been given out to families like the Ohotomo, the Mononobe, and the Soga.  We don't even hear that much about the relatives of Nakatomi no Kamatari, who had achieved such heights under Naka no Oe that he had become the Naidaijin, the great minister of the interior. One might think that this system still had issues, however.  After all, each princely line had their own tie to a previous sovereign, and we've certainly seen times where a sovereign came in out of left field, with a nominal, but hardly convincing, connection to the throne.  This is particularly true in a time when succession was still not necessarily a strictly patrilineal custom; where it was not unusual for a senior family member to take up the mantle of leadership, rather than just the first-born son of the current ruler. And that seems to be why Ohoama also held the Yoshino conference with his immediate family members in 679.  This included his Queen Consort, Uno; the Royal Prince Kusakabe, the Royal Prince Ohotsu, the Royal Prince Takechi, the Royal Prince Kawashima, the Royal Prince Osakabe, and the Royal Prince Shiki.  These were sons of both Ohoama and Naka no Oe, but they were all considered to be loyal insiders of the royal family.  Ohoama had them swear to work together and to protect one another.  And yet, as we shall see, that promise does not seem to have survived Ohoama himself. So let's talk about some of these characters, now that we are here at another question of succession.  We'll start with the Queen herself, Uno no Sarara. Uno was born in 645, the daughter of Naka no Oe and a consort, Wochi no Iratsume, daughter of Soga no Yamada no Ishikawa no Maro.  Ishikawa no Maro had been a powerful ally of Naka no Oe, assisting with the overthrow of his own uncle and cousin, Soga no Emishi and Soga no Iruka.  In turn, he seems to have become the head of the Soga family.  Despite the rhetoric that the Soga family was destroyed, it was more that the power of Emishi and Iruka was broken.  Ishikawa no Maro had parlayed his assistance into another means to access power at the court, and married his own daughter to Naka no Oe.  That worked until it didn't—enemies in court slandered Ishikawa no Maro and Naka no Oe had him killed in 649. Wochi no Iratsume would have three children with Naka no Oe.  The eldest was Princess Ota, followed by Princess Uno, and finally Prince Takeru.  There is a theory that she died in 651, giving birth to Prince Takeru.  Prince Takeru himself would only survive a short while passing away in 658.  He was only seven years old. Both Princess Ohota and Princess Uno were married off to their uncle, Prince Ohoama.  Princess Ohota was the elder of the two, and bore Princess Ohoku and Prince Ohotsu, whom we'll discuss in a bit.  However, Princess Ohota passed away in 667, during the reign of Naka no Oe, and so did not play as big a role in the politics of the day as her younger sister. Uno, on the other hand, appears to have been Ohoama's ride-or-die.  They were married when she was only thirteen years old, and she followed him when he and Naka no Oe went to Kyushu to oversee the war on the peninsula.  It was there that she gave birth to her first and only son in 662.  She left the court behind to follow Ohoama to Yoshino, along with their son, Prince Kusakabe.  She then followed Ohoama on his lightning blitz through the mountains over to the east.  It is said that while he went on to the front, she maintained a place in the relative safety of the land of Mie.  From there she likely organized the rearguard and would have been involved with the back-end logistics.  She is also said to have made particular entreaties to the deities of Ise shrine, and may have had a hand in raising the Shrine to greater prominence during the reign of Ohoama and later. A key note is the fact that, when Ohoama became ill, and could not effectively manage the affairs of state, Uno stepped in and made sure that things continued to operate.  And so, when Ohoama finally passed away, his projects were not simply left hanging—his queen and consort, Uno no Sarara, was there to see that everything remained on track. As queen, Uno's son, Prince Kusakabe, was the favorite to succeed his father.  In fact, in 681, he was named Crown Prince at the age of 19.  Kusakabe had even married his own aunt, Princess Abe—his mother's half-sister.  Princess Abe was another daughter of Naka no Oe and a Soga related consort; in this case it was Wochi no Iratsume's younger sister, Mehi no Iratsume—sometimes called Sakurai no Iratsume.  I should note that Princess Abe was only about 20 years old in 681, only a year older than the Crown Prince, so it isn't like there was a huge age gap between them, even if he was technically marrying his own aunt.  Still, they had already had a child between them the year before, in 680—this was Princess Hidaka or Niimi.  Two years later, in 683, they had another child, Prince Karu, and later we know that they had a third child, Princess Kibi.  This is all a pretty good start for a future sovereign, and Kusakabe seems to have been on track to succeed his father. By all rights, it seems that Kusakabe should have stepped up in 686 to take the throne, but that was not to be.  Instead, his mother, Queen Uno no Sarara, would retain her place at the head of the government.  It is possible that this was meant to be merely temporary —there were still many things to be taken care of.  With Ohoama's death there were numerous rituals having to do with his interment, and the Crown Prince, Kusakabe, appears to have been integral to those events.  Whereas we may have previously seen powerful nobles step up, with the increased influence of Confucianism, it makes sense that a son would be responsible for ensuring that things were taken care of.   There was also the issue of a new palace that would need to be built, and the court would need to prepare for the various enthronement ceremonies.  After all, Naka no Oe himself wasn't formally enthroned for three years into his supposed reign. And just like his grandfather, as Crown Prince, Kusakabe maintained a powerful portfolio at the court that would still allow him to have a heavy hand on the rudder of the ship of state.  In fact, had things gone differently, then the Chroniclers may have simply counted these early years as part of Kusakabe's reign, as they had done with Naka no Oe. And all that would have been great—except that, despite all those nice family agreements at Yoshino, there were others who seem to have had designs on the throne. The first claim that likely could have been made was by Prince Takechi.  Prince Takechi—written as Takaichi, like the district of the same name—was technically the eldest son of Ohoama.  He had been called to Ohoama's side during the Jinshin no Ran, and given nominal control over the troops waiting to cross the pass from Ohowari into Afumi.  This was likely more of a sinecure, however; Prince Takechi was still quite young, and while the position would no doubt teach him much about organization and leadership, I certainly hope that there were more experienced individuals assisting him. However, for all of that, Prince Takechi had a major strike against him In the form of his parentage.  Although he was Ohoama's eldest son, his mother was not a royal princess.  Instead she was Amago no Iratsume, the daughter of the powerful head of the Munakata family, Munakata no Tokusen. Munakata was a powerful area on the northwest coast of Tsukushi—modern Kyushu.  It is famous for the three Munakata shrines.  The outer, or Hetsu, shrine is on the land, but the middle shrine is on the island of Ohoshima, 11 kilometers from the Hetsu shrine.  Then the Oki, or deep sea, shrine is on the aptly named Okinoshima, another 49 kilometers past that, out in the middle of the Genkai Sea, the body of water between Kyushu, Tsushima, and the Korean peninsula.  Even today, Okinoshima is considered a sacred place, and has never been developed: even today, only those closely associated with the shrine are allowed to set foot there.  Because of that we can see something remarkable, as Okinoshima was held as sacred for hundreds of years, during which time, offerings were regularly made to the kami there, presumably for safe passage across the waters.  These offerings have accumulated over the centuries and serve as a fascinating glimpse back into the history of the shrine and of the relations between the archipelago and the peninsula. The land of Munakata—and by extension the rulers, or Kimi—appear to have had not inconsiderable influence over the trade back and forth across the ocean to the continent.  This is further corroborated by the wealth left at Okinoshima and elsewhere, as well as by large kofun nearby, thought to be those of the ruling family of the area.  This would have no doubt been a powerful and prestigious family to be allied with, especially in Ohoama's role as a Prince.  However, despite all of that, they were not, ultimately, a royal family.   That would seem to have made Prince Takechi ineligible to take the throne—at least without some serious backing and perhaps a little re-working of his parentage. And this brings us to the third eldest son of Ohoama:  Prince Ohotsu.  Unlike Prince Takechi, Prince Ohotsu was the son of a royal princess—Princess Ohota.  In fact, not only was she a royal princess, but she was the sister to Queen Uno.  And Prince Ohotsu was born only a year later than Prince Kusakabe.  Furthermore, during the Jinshin no Ran, Prince Ohotsu was called to Ohoama's side, along with his half-brother, Prince Takechi, and he is specifically mentioned in that role, despite the fact that he was still too young to have played much of a role.  Like Prince Kusakabe, Prince Ohotsu was in his early twenties. So if we put Kusakabe and Ohotsu side-by-side, we can see that they have a lot of similar qualifications. Both were the sons of Ohoama by daughters of Naka no Oe, giving them double-royal lineages.  Their mothers were even full sisters, so they were both great-grandsons of Soga no Ishikawa no Maro, for whatever that means.  Kusakabe was older by a day, but Ohotsu's mother was the eldest of the two sisters.  But for the fact that his mother had passed away, she could possibly have been declared Queen, and Ohotsu might have ended up as Crown Prince, instead of Kusakabe.  Even if something had simply befallen Kusakabe, Ohotsu likely would have been able to step in, especially since Kusakabe had no full-blooded siblings, himself. The reign of Ohoama is replete with examples of Kusakabe, Ohotsu, and Takechi often acting together or being given honors together.  While it is always clear to rank them in that order, it is also clear that all three seemed to hold a place of high esteem.   What we don't seem to see is any ill will between them—but then again, the Chronicles rarely give much attention to anyone who is not the sovereign except to mention them in passing.  As such, we get only a simple sentence in the record, dated barely two weeks after Ohoama's passing, that Prince Ohotsu conspired against the Crown Prince, which is to say, Prince Kusakabe. As is so frustratingly often the case we aren't told how he was conspiring.  Clearly, it refers to succession and we can see that it wouldn't take much for Ohotsu to gather support and place himself on the throne—had that occurred, we likely would see some differences in the Chronicles as well.  However, as it stood, the conspiracy came to naught.  We are told that about one more week later, after the temporary interment of Ohoama's body and the many, many days spent eulogizing him and those around him—seriously, the Chronicles go into way too much detail, which is great for giving us a lot of details on people in the court and their court ranks, but otherwise is mostly paragraphs of names of individuals who were likely important enough for the Chroniclers to ensure that they got at least a mention. It was after that was finished that we are told that Prince Ohotsu's conspiracy was discovered.  He had the support of some thirty nobles, including a priest from Silla and the famous Iki no Muraji no Hakatoko—the one who had written the detailed account of the embassy that had been held under arrest by the Tang court, which we talked about back in Episode 123.  The point is these were people with some amount of clout and who moved in important circles, and for thirty of them to be in Ohotsu's camp might not seem like much, but that doesn't begin to illuminate all of the people that they would have brought with them to the party.  Furthermore, once they went public, who knows how many others might have joined them.  Fortunately for Kusakabe—and unfortunately for Ohotsu—the would-be conspiracy was quashed and quashed hard.  We are told that it was discovered on the second day of the tenth month of 686—less than 30 days after Ohoama's death—and the Queen herself, Uno no Sarara, stepped in and had Ohotsu executed at his own mansion in Wosada.  She then issued a royal decree, stating to everyone that Ohotsu had committed treason, and that the punishment for treason was death.  She also stated that those who had assisted him were also guilty, and should likewise receive the same sentence, except that she was going to be merciful.  And so she ended up pardoning Prince Ohotsu's co-conspirators.  The only exceptions were Toki no Michidzukuri, who was banished to Idzu, and the Silla priest, who was exiled to a temple in Hida.  While we aren't told what roles they played, those two apparently were considered more complicit than the others. A few days later, Prince Ohotsu's sister, Princess Oku, was recalled from her position as the shrine princess of Ise.  It is unclear if this is related, but it seems relevant given the proximity of the two events. There is one other thing I should likely mention, and that seems to come from the Kaifuso.  The Kaifuso is a collection of continental style poetry from the 8th century, similar to the Man'yoshu, but with a different focus.  In both works they often given some description of the authors of the poems, which provide us more information on the people of the time.  For instance, the Kaifuso speaks favorably of Prince Ohotomo, Ohoama's rival in the Jinshin no Ran, and seems more than a little sympathetic towards him and his cause, compared to the way he is treated in the Nihon Shoki's main narrative.  In regards to our current point in the narrative and the treason of Prince Ohotsu the Kaifuso tells us that Prince Ohotsu was ratted out to the Queen by none other than his best friend, Prince Kawashima.  Prince Kawashima was another one of the princes who had been called to Yoshino and who had pledged to work together.  He was not Ohotsu's brother or even half-brother, however, as Kawashima was the son of Naka no Oe.  He was actually a good deal older than Ohoama's actual sons, but apparently trusted by Ohoama at the same time.  The Kaifuso also seems to tell us that Kawashima was rewarded for his efforts by the court. The only problem is that the Nihon Shoki, our primary source, tells us none of this.  Not only is Prince Kawashima not mentioned in regards to the plot, neither is he mentioned as having received any kind of reward or gift by the court.  That doesn't mean the Kaifuso is wrong, but it does raise the question. Similarly, it is just as easy to suggest that the Nihon Shoki itself may be covering up what actually happened.  After all, we only have one side of the story.  What if there wasn't a conspiracy?  Or what if the conspiracy were of the Queen's making, instead.  Prince Ohotsu was clearly popular, and had a reasonable claim to the throne.  That was a threat to her own son's eventual ascension.  It is possible that the Queen, Uno no Sarara, saw a threat and decided to do away with it, herself, keeping her own son's hands relatively clean in the process. Whatever the truth, we likely will never know, and so this is all we have to go on.  Whether it was an actual conspiracy or just the paranoid  concerns of a queen and mother, it is clear that it was not yet enough to have an heir named—there was always the possibility for these things to go sideways and for someone else to jump in with a claim of their own. For all of that, while it seems that Prince Kusakabe was intended to ascend to the throne, for one reason or another, that was delayed.  For some three years, as we've mentioned, Kusakabe and his mother ruled as Queen and Crown Prince, perhaps just because they were handling Ohoama's burial and the creation of a new palace from which Kusakabe himself could then reign.  Unfortunately, it seems that time accomplished what Prince Ohotsu and his conspirators could not, and in 689, Prince Kusakabe passed away.  Shortly thereafter, the Queen, Uno no Sarara, ascended to the throne herself.  This appears to have been because Kusakabe's own son and heir, Royal Prince Karu, was only about 6 years old, having been born in 683, and his daughter was only 9.  So rather than giving up the throne to some other woman's child, Uno no Sarara took the throne for herself.  She is remembered, today, as Jitou Tennou. Jitou Tennou continued to work the initiatives that had been pushed forward during the reign of her husband.  These were projects that she herself was quite familiar with, and in fact, many of the projects are sometimes thought to have been hers, with attribution given to her husband just to give it a greater air of legitimacy.  Ultimately, however, she would oversee some quite formidable changes, even if many of them started in the previous reign or not. And so begins the last reign of the Nihon Shoki, covering the years 686 to 697.  The Nihon Shoki itself wouldn't be complete and presented to the court for another 23 years or so, and yet this is where they chose to leave off.  Perhaps that is because of when it was started, or they just didn't have all the records ready for anything beyond.  They clearly had to end somewhere, after all.  And given that both Ohoama and Uno had such a hand in many of the changes, perhaps it just made sense to end here.  Much of what would come would set the tone for centuries to come. There is one more thing that I want to address in all of this.  We've talked about the lineages of the various individuals, who trace their lineages back to either powerful noble families, like the Soga, or to specific sovereigns.  There is a tendancy by some to talk about Ohoama having started what some would call the Temmu Dynasty.  The idea being that Ohoama's offspring would continue to reign for a time, displacing the offspring of his brother, Naka no Oe.  Then, at a later date, Naka no Oe's line would reassert itself. This seems to be pretty clear cut from a strictly patrilineal viewpoint of royal succession, but I think it ignores a lot about the cultural aspects of the time.  For one thing, descent was about both the father AND the mother, and too often people discount the mother's influence, when, in fact, the mother most likely had more influence in the raising of children than did a royal father.  After all, we don't exactly get a lot of anecdotes about sovereigns spending quality time with their children—and I don't think calling them to help you on campaign counts.  To be fair we get hardly any anecdotes about children.  But we also see that sovereigns were having multiple children with multiple consorts.  Naka no Oe is said to have had about 14 children—possibly more.  I count 17 children for Ohoama.  And we see the ages spread out across the sovereigns' lifetimes, with some children being born at a point that they had not even attained the age of majority by the time their father passed away.  Put another way, look at how Prince Kusakabe was able to marry his own aunt, who was only a year older than he was.  Clearly there was a bit of an age difference between siblings.  I don't imagine that they were being raised by their father, necessarily, but probably by their mothers and the servants at the palace, generally. I would also point out that Ohoama included both his own children as well as children of his brother in the Yoshino conference, further indicating that he did not have any specific intention to entirely shut out the his brother's line. And then there is Uno no Sarara.  She was Ohoama's spouse, but also the daughter of Naka no Oe.  Are we to think that she stopped being her father's daughter because she married someone? That doesn't mean that labels might not be helpful in some ways, but I just don't want to over emphasize the familial or dynastic connections.  Brothers regularly turned on each other, and blood ties were no guarantee of cordial relations.  In fact, only maternal siblings—those with the same mother—were actually considered true siblings in most cases.  That's how they justified so much of what we would consider incest in the royal family in the first place. So while I do think that Ohoama and Uno tweaked the system set up by Naka no Oe and made their own impression on Yamato and, by extension, Japanese culture, I just don't want to read too much into the lineages.  The stories of politics and royal succession are often much more involved and complex. And hopefully, we'll get to see how complex as we continue on down this path.  For now, I think I'm going to leave it here, and so, until next time, if you like what we are doing, please tell your friends and feel free to rate us wherever you listen to podcasts.  If you feel the need to do more, and want to help us keep this going, we have information about how you can donate on Patreon or through our KoFi site, ko-fi.com/sengokudaimyo, or find the links over at our main website,  SengokuDaimyo.com/Podcast, where we will have some more discussion on topics from this episode. Also, feel free to reach out to our Sengoku Daimyo Facebook page.  You can also email us at the.sengoku.daimyo@gmail.com.  Thank you, also, to Ellen for their work editing the podcast. And that's all for now.  Thank you again, and I'll see you next episode on Sengoku Daimyo's Chronicles of Japan.

The Shulhan Aruch begins by urging us to be "strong as a lion" to wake up early for the service of our Creator. The Hesed La'alafim (Rav Eliezer Papo, 1785-1828) explains that struggling against the Yeser Ha'ra (evil inclination) is always a difficult challenge, but the struggle to wake up early in the morning is particularly difficult. Right when we wake up, it takes us time to be fully alert, and both our physical and mental faculties are frail. We are therefore in an especially compromised position vis-à-vis the Yeser Ha'ra, who is always "on top of its game" and working to discourage us from doing the right thing. The Shulhan Aruch therefore urges us to muster strength "like a lion" to resist the efforts of the Yeser Ha'ra to keep us in bed when we are supposed to be getting up to serve Hashem. The Mesilat Yesharim (Rav Moshe Haim Luzzato, Italy, 1707-1746) discusses at length the need for "strategies" for fighting the Yeser Ha'ra. The Yeser Ha'ra is exceptionally shrewd in its efforts to lead us astray, so we need to be equally clever in combating these efforts and to remain consistent in our service of Hashem. This is especially true when it comes to the struggle to get up in the morning. The Bayit Hadash (Rav Yoel Sirkis, Poland, 1561-1640) writes that in the morning, the Yeser Ha'ra cleverly tries to convince a person to remain in bed – in the winter, because it is cold early in the morning, and in the summer – when it is actually more comfortable in the cool, early morning hours – because sunrise is very early and he did not sleep enough. Often, the Yeser Ha'ra disguises its arguments as piety, telling the person that he should stay in bed and sleep late so that he can pray later with greater concentration. As the Yeser Ha'ra is shrewd and wily, it is necessary to explore strategies for winning the most difficult battle against the Yeser Ha'ra – the battle to get out of bed on time in the morning. The Hafetz Haim, who was always awake and out of bed early, was once asked about his strategy for winning this battle. He said that when the Yeser Ha'ra tries telling him to stay in bed because it's still early, or it's very cold, he would respond, "Well, you're out of bed! If you got out of bed, then so can I!" The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) draws our attention to the comment of the Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, 1530-1572) on this first Halacha of the Shulhan Aruch. Citing from the Rambam in his Moreh Nebuchim, the Rama writes that a person must live with the constant awareness that Hashem is always present and sees everything he does. Knowing that we are under constant "surveillance" will assuredly affect the way we act. The Hida writes that G-d takes notice of whether or not we rise when we should, and this awareness should motivate us to wake up on time in the morning. King David says in Tehillim (119:98), "Me'oyebai Tehakemeni," which, simply understood, means, "You make me smarter than my foes." The Rabbis of Mussar explained that this verse also implies that we can gain wisdom "Me'oyebai" – from our adversaries, by learning from their example. When we see the way the wicked tirelessly pursue their desires and how carefully they plan to commit their wrongful acts, we are shown an example of the kind of vigilance with which we are to serve Hashem. When Yaakob Abinu sent a message to his brother, Esav, he told him, "I have lived with Laban, and I observed the 613 Misvot, and did not learn from his evil ways" (Rashi, Bereshit 32:5). Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky (1891-1986) explained that Yaakob here expressed his regret that he did not learn from Laban's pursuit of evil, from the way Laban so passionately and fervently dedicated himself to earn money through any possible means. Yaakob realized that he should have followed Laban's example of devoted work when serving the Almighty. Similarly, we see the lengths people go to earn money, to plan luxury vacations, to build luxury homes, to indulge in vanity – and we should commit to do the same for the sake of Torah and Misvot. Just as people wake up early very easily when this is necessary for a major business deal, or to catch a plane for a vacation, we should certainly be able to wake up early to serve Hashem. Some people employ the tactic of self-imposed "penalties," pledging to give a substantial amount of money to charity each morning that they do not wake up on time. Another relatively simple strategy for getting up early in the morning is to commit to some structured program or framework. For example, when I learned in yeshiva, some of us scheduled Havrutot (study sessions with partners) for the early morning, before Shaharit. If a person knows that his study partner will be waiting for him, he is more likely to get out of bed even if he feels tired or otherwise tempted to stay in bed. Likewise, one can join an early-morning study group, as knowing that he is part of the group makes him feel responsible to regularly attend, thus helping him overcome the temptation to sleep late. Perhaps the simplest – and most important – strategy for waking up early is going to sleep at a reasonable hour. As mentioned in an earlier installment in this series, some explain the Shulhan Aruch's instruction, "Yitgaber Ka'ari" – to be "strong as a lion" in the morning – to mean that one should go to sleep early, like a lion does, so he will wake up refreshed and energized. A yeshiva student once asked me how he can know whether or not he invests sufficient effort into his Torah study in yeshiva. I answered, very simply, that he just needs to strictly follow the yeshiva's schedule. True diligence in Torah learning does not mean that one studies into the wee hours of the morning. Rather, it means that he learns when he is supposed to learn, he eats when he is supposed to eat, he sleeps when he is supposed to sleep, and he relaxes when he is supposed to relax. Staying up very late – even to learn Torah! – is not advisable, as this makes the person less likely to wake up in time in the morning. In fact, it is told that the Hafetz Haim would shut the lights in the Bet Midrash of his yeshiva at night, because he did not want the boys to stay up too late. It is far more important to go to sleep at a reasonable hour so one can get up on time and pray properly, than to stay awake learning until late hours of the night. It is told that at one point during the Hida's travels, he found himself in a certain yeshiva in Germany, where there was a certain outstanding young prodigy, who was remarkably diligent in his Torah study. This youngster grew to become a renowned sage – Rav Natan Adler (1741-1800), the mentor of the Hatam Sofer (Rav Moshe Sofer of Pressburg, 1762-1839). As a young man, he would stay up very late learning Torah, and the Hida saw him arrive late one morning, since he had been up so late. The Hida approached him and gently reprimanded him by citing the remark made by the Shunamite woman, who would host the prophet Elisha: "Ish Elokim Kadosh Hu, Ober Alenu Tamid" – "He is a sacred man of G-d, who regularly passes through here" (Melachim II 4:9). This alluded to young Natan Adler who was a very holy individual – but who regularly "passed Alenu" – arriving late for Shaharit, after the recitation of Alenu… When we go to sleep early, so we wake up refreshed, we avoid the Yeser Ha'ra altogether. We don't even "get into the ring," so-to-speak, because we feel well-rested and ready to get out of bed, without having to struggle. Concluding this opening passage, urging us to rise early in the morning, the Shulhan Aruch writes, "She'yeheh Hu Me'orer Ha'shahar" – "that one should wake up the dawn." Meaning, ideally one should be awake before the sunrise, as though he "wakes up" the morning sun. The source of this concept is King David's proclamation in Tehillim (57:9), "A'ira Shahar" – "I shall awaken the dawn." The Midrash comments: "I shall awaken the dawn, rather than allow the dawn to awaken me." The Taz (Rav David Segal, Poland, d. 1667) raises the question of why the Shulhan Aruch writes only, "that one should wake up the dawn," omitting the Midrash's addition – that David did not allow the dawn to awaken him. The answer, the Taz suggests, is that only a righteous person like King David could have the confidence to declare that he would never wake up past dawn. A person on his level has the motivation and self-discipline to arise early in the morning. Most other people, however, cannot be so confident. We are instructed to make an effort to wake before dawn, but we know that we are frail and require Hashem's assistance. The Shulhan Aruch alludes to this distinction between us and King David by stating only that a person should arise before dawn, without expressing himself as definitively as King David did. The Taz's comments instruct that we must seek Hashem's assistance, and ask Him to help us get up early in the morning. The Rama, in his glosses to this opening passage in the Shulhan Aruch, emphasizes that when a person goes to sleep, he should be mindful of the fact that Hashem is present and watches him even while he sleeps. The work Si'ah Yishak explains the Rama to mean that going to sleep with this awareness will help a person get out of bed on time in the morning. When a person goes to sleep, he can "program" his mind to wake up early by contemplating that Hashem is watching him as he sleeps, and that he must therefore ensure to wake up properly. This is yet another important strategy for waking up early in the morning – to be mindful when going to sleep that Hashem is there watching him as he sleeps, and expects him to wake up on time.

After the passing of a parent, Heaven forbid, the child observes a twelve-month period of mourning, and thus, fundamentally, Kaddish should be recited for that entire period. However, the Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Poland, 1530-1572) brings (Y.D. 376) Poskim who ruled that the mourner should stop reciting Kaddish after eleven months. This is due to the Mishna's teaching in Masechet Eduyot (2:10) that the wicked are punished in Gehinam for twelve months. If a mourner recites Kaddish for a parent for twelve months, this might give the impression that he considers his parent a wicked person, Heaven forbid, such that the parent requires twelve months of Kaddish to be spared the punishments of Gehinam. Therefore, some Poskim rule that the child should recite Kaddish for only eleven months. A second custom is mentioned by the Kenesset Ha'gedola (Rav Haim Benvenisti, Turkey, 1603-1673), who writes that he instructed people to stop reciting Kaddish one week before the culmination of the twelve-month mourning period. By contrast, the Sha'ar Ha'kavanot (Rav Haim Vital, 1542-1620) cites the Arizal's teaching that a mourner should recite Kaddish for a parent throughout the year of mourning. The Arizal emphasized that Kaddish is recited even on Shabbat and Yom Tob, when the wicked receive a respite from the punishments of Gehinam. This demonstrates, the Arizal explained, that reciting Kaddish does more for the deceased parent than simple extricate the soul from Gehinam; it also elevates the soul to higher levels in Gan Eden. Publicly declaring G-d's greatness fulfills the Misva of Kiddush Hashem – glorifying the Name of G-d, which is the greatest Misva a person can perform. In fact, some Kabbalists teach that the Misva of Kiddush Hashem can rectify even the most grievous sins. The merit of the Kaddish recitation, then, brings immense benefits to the deceased parent's soul, beyond protecting the soul from the punishments of Gehinam. Therefore, the Arizal maintained that reciting Kaddish for the entire year of mourning does not necessarily give the indication that one considers his parent a wicked person. Accordingly, the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) writes that the custom in Italy, Egypt and Jerusalem was to recite Kaddish for twelve full months. Nevertheless, the Hida recommended refraining from reciting Kaddish for one week. Similarly, the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim Baghdad, 1833-1909), in his Rav Pe'alim, writes that the custom in Baghdad was to conduct a memorial service (Arayat) after eleven months to signify that the deceased is not considered a sinner, after which the mourners would refrain from reciting Kaddish for one week, and then resume reciting Kaddish until the end of the twelfth month. This is, indeed, the common practice in our community – to refrain from Kaddish for one week at the beginning of the twelfth month, and to then resume the Kaddish recitation until the end of the month. It should be noted that this entire discussion applies only to the Kaddish recitations in the prayer service. The Kaddish recited after Torah learning or after the reading of Tehillim is recited by a mourner throughout the twelve months, even during the week when he abstains from Kaddish during the prayer service. Additionally, Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, cites his father, Hacham Ovadia, as ruling that if a mourner serves as Hazzan, then he recites all the Kaddishim included in the prayer service, even during the first week of the twelfth month. Summary: Different customs exist as to when a mourner stops reciting Kaddish for a deceased parent. The generally accepted custom in our community is to stop reciting Kaddish during the first week of the twelfth month, and to then resume reciting Kaddish until the end of the month. Even during that week, the mourner recites Kaddish after Torah learning and Tehillim reading, and if he serves as Hazzan, then he recites all the Kaddishim that are part of the prayer service.

Often, when a small Minyan is praying, one or several of the men in attendance take longer than the others to complete the Amida. The question then arises as to whether or not the Hazzan must wait for ten men to finish before proceeding to Kaddish – in the case of Arbit – or to the Hazara (repetition of the Amida), in the case of Shaharit, Minha or Musaf. And, if the Hazzan does not need to wait for ten men, what is the minimum number of men that must have completed the Amida before the Hazan may begin? The Poskim discuss this question at length, in light of seemingly contradictory rulings of the Shulhan Aruch. In one context (Orah Haim 55:6), the Shulhan Aruch writes that a person who is still reciting the Amida, or even sleeping, may be counted toward the Minyan. Elsewhere (Orah Haim 124:4), however, the Shulhan Aruch warns that at least nine men must be listening attentively to the Hazan's repetition of the Amida and answering Amen, and if not, the Hazan's blessings might be considered Berachot Le'batala (blessings recited in vain). Rav Zalman of Liadi (founding Rebbe of Lubavitch, 1745-1812) reconciles these rulings by drawing a distinction between Arbit and the other prayers. During Arbit, the Hazan does not repeat the Amida, and the issue is thus only the recitation of Kaddish. The Shulhan Aruch allows reciting Kaddish if ten men are present even if one of them is still reciting the Amida, and so at Arbit, the Hazzan may proceed to Kaddish once eight men – besides him – have completed the Amida. During the other prayers, however, the Hazzan repeats the Amida, and this requires at least nine men who are listening and responding "Amen" to the blessings. Therefore, during Shaharit, Musaf and Minha, the Hazzan may not begin the Hazara until nine other men have completed the silent Amida and are able to answer "Amen." This approach is taken also by the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) and the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939). Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, disagreed. From the comments of Maran (author of the Shulhan Aruch) in the Bet Yosef, Hacham Ovadia noted, it emerges that in his view, a person who is reciting the Amida may be included in the Minyan even for the Hazan's repetition of the Amida. As for the Shulhan Aruch's remark that nine men must be listening attentively to the Hazara, Hacham Ovadia cited the Derisha as clarifying that the Shulhan Aruch does not actually require nine men to be listening and responding to the Hazara. Indeed, the Shulhan Aruch wrote not that the Hazan's blessings are in vain if nine men are not listening and responding, but rather that they are "close to being recited in vain." The Derisha draws further proof from the Halacha allowing the Hazan to continue the repetition of the Amida if some of the ten men left the synagogue. As long as nine other men were present when he began the Hazara, he may continue and complete the Hazara after the Minyan was lost (as long as at least six remain). This compellingly proves that it is not necessary for nine men to be listening to the Hazan's repetition of the Amida. Hacham Ovadia likewise cited Hacham Yishak Attia (Aleppo, Syria, 1755-1830) as explaining that the Shulhan Aruch warned that people who do not listen and respond to the Hazan's repetition are denigrating the blessings he recites, as though they recite blessings in vain. He did not mean that the Hazan cannot recite the Hazara with fewer than nine people listening and responding. Accordingly, Hacham Ovadia concluded that even during Shaharit, Minha or Musaf, the Hazzan does not need to wait for nine men (besides him) to complete the Amida before beginning the repetition. Even if only eight have completed the Amida, the Hazan may proceed to the Hazara. Of course, it is preferable to wait for everyone to finish – both in the interest of satisfying the stringent opinion, and to give everyone the opportunity to recite Nakdishach. But if the ninth man is taking a long time to finish the Amida, the Hazzan is not required to wait for him. Interestingly enough, although – as we saw – the Ben Ish Hai rules stringently with regard to the repetition of the Amida, he seems to have changed his mind in a later work – Mi'kabse'el. There he writes that in a situation of necessity, where the tenth man recites an excessively long Amida, and the others cannot wait, there is room to allow the Hazzan to begin the Hazara with only eight men listening and responding. This resembles Hacham Ovadia's ruling, though Hacham Ovadia allowed the Hazzan to begin with only eight men listening even when this is not a dire necessity. By contrast, the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azula, 1724-1806) maintained that the Shulhan Aruch cites two different opinions, which are disagreement with one another. The Hida concluded that we may follow the lenient position, and allow the Hazzan to begin even if one of the ten men is still praying the Amida, both at Arbit and when the Amida is repeated. In the opposite direction, Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) asserted that the Shulhan Aruch changed his view on the matter, and he followed the stringent view. According to Hacham Bension, then, the Hazzan must wait for nine other men to finish the Amida not only during Shaharit, Minha and Musaf, but even during Arbit, when there is no repetition of the Amida. Since Halacha follows the view that a person reciting the Amida does not count toward a Minyan at all, the Hazzan may not even recite Kaddish if one of the ten men in the synagogue has yet to complete the Amida. Another issue addressed by the Poskim is the minimum required number of men who have completed the Amida. Assuming that a person who is still reciting the Amida may be counted (whether it's only in Arbit, or in any prayer, depending on the different views cited above), does this apply only if the ninth man (besides the Hazzan) is still reciting the Amida? Or can we allow the Hazzan to begin even if several men are still reciting the Amida? Rav Levi Ibn Habib (Jerusalem, c. 1480-c. 1545) maintained that Halacha draws no distinction between a situation where one person has yet to complete the Amida, and a case of several people who are still reciting the Amida. As long as at least five men in addition to the Hazzan have completed the Amida, the Hazzan may proceed. By contrast, the Magen Abraham (Rav Abraham Gombiner, Poland, 1635-1682) was of the opinion that this discussion pertains only to the case where eight men, not including the Hazzan, have completed the Amida, but the tenth man has not. According to the Magen Abraham, this Halacha cannot be extended to a case where fewer than eight men (besides the Hazzan) have completed the Amida. Hacham Ovadia's view on this matter is not entirely clear. With regard to Arbit, he writes that as long as five men besides the Hazzan have completed the Amida, the Hazzan may begin Kaddish, since a majority of a Minyan – six men – have finished. In discussing the case of the other prayers, however, he speaks only of a situation where eight men besides the Hazzan have completed the Amida, but the tenth has yet to finish. The implication of his wording is that when it comes to the repetition of the Amida, Hacham Ovadia did not go so far as to allow the Hazzan to begin when fewer than eight other men have completed the Amida. However, Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, asserted that in Hacham Ovadia's view, there is no distinction between Kaddish and the Hazara in this regard, and therefore, even if only five men besides the Hazzan have completed the Amida, the Hazzan may begin the Hazara, just as with regard to Kaddish at Arbit. Rav Yisrael Bitan cites the work Netivot Ha'haim as claiming that he heard Hacham Ovadia issue this ruling verbally. In conclusion, Rav Bitan concludes that there is certainly room to permit the Hazan to begin the Hazara if only five men besides him have finished the Amida. (We might add that often, those who have yet to complete the Amida have already reached the end, where additional personal prayers are recited, at which point they may respond to Nakdishach. This gives us an additional basis for leniency.) However, Rav Bitan added, this leniency should be relied upon only when absolutely necessary. Otherwise, the Hazan should not begin the repetition until at least eight other men have completed the Amida. Summary: If there are only ten men in a Minyan for Arbit, the Hazzan may begin the Kaddish after the silent Amida as long as at least five other men – besides him – have completed the Amida. At all other prayers, when the Hazzan repeats the Amida, he should not begin the repetition until at least eight men – besides him – have completed the Amida. In situations of great need, he may begin the repetition even if at least five men – besides him – have completed the Amida. Of course, it always preferable to wait to allow the others to respond to Kaddish or to the repetition.

Often, when a small Minyan is praying, one or several of the men in attendance take longer than the others to complete the Amida. The question then arises as to whether or not the Hazzan must wait for ten men to finish before proceeding to Kaddish – in the case of Arbit – or to the Hazara (repetition of the Amida), in the case of Shaharit, Minha or Musaf. And, if the Hazzan does not need to wait for ten men, what is the minimum number of men that must have completed the Amida before the Hazan may begin? The Poskim discuss this question at length, in light of seemingly contradictory rulings of the Shulhan Aruch. In one context (Orah Haim 55:6), the Shulhan Aruch writes that a person who is still reciting the Amida, or even sleeping, may be counted toward the Minyan. Elsewhere (Orah Haim 124:4), however, the Shulhan Aruch warns that at least nine men must be listening attentively to the Hazan's repetition of the Amida and answering Amen, and if not, the Hazan's blessings might be considered Berachot Le'batala (blessings recited in vain). Rav Zalman of Liadi (founding Rebbe of Lubavitch, 1745-1812) reconciles these rulings by drawing a distinction between Arbit and the other prayers. During Arbit, the Hazan does not repeat the Amida, and the issue is thus only the recitation of Kaddish. The Shulhan Aruch allows reciting Kaddish if ten men are present even if one of them is still reciting the Amida, and so at Arbit, the Hazzan may proceed to Kaddish once eight men – besides him – have completed the Amida. During the other prayers, however, the Hazzan repeats the Amida, and this requires at least nine men who are listening and responding "Amen" to the blessings. Therefore, during Shaharit, Musaf and Minha, the Hazzan may not begin the Hazara until nine other men have completed the silent Amida and are able to answer "Amen." This approach is taken also by the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) and the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939). Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, disagreed. From the comments of Maran (author of the Shulhan Aruch) in the Bet Yosef, Hacham Ovadia noted, it emerges that in his view, a person who is reciting the Amida may be included in the Minyan even for the Hazan's repetition of the Amida. As for the Shulhan Aruch's remark that nine men must be listening attentively to the Hazara, Hacham Ovadia cited the Derisha as clarifying that the Shulhan Aruch does not actually require nine men to be listening and responding to the Hazara. Indeed, the Shulhan Aruch wrote not that the Hazan's blessings are in vain if nine men are not listening and responding, but rather that they are "close to being recited in vain." The Derisha draws further proof from the Halacha allowing the Hazan to continue the repetition of the Amida if some of the ten men left the synagogue. As long as nine other men were present when he began the Hazara, he may continue and complete the Hazara after the Minyan was lost (as long as at least six remain). This compellingly proves that it is not necessary for nine men to be listening to the Hazan's repetition of the Amida. Hacham Ovadia likewise cited Hacham Yishak Attia (Aleppo, Syria, 1755-1830) as explaining that the Shulhan Aruch warned that people who do not listen and respond to the Hazan's repetition are denigrating the blessings he recites, as though they recite blessings in vain. He did not mean that the Hazan cannot recite the Hazara with fewer than nine people listening and responding. Accordingly, Hacham Ovadia concluded that even during Shaharit, Minha or Musaf, the Hazzan does not need to wait for nine men (besides him) to complete the Amida before beginning the repetition. Even if only eight have completed the Amida, the Hazan may proceed to the Hazara. Of course, it is preferable to wait for everyone to finish – both in the interest of satisfying the stringent opinion, and to give everyone the opportunity to recite Nakdishach. But if the ninth man is taking a long time to finish the Amida, the Hazzan is not required to wait for him. Interestingly enough, although – as we saw – the Ben Ish Hai rules stringently with regard to the repetition of the Amida, he seems to have changed his mind in a later work – Mi'kabse'el. There he writes that in a situation of necessity, where the tenth man recites an excessively long Amida, and the others cannot wait, there is room to allow the Hazzan to begin the Hazara with only eight men listening and responding. This resembles Hacham Ovadia's ruling, though Hacham Ovadia allowed the Hazzan to begin with only eight men listening even when this is not a dire necessity. By contrast, the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azula, 1724-1806) maintained that the Shulhan Aruch cites two different opinions, which are disagreement with one another. The Hida concluded that we may follow the lenient position, and allow the Hazzan to begin even if one of the ten men is still praying the Amida, both at Arbit and when the Amida is repeated. In the opposite direction, Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) asserted that the Shulhan Aruch changed his view on the matter, and he followed the stringent view. According to Hacham Bension, then, the Hazzan must wait for nine other men to finish the Amida not only during Shaharit, Minha and Musaf, but even during Arbit, when there is no repetition of the Amida. Since Halacha follows the view that a person reciting the Amida does not count toward a Minyan at all, the Hazzan may not even recite Kaddish if one of the ten men in the synagogue has yet to complete the Amida. Another issue addressed by the Poskim is the minimum required number of men who have completed the Amida. Assuming that a person who is still reciting the Amida may be counted (whether it's only in Arbit, or in any prayer, depending on the different views cited above), does this apply only if the ninth man (besides the Hazzan) is still reciting the Amida? Or can we allow the Hazzan to begin even if several men are still reciting the Amida? Rav Levi Ibn Habib (Jerusalem, c. 1480-c. 1545) maintained that Halacha draws no distinction between a situation where one person has yet to complete the Amida, and a case of several people who are still reciting the Amida. As long as at least five men in addition to the Hazzan have completed the Amida, the Hazzan may proceed. By contrast, the Magen Abraham (Rav Abraham Gombiner, Poland, 1635-1682) was of the opinion that this discussion pertains only to the case where eight men, not including the Hazzan, have completed the Amida, but the tenth man has not. According to the Magen Abraham, this Halacha cannot be extended to a case where fewer than eight men (besides the Hazzan) have completed the Amida. Hacham Ovadia's view on this matter is not entirely clear. With regard to Arbit, he writes that as long as five men besides the Hazzan have completed the Amida, the Hazzan may begin Kaddish, since a majority of a Minyan – six men – have finished. In discussing the case of the other prayers, however, he speaks only of a situation where eight men besides the Hazzan have completed the Amida, but the tenth has yet to finish. The implication of his wording is that when it comes to the repetition of the Amida, Hacham Ovadia did not go so far as to allow the Hazzan to begin when fewer than eight other men have completed the Amida. However, Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, asserted that in Hacham Ovadia's view, there is no distinction between Kaddish and the Hazara in this regard, and therefore, even if only five men besides the Hazzan have completed the Amida, the Hazzan may begin the Hazara, just as with regard to Kaddish at Arbit. Rav Yisrael Bitan cites the work Netivot Ha'haim as claiming that he heard Hacham Ovadia issue this ruling verbally. In conclusion, Rav Bitan concludes that there is certainly room to permit the Hazan to begin the Hazara if only five men besides him have finished the Amida. (We might add that often, those who have yet to complete the Amida have already reached the end, where additional personal prayers are recited, at which point they may respond to Nakdishach. This gives us an additional basis for leniency.) However, Rav Bitan added, this leniency should be relied upon only when absolutely necessary. Otherwise, the Hazan should not begin the repetition until at least eight other men have completed the Amida. Summary: If there are only ten men in a Minyan for Arbit, the Hazzan may begin the Kaddish after the silent Amida as long as at least five other men – besides him – have completed the Amida. At all other prayers, when the Hazzan repeats the Amida, he should not begin the repetition until at least eight men – besides him – have completed the Amida. In situations of great need, he may begin the repetition even if at least five men – besides him – have completed the Amida. Of course, it always preferable to wait to allow the others to respond to Kaddish or to the repetition.

BGN akan memperketat mekanisme penggantian sopir cadangan imbas insiden mobil MBG yang menabrak kerumunan siswa SDN 01 Kalibaru, Cilincing, Jakarta Utara pada Kamis (11/12). Kepala BGN, Dadan Hidayana mengatakan dengan adanya kasus penggantian sopir ini kelihatannya menjadi isight baru bagi BGN dan KaSPPG secara cermat mengganti atau memilih sopir cadangan yang kualifikasinya sama. Karena selama ini bahkan di dalam juknis sudah ditulis bahwa mobil sebelum digunakan untuk melakukan pengiriman itu wajib dilakukan cek setiap waktu.Kepala Biro Hukum dan Humas BGN, Khairul Hidayati menuturkan belasungkawa atas insiden ini dan memastikan kepada seluruh korban agar mendapatkan perawatan yang terbaik serta timnya akan melakukan investigasi internal bersama kepolisian untuk memastikan kejadian seperti ini tidak terulang lagi. Hida mengatakan bahwa pihaknya akan berkomitmen memperbaiki seluruh aspek terkait SOP, termasuk mekanisme penggantian sopir dan mengecek kendaraan, serta memastikan standar keamanan layanan MBG diterapkan secara maksimal, Minggu (14/12) siang.

Neste episódio instigante do Na Trilha da Coragem, Carla Brandão recebe Ricardo Hida, um profissional que personifica a coragem de mudar de vida. Ricardo, que é jornalista, mestre e doutor em Ciência da Religião, revelará como uma aposta feita em uma catedral na Borgonha transformou seu ceticismo e o levou a se tornar astrólogo profissional há 18 anos.Ele compartilha sua jornada de mudança de carreira – de promotor de turismo da França no Brasil para interlocutor dos astros – e explica como a Astrologia no século XXI é uma ferramenta de autoconhecimento e planejamento.PREVISÕES PARA 2026: O ponto alto do episódio são as aguardadas Previsões Astrológicas de Ricardo Hida para 2026. Ele descreve este ano como um período de extrema intensidade, marcado por profundas reviravoltas políticas e econômicas em escala global e no Brasil.Neste episódio, você vai descobrir: - A Aposta Decisiva: O desafio na Borgonha que o fez trocar o jornalismo pela Astrologia. - Coragem para Recomeçar: Como encontrar propósito em uma nova profissão, mesmo com uma carreira consolidada. - Astrologia e Consciência: Como usar os astros para atravessar períodos de crise e virada (como 2026). - 2026 no Brasil e no Mundo: Análises sobre o cenário político, social e econômico que se desenha.Se você busca inspiração para dar o próximo passo ou precisa de um olhar estratégico sobre o futuro, aperte o play!

In this episode of The Vacay, Sophie sits down with Stacey Brownsey from Helloworld to uncover a quieter, more authentic side of Japan, the charming towns of Takayama and Kanazawa. Far from the neon lights of Tokyo, these destinations offer a window into Japan’s timeless traditions.From samurai districts and centuries old teahouses in Kanazawa to the wooden streets of Takayama, this journey captures the beauty of old world Japan at a slower, more soulful pace. Stacey shares stories of visiting UNESCO-listed Shirakawa-go, staying in a traditional ryokan, bathing in onsens, and tasting some of Japan’s finest seafood and Hida beef. It’s an episode filled with warmth, discovery, and the kind of travel that lingers long after you return home. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome back to our weekend Cabral HouseCall shows!   This is where we answer our community's wellness, weight loss, and anti-aging questions to help people get back on track!   Check out today's questions:    Whitney: Hello! Wondering if you still think the best water set up would be the kangen k8 attached to the aquatru under the sink filter? I'm reading that the kangen relies on minerals in the water which the aquatru filters out (I know their newest filter adds some back in but not sure how much). I have the kangen k8 and both the aquatru countertop that I use now and the under the sink aquatru unopened that came free with kangen years ago. Can I install the kangen to the countertop aquatru? I rent and don't want to overcomplicate the installation if I don't have to. But I'm confused about how to start. Are there instructions to attach kangen to an aquatru of any kind? I don't want to lose the minerals that makes the kangen more effective but obvi would like to avoid the nasties in the tap water.                                  Kellie: Hi Dr. Cabral! My husband is 42 and has really cleaned up his act over the past 5+ years. No tobacco use, exercise bike 30 mins daily, 10k steps, and clean eating. 1.5 yrs ago he went in to see a doctor with right side pain. Xray showed backed up stool. Since then he has been on stool softeners and had a colonoscopy. In July he did a 14 day detox and felt sick most of the time. The DNS made him nauseous and he was in pain but was willing to try anything. Today, he is still having right side pain under his right rib, mostly in the front but does spread to the back now. This month he had an ultrasound, endoscopy, and a HIDA scan. Colonoscopy, Ultrasound, and Endoscopy were both completely normal. His HIDA scan showed 71% fraction and minor reflux. All bloodwork shows liver is healthy. Help.          David: Hi Dr.Cabral, Hope you are well! I noticed you recently launched Cell Force, an enhanced creatine product. In 2021, I recall listening to you say that you were not going to be taking creatine since it has been shown to promote hair loss, which convinced to leave it out my personal protocol despite the cognitive/cellular health benefits. I'm curious what has changed in terms of new studies, your perspective on its benefits, and anything else that informed your pivot to not only take it, but create one of your own. I know you had a challenging hair growth journey, so I doubt you would ingest something that would put that at risk without considerable due diligence. Beyond what the studies are saying, I'm interested in what you are seeing in clinical practice and in your own life.                                                                                       Lauren: Hi Dr. Cabral - I completed the CBO protocol last year and felt amazing. The main difference was a sense of hunger control. I no longer overindulged and I consistently woke up the same weight I went to bed. This lasted for months and I felt like I had a new relationship with food. I slipped back to where I had been and gained weight, more hunger & fluctuating bedtime weight. I took the food sensitivity test and I have a pretty long list of mild sensitivities, 3 high (legumes) so my coach suggested I do the limited cbo protocol along with an elimination diet. I'm almost 1 month into the limited CBO and I feel in control again. My question is why does the cbo protocol do this for me? I like to understand the "why" of things so that I can keep the habit. Thanks!                                                                                                                                  Harriet: Hi there Hope you are well - I ordered some tests around July/August and due to a number of reasons I was able to complete the testing (Shipping took longer than expected, vacation, trip to UK for VISA renewal). I believe I have registered both test (hair mineral test and inflammation omega 3/6 test) and would to confirm I am ok to complete these tests before cutting (another!) hair sample. Thank you! Harriet         Thank you for tuning into today's Cabral HouseCall and be sure to check back tomorrow where we answer more of our community's questions!    - - - Show Notes and Resources: StephenCabral.com/3571 - - - Get a FREE Copy of Dr. Cabral's Book: The Rain Barrel Effect - - - Join the Community & Get Your Questions Answered: CabralSupportGroup.com - - - Dr. Cabral's Most Popular At-Home Lab Tests: > Complete Minerals & Metals Test (Test for mineral imbalances & heavy metal toxicity) - - - > Complete Candida, Metabolic & Vitamins Test (Test for 75 biomarkers including yeast & bacterial gut overgrowth, as well as vitamin levels) - - - > Complete Stress, Mood & Metabolism Test (Discover your complete thyroid, adrenal, hormone, vitamin D & insulin levels) - - - > Complete Food Sensitivity Test (Find out your hidden food sensitivities) - - - > Complete Omega-3 & Inflammation Test (Discover your levels of inflammation related to your omega-6 to omega-3 levels) - - - Get Your Question Answered On An Upcoming HouseCall: StephenCabral.com/askcabral - - - Would You Take 30 Seconds To Rate & Review The Cabral Concept? The best way to help me spread our mission of true natural health is to pass on the good word, and I read and appreciate every review!  

El sarubobo es un amuleto muy querido en Takayama y toda la región de Hida pero que, curiosamente, aunque cualquier japonés lo identificará, no lo vas a encontrar fuera de aquí. En este Japonesamente te contamos sobre sus orígenes (hasta donde se puede llegar, claro), su significado y también los tipos que hay (según los colores), además de algunas ideas acerca de dónde comprarlo y del templo donde los habitantes de Takayama suelen ir a ofrendarlos. ¡Mata ne! ¿Quieres colaborar con el programa? - Colabora en Patreon - Únete a la Comunidad Japonismo - Reserva hoteles en Japón (y en todo el mundo) - Consigue seguro de viajes (¡no sólo para Japón!) - Busca los mejores vuelos - Lleva Internet (pocket wifi o SIM) - JR Pass para viajes ilimitados en tren ---- Continúa la conversación en: - Web: https://japonismo.com - Discord: https://discord.gg/hZrSa57 - Facebook: https://facebook.com/japonismo - Twitter: https://twitter.com/japonismo - Instagram: https://instagram.com/japonismo - Pinterest: https://pinterest.com/japonismo - Newsletter semanal: http://eepurl.com/di60Xn

After waking in the morning, a person is not permitted to learn Torah before reciting Birkot Ha'Torah. As we saw in earlier installments, however, this applies only to learning verbally. Merely thinking Torah in one's mind, without speaking, is allowed before reciting Birkot Ha'Torah in the morning. (We saw, though, that reading a Torah book, even silently, might require the recitation of Birkot Ha'Torah.) Intuitively, we might assume that silently listening to a Torah lecture should be no different than silently thinking about Torah. Seemingly, then, if a person attends a Torah class in the synagogue early in the morning, he does not need to first recite Birkot Ha'Torah. However, the Halachot Ketanot (Rav Yisrael Yaakob Hagiz, 1680-1757) rules that listening to a Torah class differs from thinking about Torah in this regard. He applies to this situation the famous Halachic principle of "Shome'a Ke'oneh" – that listening to the recitation of a text is akin to reciting it oneself. Thus, for example, every Shabbat, one person recites Kiddush, and everyone else at the table fulfills his obligation by listening to the recitation. Accordingly, people who listen to a Torah class are considered to be saying the words spoken by the teacher. Hence, listening to a Torah class is akin to verbally speaking words of Torah, and requires the recitation of Birkot Ha'Torah. Hacham Ovadia Yosef brought proof to this theory from the Gemara's inference of the Birkot Ha'Torah obligation from a verse in the Book of Debarim (32:3). The Gemara in Masechet Berachot (21a) cites as the Biblical source of this requirement the verse, "Ki Shem Hashem Ekra, Habu Godel L'Elokenu" – "When I call the Name of G-d, give praise to G-d." Moshe here was announcing that when he teaches Torah, the people should recite a blessing. Thus, the very source of Birkot Ha'Torah is a situation where people recite a Beracha before listening to words of Torah, clearly implying that even silently listening to a Torah lecture requires the recitation of Birkot Ha'Torah. This is the ruling also of the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909). Although several Poskim (including the Lebush and Hida) disagree, Halacha follows the opinion of the Halachot Ketanot. Therefore, those who attend a Torah class early in the morning must ensure to first recite Birkot Ha'Torah. Some addressed the question of how to reconcile the Halachot Ketanot's reasoning with the ruling of the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, 1250-1327) that the person who receives an Aliya to the Torah must read along with the Ba'al Koreh (reader). Fundamentally, the obligation to read is upon the Oleh (person who was called to the Torah); the Ba'al Koreh reads the Torah on his behalf. Seemingly, the rule of "Shome'a Ke'oneh" should allow the Oleh to silently listen to the reader and thereby discharge his obligation. Indeed, the Peri Hadash (Rav Hizkiya Da Silva, 1659-1698) disputed the Rosh's ruling, and maintained that the Oleh does not need to read together with the reader. Halacha, however, follows the Rosh's ruling. If, as the Halachot Ketanot writes, listening to words of Torah is akin to reciting them, then why must the Oleh read along with the Ba'al Koreh? Several explanations were given for why the congregational Torah reading might be different, and is not subject to the rule of "Shome'a Ke'oneh." One theory is that "Shome'a Ke'oneh" applies only when there is a general obligation to recite a certain text. The congregational Torah reading is an obligation upon the congregation as a whole, and not on any particular individual, and it therefore is not included in the rule of "Shome'a Ke'oneh." Others explain that since the original format of Torah reading was that the Oleh reads the text, and the concept of a Ba'al Koreh was introduced later, the Oleh is required to read along, to preserve the initial arrangement. Yet another answer is that the rule of "Shome'a Ke'oneh" does not allow for one person to recite the Beracha over a Misva and another person to perform the Misva. On Purim, for example, the one who reads the Megilla for the congregation also recites the Beracha. Never does someone from the congregation recite the Beracha, and then the Ba'al Koreh reads the Megilla. Therefore, the Oleh cannot recite the Beracha and then fulfill his obligation by listening to the Ba'al Koreh's reading. Interestingly, Rav Shlomo Kluger (1785-1869) asserted that this Halacha regarding Birkot Ha'Torah before listening a Torah class hinges on a debate among the Rishonim regarding a different issue. It often happens that somebody is still in the middle of the Amida prayer when the Hazzan begins the repetition, and reaches Nakdishach. Common practice follows the view of Rashi, that the person in this situation should stop and listen silently to Nakdishach in order to fulfill this Misva. Rabbenu Tam (France, 1100-1171), however, disagreed with this ruling, arguing that in light of the principle of "Shome'a Ke'oneh," listening to Nakdishach in the middle of the Amida would constitute a Hefsek (forbidden interruption) in the Amida. This is no different than reciting Nakdishach in the middle of the Amida, which is of course not allowed. Seemingly, Rav Kluger writes, the ruling of the Halachot Ketanot, that listening to Torah is akin to speaking Torah, follows the view of Rabbenu Tam, that "Shome'a Ke'oneh" actually equates listening to speaking. According to Rashi, listening is not precisely the same as speaking, which is why he permits listening to Nakdishach during the Amida. By the same token, it would seem that Rashi would not require reciting Birkot Ha'Torah before listening to a Torah lecture. The question, then, becomes why we follow Rashi's opinion regarding listening to Nakdishach during the Amida, but we accept the Halachot Ketanot's ruling regarding Birkot Ha'Torah. These two rulings seem to contradict one another – as the first presumes that listening is not precisely like speaking, whereas the second presumes that listening is equivalent to speaking. Hacham Ovadia answers that when a person is reciting the Amida as the congregation reaches Nakdishach, he wants to fulfill the Misva of reciting Nakdishach, but he also does not wish to interrupt his Amida. Halacha therefore allows him to listen to Nakdishach – such that he will be credited with this Misva – without being considered in violation of disrupting the Amida. Since the person seeks to perform the Misva, an exception is made to allow him to do so. Even Rashi agrees that listening is equivalent to speaking, but in the specific instance where a person recites the Amida and hears Nakdishach, special permission is given to listen to Nakdishach. Hacham Ovadia cites in this context the Gemara's teaching (Kiddushin 39b) that a person's intention to transgress a sin is disregarded if he ends up being unable to commit the forbidden act. A person's thoughts are discounted as far as Halachic violations are concerned, and thus one cannot be considered guilty of disrupting his Amida by silently listening to Nakdishach. Another question that was asked regarding the Halachot Ketanot's ruling is whether the speaker and audience must have specific intention for "Shome'a Ke'oneh" to take effect. During Kiddush, the person reciting Kiddush must have in mind that his recitation will be effective in satisfying the listeners' obligation, and they must likewise intend to fulfill their obligation by hearing his recitation. Seemingly, then, if listening to a Torah class is akin to speaking words of Torah due to the principle of "Shome'a Ke'oneh," this should depend on whether or not the speaker and audience have this specific intention. However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in his Yabia Omer (vol. 4, addendum to #8), writes that this specific intention is not necessary, and he draws proof to the fact that Torah study marks an exception to the general rule. The Gemara in Masechet Sukka (38) infers the principle of "Shome'a Ke'oneh" from the story of King Yoshiyahu, before whom a man named Shafan read the Torah, and Yoshiyahu was considered to have read it himself. There is no mention of either Yoshiyahu or Shafan having specific intention that Yoshiyahu should be considered to have read the text – indicating that such intention is not necessary. Although in general "Shome'a Ke'oneh" requires the intention of both the speaker and listener, Torah study marks an exception, where such intention is not needed for "Shome'a Ke'oneh" to take effect. Rav Yisrael Bitan offers two possible explanations for this distinction, for why the mechanism of "Shome'a Ke'oneh" does not require Kavana (intent) in the context of Torah study, but it does in the context of all other Misvot. First, the primary method of Torah learning is through a teacher and listeners; this is the most common way that Torah is studied. Therefore, the listeners fulfill their obligation by listening without having to create a connection to the speaker through Kavana. Alternatively, one could say that in the case of Torah learning, the intent is present by default. When a Rabbi or teacher stands up before a room to teach Torah, everyone's intention is clearly to fulfill the Misva of Torah learning, and there is no need to consciously think this. The fundamental difference between these two explanations is that according to the first, Kavana is not necessary for "Shome'a Ke'oneh" to take effect when teaching Torah, whereas according to the second, Kavana is necessary, but it is presumed even without consciously having it in mind. These different perspectives will affect the fascinating question of whether a distinction exists between attending a Torah class and listening to a recording. According to the first explanation, listening to Torah is equivalent to speaking Torah even without Kavana, and this would be true even when listening to a recording of a Torah class. According to the second approach, however, Kavana is necessary for the listener to be considered to be speaking, and the speaker and listener are presumed to have this intent – and thus this would not apply in the case of a recording. When listening to a recording, there is no speaker to supply the Kavana, and thus the listener is not considered to be speaking the words. It would then follow that one would not be required to recite Birkot Ha'Torah before listening to a recorded Torah class in the morning. For example, if a person wishes to listen to a Torah class as he makes his way to the synagogue in the morning, he would not – according to this second explanation – be required to first recite Birkot Ha'Torah. In practice, however, as this matter cannot be conclusively determined one way or another, we must be stringent and recite Birkot Ha'Torah even before listening to a recorded Torah class. Therefore, one who wishes to hear a Torah class in the morning – either in person or a recording – must first recite Birkot Ha'Torah and the verses of Birkat Kohanim beforehand. Summary: One who wishes to hear a Torah class in the morning – either in person or a recording – must first recite Birkot Ha'Torah and the verses of Birkat Kohanim beforehand.

The Gemara in Masechet Menahot (43) cites a verse in the Book of Debarim (10:12) in which Moshe Rabbenu turns to Beneh Yisrael and says, "Ma Hashem Elokecha Sho'el Me'imach" – "What does Hashem your G-d ask of you?" Moshe proceeds to explain that Hashem asks that we fear Him and obey His commands. The Gemara, however, comments that the word "Ma" in this verse may be read as "Me'a" – one hundred. This means that we are required to recite 100 Berachot each day, and this is what Hashem wants from us. It seems from the Gemara that source of this obligation is the word "Ma," which is read as though it is written "Me'a." Some commentators, however, understood the Gemara's inference from this verse differently. The Shiboleh Ha'leket (Rav Sidkiya Ben Abraham Ha'rofeh, Italy, 13 th century) noted that this verse contains 100 letters, and thus the Sages found in this verse an allusion to the requirement of 100 daily blessings. In truth, this verse contains only 99 letters, but since the Gemara reads the word "Ma" as "Me'a," which contains an additional letter (an Alef), the total reaches 100. Others explain that this inference is based on the "Atbash" system, whereby a letter can be substituted with its corresponding letter at the opposite end of the alphabet (e.g. Alef is replaced by Tav; Bet is replaced by Shin, Gimmel is replaced by Resh, etc.). In the system of "Atbash," the letters that form the word "Ma" – Mem and Heh – become Yud and Sadi, which have the combined numerical value of 100, alluding to the 100 daily Berachot. Another allusion to this requirement is found in the verse in Tehillim (128:4), "Hineh Ki Chen Yeborach Gaber Yereh Hashem" ("Behold, this is how a G-d-fearing man shall be blessed"). The word "Ki" in Gematria equals 30, and the word "Chen" equals 70, for a total of 100, such that the phrase "Ki Chen Yeborach Gaber" may be read to mean that a man should recite 100 Berachot. As the Gemara inferred this requirement from a verse in the Torah, we might conclude that this constitutes a Biblical obligation, mandated by the Torah. This is, in fact, the view taken by the Ba'al Halachot Gedolot, in his listing of the 613 Misvot. Rav Shlomo Ibn Gabirol, in his "Azharot" poem which lists the 613 Biblical commands following the view of the Behag (and which we customarily chant on Shabuot), makes reference to this requirement ("U'mi'berachot Tasmid Me'at Ha'nigmarim"). By contrast, the Rambam maintained that this obligation was enacted later, by the Sages. The Sefer Ha'yere'im (Rav Eliezer of Metz, France, 1140-1237) similarly maintained that this requirement was instituted by the Ansheh Kenesset Ha'gedola ("Men of the Great Assembly") at the beginning of the Second Commonwealth. According to this view, the inference from the verse in Debarim is meant as an allusion to a law enacted by the Sages, and is not the actual source of this requirement. A third opinion is that of the Shiboleh Ha'leket and others, who maintained that this obligation was verbally transmitted as a "Halacha Le'Moshe Mi'Sinai" – a law taught to Moshe at Sinai, without having been written in the Torah. At first glance, we might question the view of the Behag and Shiboleh Ha'leket based on the Midrash's comment that it was King David who instituted the recitation of 100 Berachot each day. The Midrash relates that a devastating plague ravaged the nation during the reign of King David, killing 100 people every day. David determined that to end the plague, everyone must recite 100 daily blessings. (David later refers to himself as "Hukam Al" (Shemuel II 23:1), which could be read to mean, "the one who established 'Al,' as the word "Al" in Gematria equals 100, an allusion to the 100 Berachot which David instituted.) Seemingly, if this constitutes a Biblical obligation, or a requirement transmitted orally since the time of Moshe Rabbenu, then there would be no need for David to introduce this law. The answer, it would seem, is that the people were lax in their fulfillment of this obligation, and so David ordered the people to be more scrupulous in this regard and ensure to recite 100 blessings every day. A fascinating theory regarding the origins of this obligation was advanced by Rav Aharon Amarillo (1700-1772), in his work Peneh Aharon. He writes that Moshe Rabbenu instituted the requirement to recite 100 Berachot each day at the time of the construction of the Mishkan. The wooden planks that formed the structure of the Mishkan were inserted into "Adanim" – sockets embedded in the ground. In all, there were one hundred sockets, which together formed the base and foundation of the Mishkan. The word "Me'a," Rav Amarillo writes, is an acrostic representing the words "Me'at Adneh Ha'Mishkan" – "the one hundred sockets of the Mishkan." The 100 daily blessings were instituted to correspond to the 100 sockets of the Mishkan. The question naturally arises, what connection is there between the "Adanim" and Berachot? Why are the 100 daily blessings associated with the sockets that formed the base of the Mishkan? We can perhaps answer this question based a discussion by Rav Yosef Salant (Jerusalem, 1885-1981), in his Be'er Yosef, regarding the symbolism of the "Adanim." He writes that the Mishkan itself represents the Misvot that the Torah commands us to observe, and the sockets represent the foundation of it all, the pillar upon which the entire Torah rests. And that pillar, Rav Salant explains, is Emuna – faith in Hashem. Our faith in Hashem as the Creator who governs and controls everything is the foundation upon which all of Torah is based. If so, then we can perhaps understand the association between the "Adanim" and the Berachot that we recite. Numerous times each day, we are required to take a few moments and recite a Beracha, with Kavana (concentration), reminding ourselves of Hashem's involvement in the world and in our lives. Indeed, the word "Beracha" in Gematria equals 227 – the same Gematria as the word "Zecher" – "remembrance." The purpose of Berachot is to remind us of Hashem's existence and control over the world. And, in fact, the verse from which the Gemara derived this obligation tells us that what Hashem asks is "Le'yir'a Et Hashem Elokecha" – that we "fear" Hashem, meaning, that we live with an awareness of His unlimited power and His greatness. Accordingly, the 100 Berachot we recite each day are truly the ''foundation" of Torah life, as they serve to reinforce our Emuna. For good reason, then, the Berachot we recite are associated with the "Adanim," which comprised the foundation of the Mishkan and thus symbolize faith, the foundation of the entire Torah. A number of sources speak of the great reward which one earns through the proper fulfillment of this obligation – reciting 100 Berachot each day with concentration, and pronouncing each word correctly. (For example, one must ensure that the words "Baruch Ata" do not sound like "Baru Chata," and to recite "Melech Ha'olam," and not "Melecholam," skipping the syllable "Ha-.") The Ba'al Ha'Turim (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, 1270-1340) writes that those who fulfill this Misva are rewarded with long life. Commenting on the verse, "And you who cling to Hashem your G-d, you are all alive today" (Debarim 4:4), the Ba'al Ha'Turim observes the custom followed in some communities to add a crown in the Torah scroll above the letter Kof in the word "Ha'debekim" ("who are attached") in this verse. This crown, he explains, emphasizes that we attach ourselves to Hashem through the 100 blessings we recite each day – as the letter Kof in Gematria equals 100, and the reward for reciting these Berachot is "Haim Kulechem Hayom" – long life. The Seder Ha'yom (Rav Moshe Ben Machir, Safed, 16 th century) adds that when one recites a Beracha properly, the Beracha ascends to G-d in the heavens, and He takes the Beracha and embeds it into His "crown." Hashem's "crown," as it were, is made from the Berachot which we recite properly with Kavana. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) would advise people experiencing hardship to devote themselves to the meticulous observance of this Misva, and try to recite 100 Berachot each day with proper attention and concentration. The verse from which the Gemara inferred this obligation begins with the letter Vav ("Ve'ata Yisrael") and ends with the letter Chaf ("Nafeshecha"), and these letters have the combined numerical value of 26 – the Gematria of the divine Name of "Havaya." The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) thus writes that the fulfillment of this Misva saves a person from the dreadful punishments described in the section of the "Kelalot" ("curses") in Parashat Ki-Tabo, a section in which the Name "Havaya" appears 26 times. Moreover, this section contains 98 curses, and also includes a warning about "every ailment and every punishment which is not mentioned in this book" (Debarim 28:61) – adding another two curses, for a total of 100. We protect against these 100 curses through the recitation of 100 Berachot each day. Additionally, the Zohar Hadash teaches that we remain in exile because of our failure to properly observe this requirement to recite 100 Berachot each day. It emerges, then, that our commitment to properly fulfill this obligation helps end our long, bitter exile and bring our final redemption. The Arizal taught that the 100 daily Berachot allow us to harness the power of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet – the letters that Hashem used to create the world. The 100 daily blessings are, according to Kabbalistic teaching, associated with the 22 letters, and we thus benefit from the spiritual force of these letters by properly reciting 100 Berachot every day. The Gemara in Masechet Menahot (43b) tells that Rabbi Hiyya went out of his way to purchase special foods for Shabbat and Yom Tob in order to ensure he would recite 100 Berachot. On Shabbat and Yom Tob, the Amida prayer contains far fewer blessings than the weekday Amida prayer, making it more challenging to reach a total of 100 Berachot. Rabbi Hiyya thus made a point of having additional foods on Shabbat and Yom Tob so he would have more Berachot to recite. The Hida, in his work Mahazik Beracha (290), noted the Gemara's implication that this practice marked a special measure of piety on Rabbi Hiyya's part. The Gemara appears to laud Rabbi Hiyya for his piety – indicating that this was not strictly required. The Hida thus suggests that reciting 100 Berachot each day does not constitute a strict Halachic obligation, but is rather a worthwhile practice to follow. The consensus view among the Poskim, however, is that this is indeed a strict obligation. The Petah Ha'debir (Rav Haim Binyamin Pontremoli, Turkey, d. 1872) explains that Rabbi Hiyya was praised for fulfilling the Misva at the highest standard – going out of his way to buy special delicacies, rather than buying simpler foods. But ensuring to recite 100 blessings is a strict requirement, and not just a measure of piety. Hacham Ovadia Yosef adds that there are ways to reach a total of 100 Berachot without actually reciting Berachot, but Rabbi Hiyya chose not to rely on these leniencies, and instead went out to buy food so he could recite 100 blessings on Shabbat and Yom Tob. Indeed, the Shulhan Aruch explicitly rules that one is required to recite 100 Berachot each day. The Poskim indicate that 100 Berachot is a minimum amount, and not an exact amount. Hacham Ovadia notes that from the explanation mentioned earlier associating the 100 daily Berachot with the 100 sockets beneath the Mishkan, one might conclude that we must recite precisely 100 Berachot, and no more, but this is not the Halacha. One must recite at least 100 Berachot, but certainly may recite more. The Rambam, in Hilchot Tefila, brings a custom that some observed to count the Berachot that one recites over the course of the day. This was the practice of Hacham Ovadia Yosef on Shabbat, when it is more difficult to reach a total of 100 blessings, as he wanted to ensure to fulfill this obligation. It is told that the Brisker Rav (Rav Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik, 1886-1959) would count the Berachot he recited every day, following this custom mentioned by the Rambam.

One of the Berachot we recite each morning as part of Birkot Ha'shahar is "Malbish Arumim," with which we express gratitude to Hashem for the gift of clothing. The clothing that we wear protects us from the elements, and maintains our dignity. As such, it is a precious gift that we must never take for granted, and the Sages therefore instituted a special blessing to thank G-d for the garments that we are privileged to wear in the morning. The literal meaning of the words "Malbish Arumim" is "who clothes the naked." Grammatically, the letter Mem has a "Dagesh" (a dot for emphasis), such that it is to be pronounced as a strong "m," as opposed to a Mem without a "Dagesh" which is pronounced as a softer "m." One should pronounce the word properly, with a "Dagesh" in the Mem, because the word "Arumim" with a soft Mem, without a "Dagesh," means "clever people." It would thus sound as though G-d provides clothing only to the wise, which is, of course, not true. We want to emphasize that Hashem provides clothing to all His creatures, and so we must ensure to recite the word "Arumim" correctly. In several sources, the text of this Beracha is "Malbish Ha'arumim" (as opposed to "Malbish Arumim," without "Ha-"). This is the text found in Sha'ar Ha'kavanot (by Rav Haim Vital, 1542-1620), and this was the view also of Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868). The Sedeh Hemed (Rav Haim Hizkiya Medini, 1834-1904) writes that he taught his students to recite this text. The reason given is that if one recites, "Baruch Ata…Melech Ha'olam Malbish Arumim," he might pronounce the words "Ha'olam" and "Malbish" as one long word. Since the word "Ha'olam" ends with a Mem, and the word "Malbish" begins with a Mem, a separation must be made to avoid combining them into a single long word that has no meaning. This problem is avoided by adding the prefix "Ha-" before "Malbish." (Some also suggest proving this text from a phrase in the Book of Shmuel II 1:24.) Nevertheless, the common custom is to recite "Malbish," and not "Ha'malbish," and this is the text that appears in the ancient Siddur of Rav Amram Gaon (Babylonia, 810-875). Another Beracha which we recite each morning is "Ha'noten La'ya'ef Koah," thanking Hashem for "giving strength to the weary." G-d created our bodies with the ability to rejuvenate itself through sleep, such that we can regain our strength and energy, and so we thank Him each morning for granting us the physical strength we need to function. Interestingly enough, this Beracha appears nowhere in the Gemara. When the Gemara lists the blessings that one should make in the morning, it makes no mention of "Ha'noten La'ya'ef Koah." Therefore, the Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 46) writes that the custom to recite this Beracha is incorrect, as we do not have the authority to introduce new Berachot that the Sages in the Talmud did not institute. This Beracha does not appear in Rav Amram Gaon's Siddur, either. The question thus arises as to why the widespread practice is to recite this Beracha, which does not appear anywhere in the Talmud, and which the Shulhan Aruch thus opposed. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) writes that although the Shulhan Aruch opposed reciting this Beracha, the Arizal maintained that this Beracha should be said. In the view of the Hida, the teachings of the Arizal are authoritative and binding, even when they conflict with the rulings of the Shulhan Aruch. The Hida even speculates that if the Shulhan Aruch had been aware of the Arizal's teaching, requiring the recitation of this Beracha, he would have concurred. This is the position taken also by the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) – that we must always follow the Arizal's opinions, regardless of which and how many Rabbis rule differently. Hacham Ovadia Yosef does not accept this approach. In his view, the Arizal's opinions are not necessarily more authoritative than those of other Poskim. And in the case of "Ha'noten La'ya'ef Koah," Hacham Ovadia notes, the Ashkenazim also recite this Beracha, even though they do not always follow the Arizal's teachings. Hacham Ovadia therefore gives a different explanation for the widespread practice to recite this Beracha. He shows that this Beracha appears in early sources – such as in Mahzor Vitri, and in the writings of Rav David Abudarham (Spain, 14 th century), and the Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, 1270-1340) – indicating that this practice earned widespread acceptance well before the Shulhan Aruch. And when there is an accepted Minhag (custom), Hacham Ovadia writes, we follow the custom even if it runs counter to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch. Rav Haim Vital cites the Arizal as explaining the deeper meaning underlying the two Berachot we have been discussing – "Malbish Arumim" and "Ha'noten La'ya'ef Koah." The Arizal taught that our sins have the effect of removing, or tearing, the "garments" that cover our souls. The missing garment, or the missing portion of the garment, is replaced by the "Kelipot" – harmful spiritual energies. A relatively minor sin wears out this "garment," whereas a grievous sin causes the garment to be removed entirely. When a person goes to sleep at night, his soul ascends to the heavens, where Hashem, in His infinite mercy and kindness, "repairs" the damaged "garment" for us, so we will not be subject to the harmful effects of the "Kelipot." When our souls are restored in the morning, they are newly clean and pristine. The Arizal taught that the two Berachot of "Malbish Arumim" and "Ha'noten La'ya'ef Koah" thank Hashem for this precious gift. The Beracha of "Malbish Arumim" refers to the new "garments" that Hashem grants to those who had committed severe sins which caused the complete loss of their soul's "garment." The Beracha of "Ha'noten La'ya'ef Koah" speaks of the "weary" souls, those which had been tainted by minor transgressions, and whose garments thus needed "mending." These two blessings, then, thank Hashem for His mercifully cleansing and repairing our souls each and every night. In light of this teaching of the Arizal, some have suggested that we should reverse the order, and recite "Ha'noten La'ya'ef Koah" before "Malbish Arumim." After all, once we thank Hashem for replacing a lost "garment," this encompasses also His repairing the damaged "garments." Common practice, however, is to first recite "Malbish Arumim." These Berachot thank Hashem not for our personal experience of these phenomena, but rather for the phenomena themselves, for the fact that Hashem has made them part of the natural order. As such, the sequence of these blessings is not important, as both the replacement of lost spiritual "garments" and the repair of the damaged "garments" occur regularly, warranting our expression of praise and gratitude to the Almighty.

Although it is customary to refrain from meat and wine during the Nine Days, this restriction applies only on weekdays. On Shabbat, one may eat as much meat and wine as he wishes, without any restrictions. One may partake of meat during Se'uda Shelishit even the meal extends after sundown. And when Tisha B'Ab falls on Shabbat, and the fast is thus postponed until Sunday, there are no restrictions regarding the foods allowed during the final meal before the fast on Shabbat afternoon. One may have as lavish a meal as he wants, including meat and wine. Whereas generally several restrictions apply to the final meal eaten before Tisha B'Ab, these restrictions do not apply when Tisha B'Ab begins on Mosa'eh Shabbat. The question arises as to whether one may taste on Ereb Shabbat during the Nine Days a meat dish that is being prepared for Shabbat. Generally, it is proper to taste the Shabbat foods before Shabbat to ensure that they are flavorful. Rav Haim Vital (1542-1620) writes that this is a very important Misva, for just as cooks preparing food for a king must taste the food before it is served, this must be done for the honor of Shabbat, as well. It has been explained that this is the deep meaning of the passage in the Musaf prayer recited on Shabbat, "To'ameha Haim Zachu" – "Those who taste it have earned life." Is this permissible on Ereb Shabbat during the Nine Days, when partaking of meat is forbidden? Hacham Ovadia ruled that this is allowed, for two reasons. Firstly, he notes the Shulhan Aruch's ruling in a different context that if one tastes a small morsel of food to check its flavor, he does not recite a Beracha. This shows that tasting food does not qualify as an act of Halachic eating, and thus tasting a meat dish is allowed during the Nine Days. Secondly, Hacham Ovadia writes, the great value and importance of tasting the Shabbat foods overrides the custom to refrain from meat during the Nine Days. Some poskim ruled that one who tastes the meat dish on Ereb Shabbat must then remove it from his mouth without swallowing, but Hacham Ovadia maintained that the food may be swallowed, because of the two reasons mentioned above. Rav Yisrael Bitan writes that in conversation with Hacham Ovadia, the Hacham made it clear that this leniency applies only after Hasot (Halachic midday) on Friday, and that one may taste only an amount less than a Rebi'it of the meat dish. If meat was prepared for Shabbat during the Nine Days, and some of the meat is left over after Shabbat, Hacham Ovadia permits eating the leftovers, particularly if one eats the leftovers for Se'uda Rebi'it (the meal eaten after Shabbat, also known as "Melaveh Malka"), and especially if one normally eats meat during the Se'uda Rebi'it. Although meat is forbidden on weekdays during the Nine Days, nevertheless, meat left over from Shabbat is allowed. One may not intentionally cook more than he deems necessary for Shabbat so that he will have leftover meat for after Shabbat, but if he cooked food for Shabbat and some meat is left over, it may be eaten after Shabbat. There are several reasons given for this leniency. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) bases this Halacha on the Gemara's discussion regarding meat that Beneh Yisrael brought with them into Eretz Yisrael from the desert. During the forty years Beneh Yisrael spent in the desert, Shehita (slaughtering) was not required; they were allowed to kill an animal through any means and then partake of its meat. Once they crossed into Eretz Yisrael, this became forbidden, as Shehita was then required for meat to be permitted. The Gemara writes that if some leftover meat which was produced without Shehita was brought into Eretz Yisrael, then "Ho'il Ve'ishteri Ishteri" – since it was permissible, it remained permissible, even though meat produced this way was no longer allowed. Similarly, the Hida writes, since meat prepared for Shabbat was allowed on Shabbat, it remains permissible even after Shabbat. Although there is some discussion as to whether we may indeed permit food on the basis of the concept of "Ho'il Ve'ishteri Ishteri," when it comes to meat during the Nine Days, which is forbidden only by force of custom, there is room for leniency. Others explain that since this food was prepared for the purpose of a Misva, it is considered special and there is a Misva to eat it. Yet another explanation is the concern of "Bal Tash'hit" (wasting), as the food would otherwise have to be discarded. In one of Hacham Ovadia's earlier works (Kol Sinai), he wrote that we should not object to those who rely on this leniency and eat during the Nine Days meat that was left over from Shabbat – implying that this is not the optimal practice. However, Rav Yisrael Bitan notes that in his later works Hacham Ovadia writes that this is indeed permissible, and thus one may eat leftover meat after Shabbat without any reservations. Summary: Although we refrain from meat and wine during the Nine Days, there are no restrictions on what one may eat on Shabbat during the Nine Days; one may enjoy as much meat and wine as he wishes on Shabbat during the Nine Days. Before Shabbat, it is permissible – and in fact proper – to taste the Shabbat foods to ensure they are flavorful, even the meat dishes, but this should be done after midday on Friday, and only very small amounts may be tasted. If there is leftover meat from Shabbat, it may be eaten after Shabbat, preferably as part of the Se'uda Rebi'it meal after Shabbat. However, one may not intentionally prepare more meat than is needed for Shabbat so that he will have leftovers.

The Halacha below was generated by AI based on multiple classes given by Rabbi Eli Mansour in the Bekiim B'Halacha series. Click on any of the dates below to hear the original audio file. This write-up has been reviewed, but if any errors remain , we welcome corrections. 06-19-25 06-22-25 06-23-25 May One Recite the Beracha of Shehechiyanu During the Three Weeks? One of the most commonly asked questions during the period of Ben HaMesarim —the "Three Weeks" between the 17th of Tamuz and Tisha B'Ab —is whether one may recite the Beracha of Shehechiyanu . This blessing is typically said over new fruits or garments and expresses gratitude for having reached a joyous occasion. But does it have a place during a time associated with national mourning? In this Halacha, we will explore the halachic debate surrounding Shehechiyanu during this period. We will cite sources such as Sefer Hasidim, the Arizal , the Hida, and contemporary Poskim , and address practical situations including new fruits, clothing, and Shabbat during the Three Weeks. Why Would Shehechiyanu Be Problematic During This Time? The Beracha of Shehechiyanu includes the phrase, "who has kept us alive, sustained us, and brought us to this time." The logic of those who oppose saying Shehechiyanu during Ben HaMesarim is rooted in the idea that this period is one of misfortune, tragedy, and danger. Some questioned whether it is appropriate to express joy for having "reached this time," given that it falls within a period marked by national mourning and sorrow. Sefer Hasidim writes that pious individuals would refrain from eating new fruits during the Three Weeks so as not to have to recite Shehechiyanu . They found it inappropriate to express joy for being alive during a time marked by calamity. The Hida records this practice and adds that even though an Avel (a mourner) may recite Shehechiyanu , the issue here is not mourning, but timing. The Three Weeks are an inherently ominous period, and the recitation of Shehechiyanu implies positive acknowledgment of the moment. Are There Authorities Who Permit Reciting It? Yes. Some Poskim insist that one may recite Shehechiyanu during the Three Weeks. Their logic is simple: if Hashem brought a Misva opportunity—like a new fruit or garment—then one should seize the Misva and not delay. Postponing the blessing would be a missed opportunity, possibly violating the principle of "Bal Te'aher "—do not delay a Misva. Furthermore, some argue that once a person sees a new fruit (even before eating it), the obligation to recite Shehechiyanu already sets in. If that sighting occurred during the Three Weeks, one should not delay the blessing, even if they plan to eat it later. What About on Shabbat? Shabbat presents a unique scenario. The Arizal is quoted as being stringent even on Shabbat, maintaining that Shehechiyanu should not be recited. However, many other Poskim disagree. The Ben Ish Hai and others point out that Shabbat has its own Kedusha and is not subject to the same mourning customs. They cite that a student of Rav Haim Vital witnessed the recitation of Shehechiyanu on Shabbat, even during Ben HaMesarim . Furthermore, if the new fruit or garment is intended to enhance Oneg Shabbat (Shabbat enjoyment), then it is especially appropriate to make the Beracha. Hacham Moshe of Tunis also records that his ancestors did recite Shehechiyanu on Shabbat during the Three Weeks. He notes that the Arizal's opinion stands largely alone and does not outweigh the widespread practice of leniency. Final Practical Guidelines • During the weekdays of the Three Weeks, one should avoid new fruits or new garments that require Shehechiyanu unless there is a compelling reason (e.g., a time-bound Misva). • On Shabbat, one may be lenient and recite Shehechiyanu , especially if the item contributes to Oneg Shabbat. • If one already saw the new fruit before the Three Weeks, the obligation may have already started, and it might be preferable to eat it sooner and make the Beracha. • According to all opinions, there is no prohibition mid'oraita or mid'rabanan —this is a matter of Minhag (custom), and customs can vary based on community and personal practice. Summary • The Beracha of Shehechiyanu is generally avoided during the weekdays of the Three Weeks due to the sorrowful nature of this period. • On Shabbat, many authorities permit its recitation, especially when tied to Shabbat enjoyment. • Some Poskim argue there is never a prohibition, only a custom of pious individuals. • When in doubt, consult your local Posek to determine the proper course of action based on your family or community tradition.

Does Hearing a Beracha for Tefillin from Someone Else Count—And What If the Speaker or Listener Makes a Mistake? One of the foundational principles in Halacha is Shome'a Ke'Oneh —"the listener is as if he himself recited." This principle allows a person to fulfill a Beracha obligation by hearing someone else say the Beracha and answering "Amen," provided certain conditions are met. This rule applies not only to communal rituals like Kiddush, Havdala, or Megillah, but also to personal Misvot such as Tefillin . For example, if someone says the Beracha over Tefillin aloud with the intent to fulfill the obligation for another, the listener may rely on that Beracha and is exempt from saying his own— if all the proper conditions are met . The Halachic Conditions for Shome'a Ke'Oneh to Work According to Shulhan Aruch (O.H. 213:2), four conditions must be present for Shome'a Ke'Oneh to apply: The person saying the Beracha must have intent to fulfill the obligation for the listener. The listener must also have intent to be yotze through the speaker's Beracha. The listener must hear the entire Beracha clearly —from "Baruch Ata" through the conclusion. The listener should answer "Amen" immediately upon hearing the end of the Beracha. If all of these are fulfilled, the listener is considered to have personally recited the Beracha and can then proceed to perform the Misva—in this case, placing Tefillin— without saying his own Beracha . Applying This to Tefillin In many Sephardic yeshivot and minyanim, it is common for a father to recite the Beracha aloud while helping his son put on Tefillin for the first time. Or a Hazan may say the Beracha for several men in the room. So long as the speaker and listener have the mutual kavana (intent), and the listener hears the Beracha clearly and answers "Amen," this is fully valid. The Ben Ish Hai and Kaf Ha'Haim both encourage the use of this mechanism, especially for beginners or people who may struggle with pronunciation or correct Beracha wording. What If the Speaker Interrupts? Now we come to a practical concern. What happens if the person who said the Beracha speaks between the Beracha and putting on the Tefillin ? For example, if Reuven says "Baruch Ata… Lehani'ah Tefillin," and then says something unrelated before placing the Tefillin (e.g., "Where's my bag?" or "Let me adjust my jacket"), he has made a Hefsek (interruption), and according to Maran (O.H. 25:9), he is required to recite a new Beracha . But what about Shimon , who was listening and answered "Amen" with the intent to be yotze? This is debated among the Poskim: According to some, the listener's Beracha is still valid , because at the moment he heard it, the Beracha was said properly and with kavana. This is the ruling of Hacham Ovadia Yosef ( Yabia Omer and Halichot Olam ), who holds that the speaker's later mistake does not invalidate the listener's fulfillment . Others argue more strictly, saying the speaker's interruption disqualifies the entire process—including for the listener. However, this view is not followed in practice by the majority of Sephardic authorities. What If the Listener Interrupts? If the listener himself speaks after answering "Amen" and before placing his own Tefillin , the ruling is more severe. In this case, the listener has created a Hefsek between the Beracha and the act , and must now recite a new Beracha , specifically "Al Misvat Tefillin" before placing the Shel Rosh. This is a straightforward ruling in Shulhan Aruch and the Ben Ish Hai . The interruption breaks the connection between the Beracha and the Misva, even though the listener did not speak during the actual Beracha. However, if the speech was related to the Misva —such as "Pass me the Shel Rosh" or "Can you adjust the knot?"—this is not ideal but is not considered a full Hefsek , and a new Beracha is not required . What If There Was No Kavana? Shome'a Ke'Oneh only works when both parties have intent : If the speaker was not aware that someone was listening—or had no intent to fulfill their obligation—then the listener is not yotze . Similarly, if the listener was distracted, unsure, or did not intend to be yotze, the Beracha does not apply to him. The Hida and Kaf Ha'Haim emphasize this in many places, warning against relying on a public Beracha unless you're sure both parties are aware and participating with clear intent. In cases of doubt (e.g., someone is unsure if the speaker had him in mind), the principle of Safek Berachot Le'hakel applies: Do not repeat the Beracha unless you are certain that it is required. Summary: A person may fulfill the Beracha for Tefillin by listening to someone else , if both have intent and the listener answers "Amen." If the speaker interrupts after the Beracha, most Sephardic Poskim say the listener is still covered . If the listener interrupts before putting on the Tefillin, he must recite a new Beracha . Speech related to the Misva is discouraged but not a disqualifying Hefsek. Without mutual intent , the Beracha does not count . When in doubt, follow Safek Berachot Le'hakel —do not repeat the Beracha unless clearly necessary.

Can One Respond to Amen, Kaddish, or Kedusha While Putting on Tefillin—And What If He Already Did? One of the most common halachic dilemmas in the morning prayer is what to do when someone is putting on Tefillin and hears Kaddish , Kedusha , or a Beracha . Can he respond out loud? Should he listen silently? Or must he remain completely passive until finishing the Tefillin? This question centers on the concern of interrupting between the Tefillin Shel Yad and the Tefillin Shel Rosh . As discussed earlier, any Hefsek (interruption) between the two parts of the Misva may require repeating the Beracha . The situation becomes more complicated when the interruption is not mundane speech but a holy response , such as saying "Amen" or "Yehe Shemeh Rabba." The Strict View: No Interruptions, Even for Holy Words Maran in Shulhan Aruch (O.H. 25:9) rules that one may not speak at all between the Tefillin Shel Yad and Shel Rosh—even to respond "Amen" or to say "Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh." This is the view of the Rosh , cited in the Mordechi , who maintains that these responses still count as interruptions because the person has already started one Misva and must complete it without pause. Following this view, one should not respond to Kaddish or Kedusha between the two Tefillin. Even though these responses are important, the Misva of Tefillin is in progress and must not be interrupted. The Ben Ish Hai (Parashat Vayera, Halacha 8) agrees and writes that although it is painful to miss answering Kedusha, it is more important to complete the Tefillin properly. He explains that the person should simply pause silently , listen attentively, and intend to fulfill the Misva through listening ( Shome'a Ke'Oneh ). This ruling is widely accepted by Sephardic authorities , including Hacham Ovadia Yosef ( Yabia Omer vol. 1 and Halichot Olam ). A Middle Opinion: Listen Without Answering According to the middle-ground opinion, a person who hears Kaddish or Kedusha while wrapping Tefillin should stop what he's doing , listen silently, and fulfill the obligation through listening alone . This is based on the rule of Shome'a Ke'Oneh — "the listener is as one who recites." However, some Aharonim raise a concern: If listening is equivalent to speaking, then isn't that also an interruption? Not necessarily. The logic is that Shome'a Ke'Oneh does not require active speech , and therefore it does not violate the condition of silence between the Tefillin Shel Yad and Shel Rosh. This is the approach of the Magen Avraham and is mentioned by the Hida in Birkei Yosef . It is considered the ideal practice when caught in this situation: stop, listen quietly, and do not speak . Still, this only works if the person saying Kaddish or the Beracha has proper intent to fulfill others' obligation. If he's just reciting the words by rote and not thinking about others listening, Shome'a Ke'Oneh might not apply—especially for a Tefillah like Kaddish, where communal intent is crucial. Therefore, Maran Ha'Hida and later Hacham Ben Sion Abba Shaul note that if one is unsure whether the Hazan is a learned person with kavana, it's better not to stop to listen , and just continue putting on the Tefillin. The Lenient View: If You Answered, You're Still Covered What if someone did answer "Amen," "Yehe Shemeh Rabba," or another phrase during the Tefillin process? According to most Sephardic authorities, although one should not have answered, if he did, he does not repeat the Beracha . This follows the principle of Safek Berachot Le'hakel —when there is doubt about whether a Beracha must be repeated, we err on the side of caution and do not say Hashem's name again unnecessarily. This view is stated clearly by the Ben Ish Hai and Kaf Ha'Haim , and is upheld by Hacham Ovadia Yosef. Even though answering was improper, the holiness of the response and the minimal nature of the interruption make it insufficient to require a new Beracha. However, some Ashkenazic authorities (such as the Mishna Berura citing the Eliyahu Rabba ) are stricter. They hold that if one answered anything between the Tefillin Shel Yad and Shel Rosh, he must repeat the Beracha for the Shel Rosh. Sephardim do not follow this opinion . Best Practice: Anticipate and Avoid the Situation If a person sees that Kaddish or Kedusha is about to begin , and he hasn't started donning Tefillin yet, he should wait a moment and delay putting them on. It is better to fulfill both Misvot properly —answering Kaddish and wrapping Tefillin—than to get caught between them and risk an interruption. If he's already started wrapping the Shel Yad, he should proceed without interruption and miss answering Kaddish if necessary. Summary: Do not speak between the Tefillin Shel Yad and Shel Rosh—not even to answer Amen or Kaddish. If caught in the middle, stop silently and listen ( Shome'a Ke'Oneh )—but only if the Hazan has intent to fulfill others' obligation. If one did answer , most Sephardic Poskim say he should not repeat the Beracha , though it is discouraged. Best of all is to time your Tefillin placement so that you are not mid-wrap when Kaddish or Kedusha begins.

Should One Place Tefillin While Sitting or Standing—And What If the Community Follows a Different Custom? The Sephardic custom, rooted in the rulings of Maran in the Shulhan Aruch (O.H. 25:5), is to don the Tefillin Shel Yad while sitting , and the Tefillin Shel Rosh while standing . This is not simply a question of posture but reflects a deeper understanding of the nature of each Tefillin and its associated Misva. The Tefillin Shel Yad is considered a private and personal obligation . It is hidden, placed on the weaker part of the body, and not seen by others during prayer. In contrast, the Tefillin Shel Rosh sits openly on the head, between the eyes, and represents a public declaration of our bond with Hashem. Because of its visibility and its connection to communal holiness, the Tefillin Shel Rosh is given more formality, which includes the standing position when placing it. The Ben Ish Hai (Parashat Vayera) emphasizes this distinction, explaining that the Shel Yad is associated with the heart , representing internal service of Hashem (Avodat HaLev), while the Shel Rosh is associated with the mind , representing Torah and public sanctity. Therefore, sitting for the Shel Yad reflects modesty and inwardness, while standing for the Shel Rosh expresses reverence and honor. What If One Is in an Ashkenazi Minyan That Stands for Both? In Ashkenazi practice, it is common to stand for both the Shel Yad and Shel Rosh. This can present a challenge for a Sephardi who finds himself in such a minyan. Should he follow his custom to sit for the Shel Yad, or should he stand to avoid standing out? Hacham Ovadia Yosef (in Yabia Omer , vol. 1, O.H. 4 and Halichot Olam ) rules clearly that one should not deviate from the Sephardic custom , even when praying in an Ashkenazi congregation. The halachic principle of "Al Titosh Torat Imecha"—do not abandon the tradition of your fathers—applies here. A person should not feel pressured to change his practice in order to "fit in," especially in a matter that has solid halachic and kabbalistic support. Moreover, this practice is not offensive to others. In most cases, no one pays much attention to who is standing or sitting during Tefillin. But even if someone notices, preserving one's mesora (halachic tradition) takes precedence over conforming for the sake of appearance. In the reverse case—an Ashkenazi praying in a Sephardic minyan—it is likewise appropriate for him to stand for both Tefillin, according to his custom. Kabbalistic Reasoning The Mekubalim, particularly the Hida and the Ben Ish Hai , stress the spiritual distinctions between the two Tefillin. According to the Zohar HaKadosh , the Tefillin Shel Yad corresponds to the sefirah of Gevurah and is internal, while the Tefillin Shel Rosh corresponds to the sefirah of Hokhmah and projects spiritual light outward. These ideas are only heightened when the Tefillin are placed with proper kavana (intent), posture, and awareness of their function. In short, sitting for the Shel Yad enhances the quality of its intent as a private covenant with Hashem. Summary: Sephardim should place the Tefillin Shel Yad while sitting , and the Tefillin Shel Rosh while standing. This custom follows Maran in Shulhan Aruch and is further supported by the Ben Ish Hai and Mekubalim. Even in an Ashkenazi minyan, Sephardim should not deviate from their custom. This posture reflects both halachic rulings and the inner meaning of each Tefillin.

Should One Leave the House Already Wearing Talet and Tefillin, and Is This Practically Required Today? The Zohar HaKadosh places profound spiritual significance on the act of leaving one's home in the morning already wearing Talet and Tefillin. This is not merely about preparation for prayer—it is a sacred moment that opens the door to unique spiritual protection and Divine pride. The Zohar describes that when a Jew exits his home dressed in Tefillin on the head and arm and Talet on his shoulders, four ministering angels accompany and protect him. These angels declare to all that this person is bearing the image of the King, and Hashem Himself makes an announcement in the upper worlds praising this individual. It is likened to a father publicly celebrating his child's achievements—Hashem says, "Look at My son!" ( Zohar Parashat Terumah , cited in Kaf HaHaim, Ben Ish Hai, and others). Despite the strength of these sources, the widespread practice today is that most people do not fulfill this halacha. Sephardic Poskim such as the Ben Ish Hai, Kaf HaHaim, and Hida all reinforce the Zohar's stance, yet even they acknowledge that the practice has fallen into neglect. Rabbi Eli Mansour notes that attempts to justify this neglect—such as concerns about passing filth or improperly dressed individuals—are not strong in most modern contexts. People often drive from their homes directly to shul in clean environments, especially in the early hours when streets are empty. So why don't people do it? Mostly, it's due to convenience and habit. Many keep their Tefillin in shul lockers and would need to bring them home daily to fulfill this practice. It requires a lifestyle change: bringing the Koracha home each day, preparing at home before leaving, and possibly returning it afterward. For those going straight to work from shul, that adds an extra logistical layer. Still, Rabbi Mansour encourages individuals to consider incorporating this practice even once in a while. Even partial observance of a mitzvah with such reward is spiritually worthwhile. What If It's Too Early to Wear Tefillin? One valid exemption arises when a person goes to shul before the earliest time to wear Tefillin (such as Alot HaShahar). According to Hacham Yaakov Hillel in VaYashov HaYam , and as explained by Rabbi Mansour, a person in this case is not obligated to wait at home until the proper time. Rather, it is better to go to the synagogue, learn Torah, and then put on Tefillin when the time arrives. There is no obligation to return home later just to fulfill this Zoharic custom. Rav Hillel adds that one who stays in the synagogue for tefillah and is among the first ten participants (the "Asarah Rishonim") is also fulfilling a great mitzvah that may even override the practice of leaving home with Tefillin. Some rabbis, like Hacham Yehuda Sadka, would go home and return, but this is not a practical expectation for most people and is viewed as an act of personal stringency rather than normative halacha. What Are Practical Ways to Fulfill This Today? For those who feel uncomfortable or find it difficult to wear Talet and Tefillin outside the home, halachic sources offer creative and doable solutions: Use a discreet setup : Wear a small pair of Tefillin and a Talet that can be worn like a scarf under a jacket. This fulfills the halacha without drawing attention. Keep a second Koracha at home : A small "to-go" set can make this easier and avoid the need to bring your full set back and forth daily. Rely on Talet Katan : According to the Beit Yosef and Spanish Mekubalim, if a person wears Talet Katan and then puts on Tefillin at home—even if not the full Talet Gadol—he may gain some of the spiritual benefit. Change Tefillin in Shul : The Ben Ish Hai permits one to wear a pair of Tefillin at home and then switch to another pair in shul, such as putting on Rashash or Rabbenu Tam after already fulfilling the Zohar's practice. Put on Tefillin in the shul side room : While not the ideal per the Zohar, poskim like the Mishna Berura and Aruch HaShulchan permit putting on Tefillin in a lobby or side room before entering the sanctuary, especially if needed to avoid embarrassment or external discomfort. Importantly, one must also apply judgment. The halacha does not encourage making a spectacle of oneself. If wearing Tefillin publicly might cause mockery or suspicion, it may be better not to do so. Even if one's intentions are noble, doing something that is widely misunderstood—like walking outside with Tefillin at 8 a.m.—may result in Chillul Hashem rather than Kiddush Hashem. Does This Apply on Shabbat? On Shabbat, Tefillin are not worn. The question arises: must one still leave the house wearing a Talet on Shabbat? The majority of poskim, including Kaf HaHaim and others, hold that this requirement does not apply on Shabbat. The Zohar's emphasis is on Tefillin. Since they are not worn on Shabbat, the associated practice of leaving the house dressed for tefillah is also not required. Therefore, one may go to synagogue in regular clothing and put on the Talet there without issue. However, the Ben Ish Hai writes that since most people wear Talet Katan on Shabbat anyway, the practice is partially fulfilled. According to his view, one who does not wear Talet Katan might consider putting on the Talet Gadol before leaving the house. Still, this is not a widespread custom and is not mandated. Summary: The practice of leaving one's house wearing Talet and Tefillin is highly praised by the Zohar and Sephardic Poskim and is said to bring angelic protection and Divine honor. While not widely followed today, there are few valid excuses to avoid it entirely in modern cities. Those who come to shul before the proper time for Tefillin are exempt and should not delay Torah learning to fulfill the Zoharic ideal. Still, one should strive to observe this practice occasionally using any of several halachically acceptable solutions. It does not apply on Shabbat. Overall, this is a beautiful opportunity for spiritual elevation—one that can be embraced incrementally and with wisdom.

Send us a textThe podcast is currently on a break between Season 4 and Season 5. As promised, during this period I'll be uploading two previous episodes starting with my travel guide to the Tateyama Kurobe Alpine Route. Open to the public from mid-April until the end of November, the Tateyama Kurobe Alpine Route traverses Japan's highest mountain range – the Hida mountains or North Alps – from Ogizawa Station on the Nagano-side of the range to Tateyama Station on the Toyama-side. Closed to the public through winter due to the extremely heavy snowfall experienced in the mountains, the route has just reopened for 2025 making it a good time to republish this travel guide, which I originally published in April 2024 under the old podcast name of ‘Snow Country Stories Japan'.This episode will be followed by my other travel guide published in July last year, my guide to Kamikochi, which has also just reopened to the public. If you're enjoying pod and would like to support me in continuing to make it, please do make sure to subscribe or follow on which pod app you're listening on. Thanks for listening and I hope you enjoy.Outland Japan is a bi-weekly podcast hosted by Peter Carnell - a freelance tour guide based in northern Nagano – that transports you to rural, regional and the wilds of Japan in pursuit of stories that lie outside the neon hum of Tokyo and golden trimmings of Kyoto. Stories of travel, life and culture beyond the big cities. Follow the show on Instagram, Facebook and YouTube. Please note, prior to October 2024, Outland Japan was named Snow Country Stories Japan.

**Today's Halacha is dedicated f or the refuah and haslacha of Ronnie, Sharon, Eli and all the children of CARE** On Purim morning, one should make an effort to wake up extra early and recite Tehilim. This is based on the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1807), who writes in his "Devash L'fi" that there are five special days during the year that one should arise at "Hashkama"-extra early: Tisha B'ab, Shabuot, Rosh Hashana, Hoshana Rabba and Purim. He says that this is alluded to in the word "AVRaHaM" in the verse "Vayashkem AVRraHaM BaBoker"-Avraham arose early in the morning. The letter "Aleph" of Avraham, hints to "Echa" which is read on Tisha B'ab; the "Vet" refers to Shabuot on which the Torah was given, and the Torah begins with the letter "Bet;" the "Resh" refers to Rosh Hashana; the "Heh" alludes to Hoshana Rabbah; and the "Mem" hints to the Megillah of Purim. *** The special Tefila of "Al Hanisim" is inserted into the Amidah of Purim. If one forgot to do so, he does not have to go back and repeat the Amidah. Nevertheless, it is preferable to recite the "Al Hanisim" at the expense of prolonging his Amidah and missing the Kedusha with the Sibbur, than to skip it and finish earlier. *** The Torah reading for Purim is "VaYavo Amalek," in Parshat B'shalach. Since it only has nine verses, the accepted custom is to read the last verse twice to complete the requisite ten verses need for a public Torah reading. It is important for everyone to hear this Parasha. Those who missed hearing Parashat Zachor can fulfill the Misva with this reading, if they have intent to do so. The Kaf HaHaim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939, Ch. 693:25) writes that if someone cannot attend Bet Knesset on Purim day, he should read this passage by himself at home with the Ta'amim (cantillation). After reading the Torah, the Tefila continues with "Ashreh" and the beginning of "Uva Lesion." The Megillah is read before the Pasuk "V'atah Kadosh." In the morning, "Shehecheyanu" is not recited on the Megillah, according to the practice of the Sepharadim. The Sefer Torah is kept out until after the Megillah is read, because the Megillah states, "LaYehudim Hayta Orah V'simcha, V'saon V'y'kar"-the Jews had light and joy and happiness and glory. The Gemara understands that Orah (light) refers to the light of the Torah. One should not take off his Tefilin before the completion of the Megillah, because the same verse says that the Jews had "Y'kar"-glory. The Gemara understands that it is referring to Tefilin. In fact, the custom is to kiss the Tefilin when that word is read. If there is a Brit Mila, some say that it is performed prior to the Megillah reading to correspond to a word in that same Pasuk "Sason"-joy, which the Hachamim understand to be Brit Mila. However, the accepted practice is to conduct the Mila after Shaharit. *** There is no obligation to recite Hallel on Purim. One reason for this is that the reading of the Megillah, which tells the story of the miraculous events, takes the place of Hallel. Therefore, if one cannot hear the Megillah, there are Poskim who hold that he should recite the complete Hallel. This should be done without a Beracha, as there is a difference of opinion on the matter. After the Shir Shel Yom (Psalm of the Day), the Mizmor (Tehilim 22) "Al Ayelet Hashachar" is added. Esther was referred to as "Ayelet Hashachar," and this was the prayer she offered upon approaching the King's private chamber. *** It is prohibited to eat even a small amount before hearing the Megillah on Purim morning, even if one has already prayed. Therefore, one should insure that his wife and children hear the Megillah promptly, so that they can eat. *** Immediately after Shaharit, the Matanot LaEvyonim are distributed. Performing this Misva early is not only a fulfillment of "Zerizim Makdimim L'Misvot," but it also enables the recipients to use the money to buy what they lack for the holiday. *** The Shulhan Aruch rules that the Beracha of Shehecheyanu is not recited before reading the Megillah in the morning. This applies even if one did not fulfill the Misva of Megillah the previous night. One should have in mind to include the other Misvot when he hears the Beracha at night. *** The Hida (Lev David, Ch. 30) brings a custom for both men and women to light two candles in honor of Mordechai and Esther on Purim. After lighting the candles, one should give Sedaka and offer heartfelt prayers and requests in their merit. There is a widespread custom to don costumes on Purim. The Hida mentions this specifically regarding the Seudah. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909, Ateret Tiferet) brings a custom for women to adorn themselves with their fanciest jewelry, even more than Shabbat and Yom Tov. This custom has its origins in the Kabbalah. This should only be done within the confines of her own home and not to go out publicly, so as not to breach the standards of modesty.

Deutsche Ausgabe: Ende November 2024 fand in Berlin ein Austausch von Ausbildern und Tutoren bei Helmholtz statt - unter dem Namen TEACH. Wie kann man dem wachsenden Bedarf and Weiterbildung gerecht werden und welche Mittel und Tools helfen dabei. In diesem kleinen Rückblick spreche ich mit den OrganisatorInnen und Sprechern der Veranstaltung: Prof Silke Schworm, Jolanta Zjuba, Fredo Erxleben und Anna-Lisa Döring. Links:https://events.hifis.net/event/1472/timetable/#20241121.detailed Das Programm der Veranstaltung mit Beiträgen zum Herunterladenhttps://www.helmholtz-hida.de HIDA, der Dachverband bei dem die Tagung stattfandhttps://www.hifis.net HIFIS auch eine Helmholtz Platformhttps://www.helmholtz.de/hida-files/user_upload/pdf_dokumente/Helmholz-Incubator-Folder_2022.pdf Übersicht der Helmholtz Platformenhttps://www.uni-regensburg.de/humanwissenschaften/erziehungswissenschaft-medien/team/prof-dr-silke-schworm/index.html Prof Silke Schwormhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKralSEhZq0Get in touchThank you for listening! Merci de votre écoute! Vielen Dank für´s Zuhören! Contact Details/ Coordonnées / Kontakt: Email mailto:peter@code4thought.org UK RSE Slack (ukrse.slack.com): @code4thought or @piddie US RSE Slack (usrse.slack.com): @Peter Schmidt Mastodon: https://fosstodon.org/@code4thought or @code4thought@fosstodon.org Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/code4thought.bsky.social LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pweschmidt/ (personal Profile)LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/codeforthought/ (Code for Thought Profile) This podcast is licensed under the Creative Commons Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Is it permissible on Shabbat to separate food to serve it to somebody else? For example, may a mother remove edible food from an inedible substance in order to feed the food to her child? Assuming she follows the ordinary rules of Borer (separating on Shabbat) – meaning, she takes the desirable food from the undesirable substance, and this is done by hand and for immediate use – is this permissible, if she is not the one who will eat the food? The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1807), in his work Birkeh Yosef, rules that the rules of Borer apply equally to one who separates food for himself and one who separates food for somebody else. As long as one meets the standard conditions for allowing separating foods, this may be done even to feed another person. The Hida draws proof to this ruling from the Gemara's discussion in Masechet Shabbat (74a) of Rav Bibai, who was serving fruit to the Rabbis on Shabbat, and instead of serving each one individually, he placed the basket in front of them. The Gemara raises the question of why Rav Bibai chose this method, noting that this may have been done simply as an expression of generosity, so that each guest can take as much as he likes. However, the Gemara also raises the possibility that this was done to avoid the issue of Borer. Rav Bibai may have ruled that one may not separate on Shabbat even if he removes the desirable food from the undesirable food, and thus he could not selected fruits from the basket for his guests and had to bring them the entire basket, instead. It is noteworthy that the Gemara did not mention the fact that Rav Bibai would have been separating food for other people, and not for himself. It appears from the Gemara's comments that this was not a factor at all, proving that the standard rules of Borer apply regardless of whether one is separating for himself or for somebody else. The Hida adds that this Halacha applies even if the person who separates the foods is unable to eat the food he is separating, such as if he had recently eaten meat and he is now handling dairy foods. Even in such a case, one may separate the foods for another person, as long as he follows the standard requirements of Borer. This is the ruling of Sephardic Chief Rabbi Shelomo Amar, in his work of responsa, and this is, indeed, the Halacha. Summary: The laws of Borer apply regardless of whether one wishes to separate food for himself or for somebody else. In both cases, separating is allowed if one removes the desirable food from the undesirable substance, and this is done by hand and for immediate use.

Contributor: Jorge Chalit-Hernandez, OMS3 Typically presents with biliary colic Right upper quadrant abdominal pain lasting more than 30 minutes and subsiding over several hours Often associated with fatty meals but not always Must rule out other causes of pain Peptic ulcer disease - typically presents with epigastric pain Pancreatitis - pain that radiates to the back or family history of pancreatitis Laboratory workup  LFTs including ALT, AST, and alkaline phosphatase are within the reference range Lipase and amylase within the reference range Imaging workup RUQ ultrasound is unremarkable Upper endoscopy with ultrasound can help rule out peptic ulcer disease and small stones HIDA scan may show a reduced gallbladder ejection fraction below 30-35% or it may be normal  Opiates may give false-positive results Opiates can sometimes make biliary colic worse due to their contractile effect on the sphincter of Oddi Some patients may benefit from surgical intervention i.e. cholecystectomy Classic biliary-type pain (best predictor of response to cholecystectomy) Pain for > 3 months duration Positive HIDA scan References Alhayo S, Eslick GD, Cox MR. Cholescintigraphy may have a role in selecting patients with biliary dyskinesia for cholecystectomy: a systematic review. ANZ J Surg. 2020;90(9):1647-1652. doi:10.1111/ans.16003 Arshi J, Layfield LJ, Esebua M. Mast cell infiltration and activation in the gallbladder wall: Implications for the pathogenesis of functional gallbladder disorder in adult patients. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2021;54:151798. doi:10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2021.151798 Carr JA, Walls J, Bryan LJ, Snider DL. The treatment of gallbladder dyskinesia based upon symptoms: results of a 2-year, prospective, nonrandomized, concurrent cohort study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2009;19(3):222-226. doi:10.1097/SLE.0b013e3181a74690 Joehl RJ, Koch KL, Nahrwold DL. Opioid drugs cause bile duct obstruction during hepatobiliary scans. Am J Surg. 1984;147(1):134-138. doi:10.1016/0002-9610(84)90047-3 Mahid SS, Jafri NS, Brangers BC, Minor KS, Hornung CA, Galandiuk S. Meta-analysis of cholecystectomy in symptomatic patients with positive hepatobiliary iminodiacetic acid scan results without gallstones. Arch Surg. 2009;144(2):180-187. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2008.543 Summarized & Edited by Jorge Chalit, OMS3 Donate: https://emergencymedicalminute.org/donate/  

This week's hosts - Hida-O-Win & DaveEditor - SavageMick Dave and Hida dig through the ideas pile and pick some topics from the towering lists compiled by the Warlord. Savage watches from the editing booth and wonders if our insurance covers toppling topics? It's time to visit the General Lists... Does It Have To Have Wizards? - Why is there a reluctance to have games with no sci-fi or fantasy elements? Are we so eager to avoid the real world we need to sprinkle in elves and laser guns? Can 'Soap Opera Logic' or similar narrative devices sub in for supernatural elements? And is real-world drama as gamable as fantastic drama? Conversely, is it ok to have such things in a setting, but forbid them to PCs? Unified Mechanics and Cognitive Load - Should a game use the same basic mechanics for every action, or is that just limiting what the game can do? Are people who want to roll one dice and get The Happy Number just lazy, stupid, or are they legit overwhelmed? Random Bastards! - Players who want weird and wonderful outcomes every roll, versus those who would like to be able to plan and achieve goals. ----------------------------------------------------------------- We have a Discord Server and it rocks! Get in here! [ https://discord.gg/VW6NUJe ] Find us on Facebook here, leave a Thumbs Up and we can be internet friends! [ https://www.facebook.com/TheAdventuringParty/ ] Come ear-watch us on Youtube. Leave a comment! [ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJN85ESPc0Wg3kuErxnV9wQ/videos ] We are on Spotify? Yup, you can listen to us over there too! [ https://open.spotify.com/show/0HmRd3Tqba9Jk0TIUwVz13?si=EQCChHitSVCC9DuDvYewBQ ] Twitter! Follow us on twitter  [ @adventuringpty ]. Will we follow you back? Maybe! The hosts can be contacted by good old email at party@theadventuringparty.net ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Adventuring Party is released under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial Share-Alike version 3 licence [ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ie/ ]. Title Card - That's an Order! - Savage Diffusion

A sukka does not need to be built "lishma," i.e., with the intention of building a structure within which one will fulfill the mitzvah of sukka. However, it must be built with the intention of providing shade. Therefore, the gemara (Sukka 8b) teaches that "sukkot ganbach," an acronym for sukkot constructed by those who not obligated in the mitzvah of sukkah, i.e., non-Jews, women, animals and cutheans, are valid. Some poskim, such as the Hida, write that preferably, a Jew should participate in the construction of the sukka, especially placing the sechach on the sukka. However, the Halacha clearly states that even if the entire sukka is built by a non-Jew, the sukka is valid.

Halacha forbids eating before praying Shaharit in the morning, both on Shabbat and on weekdays. Eating before praying is considered a sign of arrogance, as one's first order of business in the morning should be praying to Hashem. Of course, an ill patient who needs to eat to sustain himself is permitted to eat, as this clearly does not express any arrogance on his part. Likewise, it is permissible to drink water before praying Shaharit, as drinking water constitutes a basic life necessity. The Halachic authorities allow drinking tea, as well, which is essentially water with some flavoring, and coffee, which can be viewed as a kind of "medicine" in that helps people feel alert and refreshed. There is a debate among the Halachic authorities as to whether one may add sugar to his tea or coffee when drinking before Shaharit. Hacham Ovadia Yosef permits adding a small bit of sugar. Clearly, however, it is forbidden to drink other beverages, such as orange juice, lemonade, chocolate milk and milkshakes. Drinking these beverages before Shaharit is akin to eating before Shaharit, and is strictly forbidden. As mentioned, this Halacha applies both on weekdays and on Shabbat. Unfortunately, many people make a mistake when they spend Shabbat in a hotel in Israel, and eat breakfast in the hotel dining room before praying Shaharit. Since they will be returning from the synagogue after breakfast is over, and lunch is not served until around 1pm, they sit down to breakfast before they leave for Shaharit. This is strictly forbidden, except in situations of ill patients or others who have a specific medical need that requires eating and drinking before Shaharit, as discussed above. If one wants to eat breakfast in the hotel, he must pray at an early Minyan and then eat breakfast after returning from the synagogue. It is likewise forbidden to take a small snack or a few drinks before praying; as discussed, one may drink only water, tea or coffee before praying Shaharit. After one recites the Amida in the morning, there are no longer any restrictions, and he may eat and drink as he wishes. A more complicated question arises on Shabbat, when there is an obligation to recite Kiddush before eating or drinking. Although eating and drinking are forbidden before Shaharit on Shabbat just like during the week, may one eat and drink after Shaharit but before Musaf? For example, is it permissible for one to bring a bag of candies or snacks with him to the synagogue so he can have a snack after Shaharit, such as before or during the Torah reading? Or, may one go to the synagogue kitchen during that time to take a coffee or snack? This issue is subject to a debate among the Halachic authorities. A number of Poskim (the Shalmeh Sibur, citing from the Maharam Zakut, and Sefer Ikareh Ha'dat) maintain that the obligation of Kiddush does not take effect on Shabbat morning until after the recitation of Musaf. Therefore, once a person recites the Amida of Shaharit, he is permitted to eat and drink (as long as he does not eat a Ke'besa or more of "Mezonot" food). According to this view, it would be entirely permissible to have a snack or drink after Shaharit before Musaf. Many other Poskim, however, dispute this position. (These include the Mishna Berura, Kaf Ha'haim, Bayit Hadash, Elya Rabba, Tosefet Shabbat, and the Hida in Birkeh Yosef.) In their view, the obligation of Kiddush begins after Shaharit, not after Musaf, and therefore, after one recites the Amida of Shaharit on Shabbat, he may not eat or drink anything until he recites Kiddush. It is forbidden even to drink water, because once the obligation of Kiddush takes effect, one may not eat or drink anything until Kiddush. In light of this debate, Hacham Ovadia Yosef rules in Yabia Omer (Orah Haim 22:2) that one should not eat after Shaharit before Kiddush unless there is some pressing need. For example, if somebody feels a bit weak or frail and needs a snack or drink, then he may eat or drink. Other examples include a Ba'al Koreh whose voice is hoarse and he needs to drink water or suck a lozenge to be able to read properly, and somebody who needs to take medicine at a certain time with food or drink. These are all legitimate needs that allow for relying on the lenient position and eating or drinking before Kiddush. Otherwise, however, if one feels well and has no particular need to eat or drink, he should refrain from eating and drinking until he recites Kiddush. This is also the ruling of Rabbi Moshe Halevi (Israel, 1961-2001), in his Menuhat Ahaba. Summary: It is forbidden to eat before praying Shaharit in the morning, unless one is ill or medically required to do so. Drinking water, tea or coffee is permitted, but drinking other beverages is forbidden. This applies on Shabbat, as well. After one recites Shaharit on Shabbat, he may not eat or drink anything – including water – until he recites or hears Kiddush, though in situations of need, such as if somebody feels frail or is reading the Torah and needs water for his throat, he may eat a small snack or have a drink.

Rabbi Akiva Eger (1761-1837), in one of his responsa (7), addresses the question of whether a woman can fulfill her obligation of Kiddush by hearing the recitation from a boy who has just become a Bar Misva. A boy becomes obligated in Misvot as an adult once he reaches physical maturity, and with many thirteen-year-old boys, it is uncertain whether this has happened. Rabbi Akiva Eger therefore rules that a woman should not rely on a Bar Misva boy's recitation of Kiddush, since it is uncertain whether he is obligated in Misvot such that he can recite Kiddush for adults. Instead, Rabbi Akiva Eger writes, the woman should recite the words of Kiddush along with the boy and fulfill her obligation this way. Hacham Ovadia disagrees, and rules that one may assume that a thirteen-year-old boy has reached the point of physical maturity required for Misva obligation, and therefore one may fulfill his or her Kiddush obligation by hearing it recited by a thirteen-year-old. In this responsum, Rabbi Akiva also touches upon a different question, namely, whether one can fulfill the obligation of Kiddush without holding the Kiddush cup. In the case under discussion, the boy recites Kiddush while holding the cup, and the woman must recite the words because she cannot (according to Rabbi Akiva Eger's opinion) fulfill her requirement through the boy's recitation. Rabbi Akiva Eger raises and discusses the question of whether the woman can fulfill her obligation in this manner, as she does not hold the Kiddush cup in her hand as she recites the words. The Mishna Berura (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin, 1839-1933) rules that in this case the woman must have her own Kiddush cup which she holds as she recites Kiddush, as otherwise she cannot fulfill her obligation. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in his work Rab Pe'alim, addresses the more common case of one who recites the words of Kiddush unclearly, inaccurately or inaudibly. Those listening to the recitation must hear every word, and every word must be pronounced correctly. Therefore, if the one reciting Kiddush mumbles, mispronounces words, or does not recite them loudly enough, the others at the table do not fulfill their obligation. In such a case, one must recite his own Kiddush, as he cannot rely on a recitation that is done improperly or inaudibly. The Ben Ish Hai writes – based on the rulings of earlier authorities, including Rav Zalman and the Hida – that in this case one can fulfill his obligation even though he does not hold the Kiddush cup. As long as he sees the Kiddush cup held by the person reciting Kiddush, this suffices under the circumstances. Although it is certainly preferable for one to hold the Kiddush cup as he recites Kiddush, under such circumstances, where one cannot rely on the person reciting Kiddush and needs to recite the words along with him, he can fulfill his obligation even though he does not hold the Kiddush cup in his hand. The Ben Ish Hai applied this ruling to Habdala, as well. Based on a ruling of the Hida, the Ben Ish Hai writes that if one, for whatever reason, does not want to fulfill his obligation by listening to the Hazan's recitation of Hadbala, he may recite the words along with the Hazan, even though he does not hold the cup. As mentioned, however, it is preferable for one who recites Kiddush or Habdala to hold the cup during the recitation. Summary: If a person reciting Kiddush for others does not pronounce the words properly, or does not recite them loudly enough, the people at the table should recite the words along with him, and they can fulfill their obligation in this fashion even though they do not hold the Kiddush cup. Preferably, however, one who recites Kiddush should hold the cup during the recitation.

Episode 802 This week's hosts - Hida-O-Win & SavageMickEditor - SavageMick Okay, we promise this is the last one... for a while. Grab a Stormer friend and strap in for even more psychotic splatterpunk shenanigins with the recently launched SLA Industries - Threat Analysis 2: Cults by Nightfall Games. Hida and Savage spitball about what we can expect from this new book for the worlds most violent game about working in the gig economy for 40 creds a day! The KickStarter is currently live at https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/nightfall/sla-industries-2nd-edition-cult ----------------------------------------------------------------- We have a Discord Server and it rocks! Get in here! [ https://discord.gg/VW6NUJe ] Find us on Facebook here, leave a Thumbs Up and we can be internet friends! [ https://www.facebook.com/TheAdventuringParty/ ] Come ear-watch us on Youtube. Leave a comment! [ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJN85ESPc0Wg3kuErxnV9wQ/videos ] We are on Spotify? Yup, you can listen to us over there too! [ https://open.spotify.com/show/0HmRd3Tqba9Jk0TIUwVz13?si=EQCChHitSVCC9DuDvYewBQ ] Twitter! Follow us on twitter  [ @adventuringpty ]. Will we follow you back? Maybe! The hosts can be contacted by good old email at party@theadventuringparty.net ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Adventuring Party is released under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial Share-Alike version 3 licence [ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ie/ ]. Title Card - SLA industries 2nd edition: Cult (used without permission)

In this episode Lydia tells the story of going to New York to visit The Armoury for the Naoya Hida & Co trunk show and see the new collection. Will she apply to purchase one? Lydia's favorite, the Type 3B. The first one we saw on Masaharu, the Type 4A-1. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thiswatchlife/message

Have you ever heard of Biliary Dyskinesia?  In this episode, I'll be opening up about my recent diagnosis of biliary hyperkinesia, discussing the symptoms I've experienced, and sharing the steps I'm taking to manage it. My hope is that by sharing my journey, it may offer support or guidance to anyone else who may be facing similar challenges or has a loved one going through a similar experience.  Disclaimer: Please note that this podcast episode is based on my personal journey with Biliary Hyperkinesia. Always consult with a qualified healthcare professional for personalized medical advice and treatment options. In this episode you will learn: My Understanding Biliary Hyperkinesia: Learn about the uncommon disorder characterized by abnormal gallbladder contractions and its symptoms. Personal Experience: Hear a firsthand account of the journey with Biliary Hyperkinesia, from initial symptoms to diagnosis and ongoing treatment. Diagnostic Process: Gain insights into the diagnostic process, including medical tests like ultrasounds, bloodwork, colonoscopy, and the HIDA scan. Treatment Options: Discover the various treatment options available for managing Biliary Hyperkinesia. Coping Strategies and Support: Explore coping strategies, including being your own advocate, joining support groups, and prioritizing mental health, along with advice for listeners and loved ones. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thelatinamomlegacy/support

This is part 2 of Vu rethinking his entire collection. In this episode we talk about the watch that really was the main catalyst for Vu thinking differently about how he has been collecting, and wanting to add watches that aren't just awesome, but also interesting and that offer something different. Naoya Hida & Co. Type 4A-1 Biggest thanks to Masa for sharing his watches with us! --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thiswatchlife/message

There is no obligation to recite Hallel on Purim. One reason for this is that the reading of the Megila, which tells the story of the miraculous events, takes the place of Hallel. Therefore, if one cannot hear the Megila, there are Poskim who hold that he should recite the complete Hallel. This should be done without a Beracha, as there is a difference of opinion on the matter. After the Shir Shel Yom (Psalm of the Day), the Mizmor (Tehilim 22) "Al Ayelet HaShachar" is added. Esther was referred to as "Ayelet Hashachar," and this was the prayer she offered upon approaching the King's private chamber. It is prohibited to eat even a small amount before hearing the Megila on Purim morning, even if one has already prayed. Therefore, one should insure that his wife and children hear the Megila promptly, so that they can eat. Immediately after Shacharit, the Matanot LaEvyonim are distributed. Performing this Misva early is not only a fulfillment of "Zerizim Makdimim L'Misvot," but it also enables the recipients to use the money to buy what they lack for the holiday. The Shulhan Aruch rules that the Beracha of Shehechiyanu is not recited before reading the Megila in the morning. This applies even if one did not fulfill the Misva of Megila the previous night. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1807, Lev David, Ch. 30) brings a custom for both men and women to light two candles in honor of Mordechai and Esther on Purim. After lighting the candles, one should give Sedaka and offer heartfelt prayers and requests in their merit. There is a widespread custom to don costumes on Purim. The Hida mentions this specifically with regard to the Seudah. The Rama even permits men to dress up in women's clothing. He argues that since it is in the Purim spirit, it does not constitute a violation of the Torah prohibition of cross-dressing. Nevertheless, Hacham Ovadia and Hacham ben Sion both rule that one should not rely on the Rama's leniency. Although Hacham ben Sion does permit children to wear the other gender's clothes, Hacham Ovadia was opposed even to that. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909, Ateret Tifferet) brings a custom for women to adorn themselves with their fanciest jewelry, even more than Shabbat and Yom Tov. This custom has its origins in the Kabbalah. This should only be done within the confines of her own home and not to go out publicly, so as not to breach the standards of modesty.

When Purim falls on Mosa'eh Shabbat (as it does this year), one must ensure not to make any preparations for Purim on Shabbat. Thus, for example, even in places with an Erub, one may not bring the Megila to the synagogue to prepare for the Megila reading. Similarly, one may not prepare Mishloah Manot packages on Shabbat, and the Gabbai may not prepare the Torah scrolls on Shabbat for the Purim reading. It is permissible, however, to review the Megila on Shabbat, even if one is preparing to read it that night, because the reviewing itself constitutes a Misva, as it involves Torah learning. Even in such a case, one should preferably avoid stating outright that he is reviewing the Megila in preparation for the reading on Purim. It should be noted that a Megila is not considered Mukseh, and thus one may read from an actual Megila on Shabbat. It is customary to delay the Arbit service on Mosa'eh Shabbat to allow people the time they need to get to the synagogue. After the Amida prayer in Arbit, the Hazzan recites half-Kaddish, which is followed by Shuba Hashem and Yosheb Be'seter, until but not including Ve'ata Kadosh. At that point, the Megila is read, and Ve'ata Kadosh is read after the reading. According to some opinions, the Beracha of "Boreh Me'oreh Ha'esh" is recited over a flame before the Megila reading. (This is the view of the Hida, in Birkeh Yosef, as cited by the Kaf Ha'haim.) The rest of Habdala, however, according to all opinions, is delayed until after Megila reading, except if one is reading the Megila at home, in which case he should recite Habdala before reading the Megila. Even in such a case, though, he and his family may not eat until after the Megila reading. Those who recited or heard the Beracha over the flame in the synagogue may not recite it again later at home, even if they are reciting Habdala for their wives and children. In such a case, the wife should recite the Beracha herself. Although the obligation of Se'udat Purim (the Purim feast) applies only on Purim day, it is proper to have a meal on the night of Purim in honor of the holiday. This is especially true when Purim falls on Mosa'eh Shabbat, when one in any event is required to eat a Melaveh Malka meal. Therefore, one must exercise particular caution during Se'uda Shelishit to eat moderately so he will be able to eat a Se'uda that night.

A friend recently shared me a remarkable passage from the Torah commentary of Rav Eliezer of Worms (Germany, 1176-1238), known as the "Ba'al Ha'Roke'ah," who was a disciple of Rabbenu Yehuda Ha'ahasid (author of Sefer Ha'hasidim, 1150-1217), and a teacher of the Ramban (Rav Moshe Nahmanides, Spain, 1194-1270). (The Hida, in Shem Ha'gedolim, tells that the teachings transmitted by Rabbenu Yehuda Ha'hasid to Rav Eliezer of Worms originate from Shimon Ha'pakuli, one of the Tanna'im.) Commenting on the verse in Parashat Vayehi, "Va'yebarech Otam" ("He blessed them" – Bereshit 49:28), which refers to the blessings which Yaakob Abinu granted his sons before his death, the Ba'al Ha'Roke'ah observed that the word "Otam" is written with the letter "Vav." It could have just as well been written without this letter, and thus the Ba'al Ha'Roke'ah finds great significance to this letter in the context of Yaakob's blessing. He explained that all blessings in the Torah are given on condition. Whenever we find in the Torah a promise of great success or prosperity, the promise is made on condition that we faithfully obey Hashem's commands. However, the Ba'al Ha'Roke'ah writes, the extra letter "Vav" in the phrase "Va'yebarech Otam" alludes to six blessings (as the letter "Vav" has the numerical value of 6) which mark an exception to this rule – namely, the six blessings of Birkat Kohanim. When the Kohanim bless the congregation, they pronounce six blessings – "Yebarechecha," "Ve'yishmarecha," "Ya'er," "Vi'yhuneka," "Yisa," and "Yasem." These six blessings, the Ba'al Ha'Roke'ah teaches, are unconditional. We don't have to earn them. No matter how deserving or undeserving we are, we are granted these blessings. This teaching of one of our Rishonim (Medieval sages) should bring our appreciation of Birkat Kohanim to an entirely new level. When we stand in front of the Kohanim as they pronounce their blessing, we receive them irrespective of our "record," regardless of any sins we might have committed. This is a very special blessing which we receive each day directly and unconditionally from Hashem, and we should celebrate this great privilege, and take full advantage of it. This is particularly meaningful for our community, which follows the custom of having the Kohanim bless the congregation each and every day (and not only on festivals, as is done in Ashkenazic communities). We are so fortunate to be able to receive this special blessing, which does not depend on our merits. Incidentally, this passage also gives us a glimpse into the remarkable "Ru'ah Ha'kodesh" of our great sages. From just a single letter – the letter "Vav" – the Ba'al Ha'Roke'ah was able to deduce this profound insight into the unique nature of Birkat Kohanim, undoubtedly testifying to his exalted level of understanding and insight.

Ian Fardy and Natalie Martin come together to tell you all about this year's NDC Exhibition which has some exciting new features & attractions as well as some past favorites! They also take a trip down memory lane reminiscing on some NDC & HIDA events they have been lucky to be involved in planning.

If somebody arrived late to the synagogue on Hanukah, while the congregation was reciting Hallel, should he join in the congregational recitation of Hallel and then recite Shaharit, or should he follow the standard sequence of Shaharit followed by Hallel? Several authorities, including the Mishna Berura (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin, 1839-1933) and the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939), rule that in such a case one should recite Hallel with the congregation and then recite the Shaharit prayer. In practice, however, one should follow the view of the Arizal (Rav Yishak Luria of Safed, 1534-1572) that the prayer service must always be recited in its proper sequence. Therefore, even though the congregation is reciting Hallel, one should pray Shaharit and then Hallel, in the usual order. Hallel is recited on Hanukah even in a house of mourning, Heaven forbid. This is the ruling of the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806), in his Mahazik Beracha, and of the Kaf Ha'haim (683:4). The Hida writes that even the mourner himself recites Hallel. If one cannot remember whether or not he recited Hallel on one of the days of Hanukah, he does not need to recite it (Kaf Ha'haim 488:9). Summary: One who arrives in the synagogue when the congregation recites Hallel should recite the prayers in the usual sequence, and should not join the congregation in reciting Hallel. Hallel is recited on Hanukah even in a house of mourning, and even by the mourner himself. One who cannot remember on Hanukah whether he recited Hallel does not need to recite it.

If a person who is traveling during Hanukah needs to leave for the airport before the time for candle lighting, and will arrive at his destination after the time for lighting in that location, is there some way for him to fulfill the Misva of Hanukah candle lighting that night? The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 672) writes that the preferred time for lighting the Hanukah candles is “Mi'she'tishka Ha'hama” (literally, “when the sun sinks”). Hacham Ovadia Yosef writes that the Shulchan Aruch uses this term in reference to Set Ha'kochavim (nightfall), which occurs thirteen minutes after sunset. According to our custom, then, the preferred time for lighting the Hanukah candles is thirteen minutes after sundown. The Shulhan Aruch then adds that “Yesh Mi She'omer” – “there is somebody who says” – that if one will be unable to light at this time or later, then he may light the Hanukah candles earlier, already from the time of Pelag Ha'minha. During the Hanukah season, Pelag Ha'minha is generally around 3:30 in the afternoon. This opinion mentioned by the Shulhan Aruch – which the Bet Yosef brings in the name of the Orhot Haim (Rav Aharon of Lunel, France, late 13 th -early 14 th century) – allows lighting Hanukah candles already at this time, if one will be unable to light later. The question arises as to whether the Shulhan Aruch accepts this ruling of the Orhot Haim. Normally, there is a rule that in a case of “Stam Va'yesh” – where the Shulhan Aruch plainly states a Halacha, and then brings a different opinion with the words “Yesh Mi She'omer” – Halacha follows the first opinion (the “Stam”). At first glance, then, we might assume that the Shulhan Aruch does not accept the Orhot Haim's position, which he cites with the words “Yesh Mi She'omer” after plainly ruling that candle lighting must be performed only after nightfall. However, the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806), in his Birkeh Yosef, writes that in this instance, it seems that there aren't two differing opinions. The Shulhan Aruch first establishes that the proper time for lighting is Set Ha'kochavim, and then adds, citing the Orhot Haim, that one who cannot light at that time has the option of lighting earlier, from the time of Pelag Ha'minha. Moreover, the Hida notes, this view is held not only by the Orhot Haim, but also by several other Rishonim, such as the Ran and the Rashba. Therefore, we should follow this opinion, and allow one to light at Pelag Ha'minha if he will be unable to light at the regular time. Interestingly, in a later work, the Hida questions his conclusion. In his Kiseh Rahamim, the Hida writes that contrary to his analysis in Birkeh Yosef, it is quite possible that the Shulhan Aruch indeed intended to bring two different views, in which case we must follow the first opinion. Thus, one would not be allowed to light earlier than Set Ha'kochavim, even if he will be unable to light at the proper time. Likewise, the Shulhan Gavo'ah (Rav Yosef Molcho, Greece, 1692-1768) writes that the Rambam did not accept the Orhot Haim's opinion. As such, he rules, since there are differing views, one who cannot light at the proper time should light at Pelag Ha'minha but without reciting the Berachot, as we do not recite a Beracha in situations of uncertainty (“Safek Berachot Le'hakel”). By contrast, both the Peri Hadash (Rav Hizkiya Da Silva, 1659-1698) and the Mishna Berura (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin, 1839-1938) maintain that a person who has no choice but to light at Pelag Ha'minha recites the Berachot when lighting. Some writers note that there are two precedents for lighting Hanukah candles before sundown with the Berachot. First, on Friday of Hanukah, we of course light the Hanukah candles before sundown, though this might be an exceptional case, since, quite obviously, it is forbidden to light candles once Shabbat begins. Secondly, candles are lit in the synagogue each night of Hanukah immediately after Minha, even before sundown, with the Berachot. These examples might lend support to the view allowing one to light the candles with the Berachot even before sundown when he has no possibility of lighting at the proper time. In any event, Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that given the Halachic uncertainty about the validity of lighting earlier than the proper time, one who must light early should not recite the Berachot. Thus, in the case of a person who must leave to the airport before the time for candle lighting, if he can light at Pelag Ha'minha (around 3:30pm) or later, then he should do so, but he should not recite the Berachot over this lighting. He must ensure to supply enough oil to sustain the flames until a half-hour after Set Ha'kochavim. Whereas generally Halacha requires merely ensuring that the candles burn for a half-hour, in this instance, where one lights before sundown, he must add extra oil, because the candles must burn until a half-hour after the proper time for lighting (just like when we light before sundown on Ereb Shabbat). Additionally, the individual in this case must recite Minha before lighting the Hanukah candles. By lighting the candles, he establishes that night has already fallen, and he would thus be contradicting himself if he recites Minha – the afternoon prayer – after lighting. It must be clarified that this entire discussion refers to a case of a person who is traveling with his entire family. But if someone is remaining at home, then that person should be assigned the job of lighting at the proper time on behalf of the family. (Based on Hazon Ovadia – Hanukah, p. 69, note 4) Summary: The preferred time for lighting Hanukah candles is thirteen minutes after sundown. If a person must leave on a trip before then, and will not arrive at his destination in time for that night's lighting, then if a member of his household is remaining home, that family member should light on the family's behalf at the proper time. If the entire family is traveling, then the person should light earlier, from the point of Pelag Ha'minha (around 3:30pm during the season of Hanukah). In such a case, he does not recite the Berachot over the lighting. He should recite Minha before lighting, and he must supply enough oil for the candles to burn until a half-hour after the time for lighting (meaning, until around 45 minutes after sundown).

If one left his place while eating fruit (or other items requiring a Beracha Aharona of Boreh Nefashot), he must recite a new Beracha when he returns and wants to continue eating. In the event a person left someone else at the table, the Poskim conclude that he should not make a new Beracha. The remaining person continues his connection to the original Beracha. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1807) in Mahasik Beracha cites the Hidush of Rabbi Ya'akob Castro (1525-1610, Egypt) who rules that even if the people remaining in the original location were not eating, their continued presence alone exempts him from making a new Beracha. The Hida disagrees and brings proofs that the remaining people must also have been eating. Furthermore, the Poskim rule that if the remaining people had eaten with the person who left, but they finished eating and already recited a Beracha Aharona before he returned, he must make a new Beracha when he returns.SUMMARYIf one left his place while eating fruit, he must recite a new Beracha when he returns, unless someone remains eating in the original place until he returns.

The Halachot of using ovens and microwaves span both year round and Pesah. It is clearly prohibited to cook meat and milk simultaneously in a conventional oven. The Poskim discuss whether one may cook meat and milk consecutively, e.g. a meat dish today and a milk dish tomorrow. The issues is that the vapors from the meat dish are absorbed in the walls of the oven and will be released when cooking the milk dish. Following the principle of "K'bol'o Kach Polto"(the way in which it was absorbed is the way in which it is released), the only way to purge the meat from the oven is fire. Since it was absorbed through heat, it will be released by heat. Using a blowtorch on the walls of the oven would effectively neutralize any meat essence, but it is not feasible, since it may ruin the oven. Hacham Ovadia rules that it is sufficient to wait 24 hours in between the use of meat and milk and then burn out the oven by turning it on to a high temperature, while empty, for 15 minutes. If there are any drips or spills of food substance on the walls, they must be cleaned off. That combination of waiting and burning resets the status of the oven. This method of Koshering as known as "Libun Kal"-a minor burning out, which could ignite a piece of straw. Hacham Ovadia rules that it is sufficient here, even though Maran generally holds that a more intense burning, which emits sparks, is required. This leniency is based on several factors. First, the oven absorbed kosher food, "Hetera Balah"; i.e. the meat or dairy that was absorbed is only a problem when mixed together, but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Furthermore, the meat that was absorbed is not the actual substance of the food, but merely the vapor. Of course, a self-cleaning oven is considered an even more intense method of purging the oven.According to this, if a woman cooked an uncovered dairy dish on Thursday night, she may not use the oven the next day to cook meat for Shabbat, because 24 hours have not elapsed. Therefore, one should pay attention to the time of cooking dairy on Thursdays. However, if the first dish is covered with aluminum foil, there is no issue of the vapors. Hacham Ovadia's approach is also lenient in respect to switching freely between milk and meat. This is in accordance with the Hida and the Peri Hadash who permit it, and disagree with the strict position of the Magen Abraham who was concerned that one may lose track of the status of the vessel. The question of using a microwave oven for meat and milk is contingent on whether its walls get hot. There seems to be a difference of opinion between the technicians on this matter. Hacham Ovadia concludes that to make a microwave Kosher for Pesah, one should boil soapy water for 15 minutes and the vapors will extract any Hames absorbed in the walls. He presents a lengthy discussion with proofs from the Maran and the Peri Megadim that vapors have the ability to extract. Regarding year-round use, one should always cover each dish he heats up with the special microwave plate cover. He should have three covers: Meat, dairy and Parve dishes. That way any vapors that escape the food are absorbed in the cover and not in the walls. If one heated up a food, e.g. pizza, without a cover, the microwave becomes dairy and may not be used for meat until it is koshered by boiling soapy water for 10 minutes inside of it. This is the conclusive practical Halacha, even though there were some Poskim who had a more lenient approach. This is also the method to kosher microwaves commonly found in hotel rooms: The microwave should be cleaned, the soapy water should be boiled, and then the kosher food may be heated using a plate cover (to be on the safe side). All of this assumes that a person has only one oven. If a person can have two separate ovens, that solves all the problems and is much easier. However, the Halacha does not require a person to own two ovens.SUMMARYIn order to use an oven for meat and milk consecutively, it must be totally clean of any drips or spills and then wait 24 hours and burn it empty on a high temperature for 15 minutes.A microwave must also be koshered between meat and dairy by boiling soapy water in it for 10 minutes.If the first dish was covered, there is no need to kosher the oven before cooking the next dish.

Maran, in Shulhan Aruch, discusses the special Shabbatot that precede Pesah and the various Halachot that apply on those days. On Shabbat Shekalim, we take out an extra Sefer Torah and read the section of Shekalim, just as on Shabbat Zachor, the Shabbat before Purim, we read the section of Zachor, and we read special portions from the Torah on Shabbat Para and Shabbat Ha'hodesh. Interestingly, however, Maran also makes mention of the Shabbat immediately preceding Pesah, which is called Shabbat Hagadol ("The Great Shabbat") because of the miracle that occurred on this Shabbat. Maran makes mention of this Shabbat, even though there are no specific Halachot associated with this Shabbat. There is no special reading from the Sefer Torah on this Shabbat, and there are no special prayers, and yet Maran made a point of mentioning in his Halachic code that this Shabbat is special and is called Shabbat Hagadol.It is true that there are several customs observed by some communities on this Shabbat. For example, many synagogues read a special Haftara on this Shabbat, but this is not required according to the strict Halacha. Some Ashkenazim read portions of the Haggadah on Shabbat Hagadol, but this, too, is just a custom, and in fact the Vilna Gaon (Rabbi Eliyahu of Vilna, 1720-1797) was opposed to the practice. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1807) suggested that perhaps the Halachic implications of the status of Shabbat Hagadol relates to greetings extended to one another on this Shabbat. Instead of greeting one another with the usual greeting of "Shabbat Shalom," the Hida suggested that perhaps one should instead extend the greeting, "Shabbat Hagadol Shalom," and the other should then respond, "Shabbat Hagadol Shalom U'meborach." Still, it remains unclear why Maran would make a point of mentioning Shabbat Hagadol if there are no actual Halachot that apply on this Shabbat.Former Chief Rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron, in his work Binyan Ab, suggested that the practical significance of Shabbat Hagadol lies in the perspective it gives us on the preparations for Pesah. On the Shabbat before the Exodus, which was the 10th of Nissan, Beneh Yisrael were instructed to prepare a sheep for the Korban Pesah (paschal sacrifice) which was slaughtered four days later, on the 14th of Nissan. In full view of the Egyptians, who worshipped sheep as an Aboda Zara, Beneh Yisrael took a lamb and tied it to their bedpost, and they even explained to the Egyptians what they were doing, that this animal would be sacrificed to G-d. The Egyptians wanted to kill the people for desecrating their deity, but G-d performed a miracle and made them powerless to cause Beneh Yisrael any harm.Rav Bakshi-Doron noted that this miracle differed fundamentally from the ten plagues. The ten plagues were brought directly by G-d, whereas the miracle of Shabbat Hagadol came about through the people's courage. It was through their preparations for the Misva that a miracle happened. And the fact that G-d performed a miracle during the preparation for the Misva, four days before the actual performance of the Misva, is very significant. It demonstrates that even the preparatory stages have great value; that even the work we do in preparation for a Misva is laden with significance. And thus Maran made mention of Shabbat Hagadol in Shulhan Aruch, to teach us the importance of preparing for Pesah, by learning and teaching the Halachot and putting ourselves in the proper frame of mind for the holiday. The miracle of Shabbat Hagadol teaches us that it is not only the Misva itself that has value, but also the work we invest beforehand preparing ourselves for the performance of the Misva.

One is required to stand out of respect for his father or mother once the parent comes within eyeshot, meaning, within 160 meters, or about 500 feet. If the parent comes within this distance, and the child sees the parent, the child is required to stand as a sign of respect. According to Sephardic custom, this applies each and every time the child sees the parent, even one hundred times a day. Ashkenazim follow a more lenient position, but Sephardic custom follows the stringent view of the Rif, Rashba and Rosh that one must stand out of respect for his parent no matter how many times he sees the parent.After one stands for his parent, he must remain standing until the parent reaches the place where he or she will be sitting or standing. Once the parent reaches his or her place, the child may sit down. However, there is a custom (noted already by the Hida) that when one's father (or Rabbi) receives an Aliya to the Torah in the synagogue, the child remains standing until the Aliya is completed and the father returns to his seat and sits down. One who does not observe this custom, and sits down once his father reaches the Sefer Torah, is infringing upon his father's honor, even though, technically speaking, he has not violated Halacha.The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in Parashat Ki-Teseh (15), rules that if one is praying in the synagogue and sees his father enter the room, he must stand, even if he is in the middle of Pesukeh De'zimrah or even the recitation of Shema. Although some Halachic authorities dispute this ruling, the Ben Ish Hai's view was accepted by Hacham Ovadia Yosef. Likewise, one who is reciting Birkat Ha'mazon and sees his father enter the room must stand.If one's parent enters the room while he is learning Torah, he must interrupt his learning in order to stand out of respect. Generally, one who is involved in a Misva is not required to interrupt to perform another Misva that comes his way ("Osek Be'misva Patur Min Ha'misva"). However, this rule does not apply to Torah learning, since the purpose of Torah learning is to lead us to the observance of Misvot, and thus one must interrupt his Torah learning for the performance of a Misva, such as standing for one's parent.The obligation to stand for one's parent applies even on a train or bus; if one's parent walks onto the train or bus, the child must stand. It goes without saying that if there aren't enough seats on the train or bus, the child must offer the parent his or her seat.Summary: One is required to stand when his parent enters the room, from the moment he sees the parent until the parent reaches the spot when he or she will be sitting or standing. When one's father is called to the Torah in the synagogue, it is customary to remain standing until the father returns to his seat after the Aliya. One must stand when his parent walks into the room even if he is in the middle of praying Pesukeh De'zimra or Shema, or reciting Birkat Ha'mazon.

Help your patients navigate gallbladder disease, including asymptomatic stones, incidental polyps, and uncomplicated cholecystitis. Dr. Rahul Pannala (@RahulPannala) talks us through how to diagnose biliary colic, what imaging to order, and what to anticipate for potential post-cholecystectomy complications (eg persistent pain or diarrhea). Feel confident in sending the right patients for cholecystectomy!  Claim free CME for this episode at curbsiders.vcuhealth.org! Episodes | Subscribe | Spotify | Swag! | Top Picks | Mailing List | thecurbsiders@gmail.com | Free CME! Show Segments Intro, disclaimer, guest bio Guest one-liner Case from Kashlak; Definitions Typical biliary pain Imaging for cholelithiasis Treatment for symptomatic gallstones Post-cholecystectomy diarrhea and pain Inpatient management of cholecystitis Advanced imaging- HIDA scans and MRCP Incidental gallbladder findings Outro Credits Producer, Writer, Show Notes: Molly Heublein, MD Infographic/Cover Art: Lyan Chang Hosts: Molly Heublein, MD, Nora Taranto, MD; Paul Williams MD, FACP    Associate Editor: Leah Witt, MD Showrunner: Matthew Watto MD, FACP Technical Production: PodPaste Audio Engineer for this live episode: Chris Chiu, MD Guest: Rahul Pannala, MD Sponsor: Ten Thousand Go to tenthousand.cc/CURB to get 15% off. Sponsor: Blueland You can get 20% off your first order when you go to Blueland.com/CURB Sponsor: Locumstory Visit Locumstory.com to find out more about locum tenens. The Curbsiders are partnering with VCU Health Continuing Education to offer FREE continuing education credits for physicians and other healthcare professionals. Visit curbsiders.vcuhealth.org and search for this episode to claim credit.