Podcasts about mishna berura

The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 99:1) rules that if a person has become inebriated such that he cannot articulate his words properly, and is not fit to appear before a king, then he may not pray, and if he does pray in such a condition, his prayer is considered an "abomination." The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) cites the Bet Yehuda (Rav Yehuda Ayash, Algeria, 1700-1759) as ruling that a person in this state cannot be counted toward a Minyan. Interestingly, the Ben Ish Hai adds that since people in such a condition do not necessarily appear drunk, it is important to ensure that the ten men who comprise a Minyan are in fact sober and worthy of being counted. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, noted that this is not, in fact, what the Bet Yehuda wrote. The Bet Yehuda wrote that a person cannot be counted toward a Minyan if he had reached the point of "Shichruto Shel Lot" – the level of intoxication reached by Lot, who was so inebriated that he had intimate relations with his daughters, as he did not recognize them. It is only if a person is drunk to this extent, that he is entirely unaware of what is happening and is not thinking straight at all, that he may not be counted toward a Minyan. Such a person is exempt from Misvot due to his temporary state of mental impairment, and so he cannot be counted toward a Minyan. If, however, a person is merely tipsy, then although he should not pray, he may nevertheless be counted toward a Minyan. Hacham Ovadia noted that even somebody who is asleep can be counted toward a Minyan, so certainly somebody who is drunk can be counted, as long as he has not reached the point of "Shichruto Shel Lot." Apparently, Hacham Ovadia writes, the Ben Ish Hai saw a faulty edition of the Bet Yehuda which mistakenly stated that even mild inebriation disqualifies a person from being counted. Hacham Ovadia noted that a number of other Poskim also cited the Bet Yehuda as disqualifying even a mildly inebriated person, as they, too, evidently used the faulty edition of this work. The Mishna Berura writes that if necessary, a mentally challenged individual may be counted toward a Minyan if he has enough understanding to pray properly and recognize that he prays to Hashem. If there is no other option, then such a person may be counted. Rav Yisrael Bitan writes that this would apply also to a mildly inebriated individual, who may be counted toward a Minyan when necessary. This situation often arises on Purim, when people drink and become inebriated. Summary: A person who is so drunk that he is entirely unaware of what he is doing may not be counted toward a Minyan. If a person is tipsy and cannot enunciate his words properly, then he should not pray, but he may be counted toward a Minyan, especially if he is needed for forming the Minyan.

A person who has lost an immediate family member, Heaven forbid, has the status of "Onen" from the time of the death until the burial, a status which exempts him from Misva obligation, including the requirement to pray. As such, an Onen cannot be counted toward a Minyan. If nine men wish to make a Minyan, and the only person they can find to complete the Minyan is an Onen, he cannot be counted. Importantly, however, this applies only until the point that the Hebra Kadisha has taken responsibility for the burial arrangements. Once the Hebra Kadisha assumes responsibility, the deceased family members may be counted toward a Minyan. Moreover, on Shabbat, when burial arrangements cannot be made, the family members do not have the status of Onen, and so they may be counted toward a Minyan. Years ago, people would be put into formal excommunication – "Nidui" – for certain transgressions. The Poskim write that the status of a Menudeh (person in excommunication) vis-à-vis Minyan depends on the circumstances of his Nidui. If he was excommunicated for a grave transgression that he had committed, then he cannot be counted toward a Minyan. If, however, he was placed into Nidui for improperly handling a financial dispute, then he may be counted. Likewise, if he treated a Torah sage disrespectfully, and the sage placed him in Nidui, then he may nevertheless be counted toward a Minyan. Even in situations where a Menudeh may not be counted toward a Minyan, the congregation may pray in his presence; they do not need to send him out of the synagogue. The status of Nidui requires people to keep a distance from the individual (approximately two meters), but they may pray even though he is in the room. However, if the Bet Din that declared the excommunication included in their declaration a provision barring the individual's participation in a Minyan, then the congregation may not pray in his presence. The Bet Yosef cites the Ribash (Rav Yishak Bar Sheshet, Algiers, 1326-1408) as addressing the case of a congregation that refused to pray because a Menudeh was present. The Ribash ruled that the congregants acted with unnecessary zealotry, as there is no prohibition against praying in the presence of a Menudeh unless this provision was included in the Nidui decree. The Peri Megadim (Rav Yosef Teomim, 1727-1892), cited by the Mishna Berura, raises the possibility that even a Menudeh who may not be counted toward a Minyan for prayer may nevertheless be counted toward a Minyan for Megilla reading on Purim. The reading of the Megilla does not, strictly speaking, require a Minyan, but it is nevertheless a Misva to conduct the reading in a Minyan for the purpose of "Pirsumeh Nisa" – publicizing the miracle. Since the objective is Pirsum – publicity, it is likely that a person's status of Menudeh is irrelevant. When it comes to Tefila, the concept of a Minyan is that ten people assemble to form a group for prayer, and so a person who has been excommunicated cannot join together with other people for this purpose. For Megilla reading, however, it is necessary only for ten people to be present, not for them to join together and form a single unit. Therefore, it would stand to reason that even a Menudeh can be counted for this purpose.

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 529: Seif 1-4  סימן תקכ"ט סעיף א-ד Hilchos Yom Tov -דיני שמחת יו"ט Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 527: Seif 23 - Siman 528: Seif 2  סימן תקכ"ז סעיף כג- סימן תקכ"ח סעיף ב Hilchos Yom Tov -דיני עירוב תבשילין Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 527: Seif 20-22  סימן תקכ"ז סעיף כ-כב Hilchos Yom Tov -דיני עירוב תבשילין Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

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

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

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 527: Seif 14-19  סימן תקכ"ז סעיף יד-יט Hilchos Yom Tov -דיני עירוב תבשילין Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 527: Seif 8-13  סימן תקכ"ז סעיף ח-יג Hilchos Yom Tov -דיני עירוב תבשילין Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

We follow the custom to recite the Mishna of "Rabbi Hananya Ben Akashya" just before the recitation of Kaddish that precedes Baruch She'amar in the morning. The reason for this practice is that sometimes, the prayer service begins before a Minyan has arrived, and the tenth man comes in right after La'menase'ah, before the Kaddish that precedes Baruch She'amar. In order to allow the recitation of Kaddish, a Minyan must have been present for the reading of words of Torah. We therefore recite "Rabbi Hananya Ben Akashya" to allow the recitation of Kaddish if the tenth men arrived right at that point, before Kaddish. If fewer than ten men are present in the synagogue when it is time to begin Minha, the congregation may begin reciting the sections of the Tamid and the Ketoret, but they should not begin Ashreh before the tenth man arrives. According to some opinions, the half-Kaddish following Ashreh can be recited only if a Minyan was present for Ashreh, and so the congregation should wait for a Minyan to arrive before beginning Ashreh. However, if they recited Ashreh without a Minyan, and the tenth man then arrived, then, according to some Poskim, Kaddish may nevertheless be recited, because our custom is for the Hazzan to recite two verses – "Tikon Tefilati Lefanecha" (Tehillim 141:2) and "Hakshiba Le'kol Shav'i" (Tehillim 5:3) – just before the half-Kaddish preceding the Amida at Minha. The Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939) writes that the custom in his time was to recite Ashreh while waiting for the tenth man, and to then rely on the recitation of these two verses before Kaddish once the tenth man arrives. However, the Mishna Berura ruled that at least three verses must be read to allow the recitation of Kaddish. Moreover, the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in Od Yosef Hai (Parashat Vayakhel), indicates that an entire chapter of Tehillim should be recited with a Minyan before Kaddish. Therefore, it is preferable to wait for a Minyan before reciting Ashreh, though if Ashreh was recited without a Minyan, and the tenth man arrived after Ashreh, the congregation may rely on the two verses of "Tikon Tefilati" and "Hakshiba." If the entire morning Pesukeh De'zimra service was recited without a Minyan, and the tenth man arrived after Yishtabah at the conclusion of Pesukeh De'zimra, the Hazzan may recite at that point the half-Kaddish preceding Barechu. Likewise, if, during Arbit, the tenth man arrived only after the reading of Shema and all its blessings, the Hazzan may recite the half-Kaddish before the Amida.

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 527: Seif 3-7  סימן תקכ"ז סעיף ג-ז Hilchos Yom Tov -דיני עירוב תבשילין Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 527: Seif 1-2  סימן תקכ"ז סעיף א-ב Hilchos Yom Tov -דיני עירוב תבשילין Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 526: Seif 6-12  סימן תקכ"ו סעיף ו-יב Hilchos Yom Tov -דין מת ביום טוב Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

As discussed in previous installments, if a Minyan of precisely ten people is praying, and one of them leaves in the middle of a section that requires a Minyan, those who remain may complete that section despite not having a Minyan. As long as at least six men remain, they may complete the section that began in the presence of a Minyan. Thus, for example, if the Hazzan began the Hazara (repetition of the Amida), and the Minyan was lost in the middle of the repetition, he may continue and complete the Hazara. However, Halacha speaks very harshly of a person who breaks a Minyan by departing in the middle of the service, leaving behind fewer than ten men. The Sages applied to such a person the stern warning of the prophet Yeshayahu (1:28), "Ve'ozebeh Hashem Yichlu" – "Those who abandon G-d shall be annihilated," Heaven forbid. It must be emphasized that this applies only to someone whose departure results in the loss of a Minyan. If there are more than ten men present, then one who leaves the synagogue is not included in this harsh condemnation. Furthermore, the Mishna Berura writes that the Sages speak here only of a person who leaves during a part of the prayer service that requires a Minyan – such as the Hazara (repetition of the Amida), Kaddish and Torah reading. If a person needs to leave, he may do so if the congregation is not currently reciting a part of the prayer service requiring ten men. For example, if the Hazzan is reciting the Kaddish after Yishtabah, and the tenth man wishes to leave, he may wait until after Kaddish and then leave. This is allowed even though he prevents the remaining nine from reciting the later sections of the service that require a Minyan. Similarly, if a person needs to leave during the Hazara, he should do so after the completion of the Hazara. (According to Ashkenazic custom, which views Kaddish Titkabal as part of the Hazara, he must wait until after Kaddish Titkabal.) An exception to this rule is Nakdishach, during which one may never leave the synagogue. Importantly, this entire discussion applies to a person who already prayed. Irrespective of one's responsibility to the other nine men in the synagogue, he has a personal obligation to pray with a Minyan, and so he should not leave without a pressing need that justifies missing a Minyan.

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 526: Seif 4-5  סימן תקכ"ו סעיף ד-ה Hilchos Yom Tov -דין מת ביום טוב Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 526: Seif 1-3  סימן תקכ"ו סעיף א-ג Hilchos Yom Tov -דין מת ביום טוב Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 523: Seif 1 - Siman 525: Seif 2 סימן תקכ"ג סעיף א - סימן תקכ"ה סעיף ב Hilchos Yom Tov -דינים הנוהגים בבהמות בי"ט Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 520: Seif 1 - Siman 522: Seif 4 סימן תק"כ סעיף א - סימן תקכ"ב סעיף ד Hilchos Yom Tov -קצת דברים האסורים לטלטל בי"ט Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 518: Seif 9 - Siman 519: Seif 5 סימן תקי"ח סעיף ט - סימן תקי"ט סעיף ה Hilchos Yom Tov -דיני הוצאה מרשות לרשות בי"ט Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 518: Seif 6-8 סימן תקי"ח סעיף ו-ח Hilchos Yom Tov -דיני הוצאה מרשות לרשות בי"ט Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 518: Seif 2-5 סימן תקי"ח סעיף ב-ה Hilchos Yom Tov -דיני הוצאה מרשות לרשות בי"ט Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 516: Seif 1 - Siman 517: Seif 1 סימן תקט"ז סעיף א - סימן תקי"ז סעיף א Hilchos Yom Tov - דין איזה דברים מותרים לשלוח בי"ט Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 515: Seif 7-9 סימן תקט"ו סעיף ז-ט Hilchos Yom Tov - דין דברים הבאים בי"ט חוץ לתחום Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

One of the verses in the "Az Yashir" song which our ancestors sang after the miracle of the splitting of the Yam Suf – and which we recite each morning toward the end of Pesukeh De'zimra – is "Mi Chamocha Ba'elim Hashem, Mi Kamocha Ne'edar Be'kodesh." Although both halves of this verse begin with the same two words ("Mi Chamocha"), the pronunciation is not identically the same in both halves. At the beginning of the verse, the correct pronunciation is "Mi Chamocha," whereas in the second half, these words should be pronounced "Mi Kamocha." The phrase "Mi Kamocha" in the second half of the verse marks an exception to a rule of Hebrew grammar. The basic rule is that a Bet, Gimmel, Dalet, Kaf, Peh or Tav at the beginning of a word receives a Dagesh (dot), in which case, in principle, the letter Kaf at the beginning of "Kamocha" should receive a Dagesh, and should thus be pronounced "Kamocha." However, when the previous word ends with a Heh, Vav or Yod – such as the word "Mi," which ends with the letter Yod – the Dagesh is not added. Hence, according to the rules of grammar, the phrase should be pronounced "Mi Chamocha." Nevertheless, the second half of this verse is exceptional, and the Dagesh is, in fact, added to the Kaf, resulting in the pronunciation of "Mi Kamocha." When one recites this verse, he must ensure not to say the words "Hashem Mi Kamocha" rapidly, such that it sounds like he says, "Hashem Micha" – as though declaring that Micha is G-d, Heaven forbid. Micha was the person responsible for creating the golden calf at Mount Sinai, and one must be careful not to imply that he is a deity. Sepharadim make a distinction in their pronunciation between a letter Gimal that has a Dagesh, and a letter Gimal that does not. In the phrase "Am Zu Ga'alta," the Gimal at the beginning of "Ga'alta" receives a Dagesh. According to the rule mentioned earlier, this letter should not receive a Dagesh, because the previous word ("Zu") ends with the letter Vav. The reason why this Gimal nevertheless receives a Dagesh is that without a Dagesh, the word would sound like "Ga'alta" spelled with an Ayin (as opposed to an Alef), which would mean that Hashem is repulsed by Beneh Yisrael, Heaven forbid. Pronouncing the Gimal with a Dagesh makes it clear that the word is "Ga'alta" with an Alef, which means that Hashem has redeemed Beneh Yisrael. A similar exception is made earlier in this verse, in the phrase "Yidemu Ka'aben." The Kaf at the beginning of "Ka'aben" should, in principle, not receive a Dagesh, because it follows a word that ends with the letter Vav. Nevertheless, the Dagesh is added to the Kaf, as otherwise this phrase might sound like "Yidemucha Aben" – "stone silences You," indicating that stone has some kind of power to defeat the Almighty, Heaven forbid. At one point in "Az Yashir," the Egyptians' drowning is described with the words "Salelu Ka'oferet Be'mayim Adirim" – the Egyptians plunged into the water like lead. There is some question as to the implication of the word "Adirim" – "mighty" – at the end of this verse. Several Poskim, including the Mishna Berura, Ben Ish Hai, and Kaf Ha'haim, explain that this word describes the Egyptian warriors who drowned. Accordingly, these Poskim maintain that when reading this verse, one must make a pause between the words "Mayim" and "Adirim," as otherwise it sounds as though one describes the water as being mighty. However, Rav Meir Mazuz (1945-2025) found a poem written by Rav Yehuda Ha'levi (Spain, 1075-1141) indicating that he understood the phrase "Mayim Adirim" to mean "mighty waters," referring to the turbulence of the waters as they descended onto the Egyptians and drowned them. According to this reading, this phrase should be read without a pause between "Mayim" and "Adirim." It is customary to repeat the final verse of "Az Yashir" – "Hashem Yimloch Le'olam Va'ed." One reason this is done is so that we end up mentioning the Name of "Havaya" in this song 18 times, which has special significance. Additionally, the verse is repeated to mark the conclusion of the song. We then recite the Aramaic translation of this final verse ("Hashem Malchuteh Ka'em…") and then the verse immediately following the song – "Ki Ba Sus Pharaoh…"

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 515: Seif 5-6 סימן תקט"ו סעיף ה-ו Hilchos Yom Tov - דין דברים הבאים בי"ט חוץ לתחום Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 515: Seif 5-6 סימן תקט"ו סעיף ה-ו Hilchos Yom Tov - דין דברים הבאים בי"ט חוץ לתחום Rabbi Mordechai Fishman Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 515: Seif 4 סימן תקט"ו סעיף ד Hilchos Yom Tov - דין דברים הבאים בי"ט חוץ לתחום Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 515: Seif 1B-3  סימן תקט"ו סעיף א-ג  Hilchos Yom Tov - דין דברים הבאים בי"ט חוץ לתחום Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 515: Seif 1A סימן תקט"ו סעיף א Hilchos Yom Tov - דין דברים הבאים בי"ט חוץ לתחום Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

Mishnah Berurah - Siman 514: Seif 9 - Siman 515: Introduction סימן תקי"ד סעיף ט Hilchos Yom Tov - שלא לכבות ביום טוב Rabbi Mordechai Fishman   Purchase  The Laws and Customs of Krias HaTorah, by Rabbi Mordechai Fishman here: www.kriashatorah.com   www.orachchaim.com For sponsorship opportunities contact: www.rabbifishman.com or email: rabbifishman@gmail.com #mishna berura

According to Sephardic custom, one who remained awake throughout the night must recite Birkot Ha'Torah after the point of Alot Ha'shahar (daybreak), and should not learn Torah once this point arrives before reciting the blessings. (Different customs exist among Ashkenazim regarding the recitation of Birkot Ha'shahar in the morning after remaining awake throughout the night, as some do not recite the blessings, whereas others do. The Mishna Berura advises one to try to listen to the recitation of Birkot Ha'Torah by somebody who had slept during the night. Sepharadim, however, recite the blessings in this case.) The Shulhan Aruch maintained that the point of Alot Ha'shahar is 72 halachic minutes before sunrise. The Vilna Gaon (1720-1797), however, disagreed, and held that this occurs already 90 halachic minutes before sunrise. Due to this difference of opinion, Hacham Ben Sion Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) ruled that if somebody learns throughout the night – as is customary on the night of Shabuot, for example – he must stop learning 90 halachic minutes before sunrise, and refrain from learning until the point of Alot Ha'shahar according to the Shulhan Aruch's opinion. He should then recite Birkot Ha'Torah and resume his learning. Since learning Torah is not allowed before reciting Birkot Ha'Torah once Alot Ha'shahar arrives, and one should not recite Birkot Ha'Torah before Alot Ha'shahar, one should desist from learning during the period when it is uncertain whether the point of Alot Ha'shahar had arrived. One cannot yet recite Birkot Ha'Torah, out of concern for the position of the Shulhan Aruch, but one cannot yet learn Torah, due to the ruling of the Vilna Gaon. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, disagrees, and maintains that a person who remains awake throughout the night may follow the view of the Shulhan Aruch and continue learning Torah until 72 minutes before Alot Ha'shahar. He should then recite Birkot Ha'Torah and resume his learning. Moreover, Hacham Ovadia ruled that if one does not know when Alot Ha'shahar occurs, he may continue learning until he knows for certain that Alot Ha'shahar has arrived, and then recite Birkot Ha'Torah at that point. Hacham Ovadia added that one specifically should not find somebody who had slept during the night and listen to his recitation of Birkot Ha'Torah, because it is preferable to perform a Misva oneself than to discharge one's obligation by listening to another person's recitation ("Misva Bo Yoter Mi'bi'shluho"). Summary: According to Sephardic practice, one who remained awake throughout the night must recite Birkot Ha'Torah at the point of Alot Ha'shahar (daybreak), and he may not learn Torah from that point until he recites Birkot Ha'Torah. We follow the view of the Shulhan Aruch, that Alot Ha'shahar occurs 72 halachic minutes before sunrise. One who does not know when Alot Ha'shahar may continue learning until he knows for certain that Alot Ha'shahar has arrived and then recite Birkot Ha'Torah at that point.

The Mishna in Pirkeh Abot (1:6) famously instructs, "Aseh Lecha Rav U'kneh Lecha Haber" – literally, "Make for yourself a Rabbi, and 'purchase' for yourself a friend." This is commonly understood to mean that that as important as it is to have a Rabbi, it is even more important to have a friend, and one should therefore go so far as to "purchase" a friend if necessary. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806), however, added a different interpretation, explaining "U'kneh Lecha Haber" to mean that the quill – "Kaneh" – should be one's "friend." One should make sure to learn from a knowledgeable Rabbi – and he should also grow accustomed to writing the Torah he learns as much as possible. There is immense value in writing the Torah that one studies, as this helps him retain the material and also preserves it. The question arises as to whether one who wishes to write words of Torah in the morning must first recite Birkot Ha'Torah. Halacha requires reciting Birkot Ha'Torah before learning Torah in the morning, but (as we saw in a previous installment) a distinction exists between silently thinking about Torah and speaking words of Torah. Birkot Ha'Torah is required in the morning before verbally speaking words of Torah, but not – according to the consensus opinion – before silently thinking words of Torah. At first glance, we would assume that silently writing Torah material is no different from silently thinking about Torah, and thus this may be done before reciting Birkot Ha'Torah in the morning. Interestingly, however, the Shulhan Aruch distinguishes between thinking about Torah in one's mind and writing Torah. When it comes to thinking about Torah, the Shulhan Aruch follows the view of the Agur (Rav Yaakob Landau, 1410-1493) that silent Torah thoughts do not require Birkot Ha'Torah. However, the Shulhan Aruch rules that writing Torah indeed requires the recitation of the Birkot Ha'Torah. This is based on the position of the Abudarham (Rav David Abudarham, Spain, 14 th century) which Rav Yosef Karo – author of the Shulhan Aruch – brings in his Bet Yosef. Importantly, however, Rav Yosef Karo wrote a collection of notes to the Bet Yosef called Bedek Ha'bayit, in which he corrects or amends certain passages in the Bet Yosef. And in the Bedek Ha'bayit, commenting on his citation of the Abudarham's ruling concerning one who writes Torah, Rav Yosef Karo remarks: "See the words of the Agur" – a clear reference to the aforementioned ruling of the Agur that Birkot Ha'Torah is not required before thinking about Torah. It thus appears that the Bet Yosef retracted his opinion, and concluded that one does not, in fact, need to recite Birkot Ha'Torah before writing Torah. The question then becomes, what was Rav Yosef Karo's final ruling? In the Bet Yosef, he seems to have concluded that writing Torah does not require Birkot Ha'Torah, but in the Shulhan Aruch, he wrote that it does. The Poskim dispute the question of whether the Rav Yosef Karo wrote the Shulhan Aruch before or after he wrote his emendations to the Bet Yosef. Therefore, it is unclear which ruling reflects his final position – his ruling in Bedek Ha'bayit, or his ruling in the Shulhan Aruch. If we follow the Shulhan Aruch's ruling, which distinguishes between thinking about Torah and writing Torah, what's the rationale behind this distinction? Why would thinking about Torah not require Birkot Ha'Torah, but writing Torah would? Later commentators offered several explanations. One approach is that the obligation of Torah study is inherently linked to the obligation to teach Torah. Therefore, Birkot Ha'Torah – the blessing over the Misva to learn Torah – is recited only upon a kind of learning which could also facilitate the teaching of Torah. As Torah can be taught through speech and through the written word, these two forms of Torah learning require Birkot Ha'Torah, whereas silently thinking about Torah, which of course is not a way in which Torah can be disseminated, does not. Others explain that one must learn Torah with the goal of remembering the material. Therefore, the Beracha is recited only when one speaks or writes Torah, as one is more likely to remember material which he verbalizes or writes than material which he simply thinks in his mind. The Lebush (Rav Mordechai Yoffe, 1530-1612) answers, very simply, that writing, as opposed to thinking, is an action, and a Beracha is recited only before a Misva act. Finally, the Hayeh Adam (Rav Abraham Danzig, Vilna, 1748-1820) explains that people often tend to say the words as they write, and therefore Halacha requires reciting Birkot Ha'Torah before writing, given the likelihood that he will end up speaking words of Torah. As for the final Halacha, the Mishna Berura cites several Poskim who rule that due to the uncertainty surrounding this question, one who wishes to write Torah must first recite Birkot Ha'Torah and then recite verses from the Torah before proceeding to write. This is the ruling of Hacham Ovadia Yosef, as well. Verbally reading verses before writing satisfies all opinions and thus avoids this Halachic uncertainty. (Rabbi Yisrael Bitan notes that in one work, Hacham Ovadia is cited as ruling that a person in this situation must recite Birkot Ha'Torah and should then "preferably" recite verses before writing – indicating that this is a preference, but not a requirement. However, Rabbi Bitan shows that this is an inaccurate representation of Hacham Ovadia's position, as in truth he maintained that one must first verbally read verses in order to satisfy all opinions.) This Halacha applies also to a Sofer who wishes to do some work – writing a Sefer Torah, Tefillin or Mezuza – in the morning. Some Poskim maintained that since a Sofer merely copies the Torah text, and is not actually learning Torah, Birkot Ha'Torah is not required before such work. However, due to the different opinions that exist, a Sofer should ensure to recite Birkot Ha'Torah and then verbally read verses before writing. This applies also to somebody who is typing Torah material from a handwritten text, without any intention to learn as he types. Although one could argue that this does not qualify as Torah learning, nevertheless, given the uncertainty, the typist should first recite Birkot Ha'Torah, verbally read some verses, and then proceed to the typing. Summary: One who wishes to write Torah insights, commentaries, etc. in the morning should first recite Birkot Ha'Torah and then verbally read some Torah text before writing, in order to satisfy all opinions. This applies also to a Sofer – he should recite Birkot Ha'Torah and then verbally read some verses before writing in the morning.

Many people have the custom each morning to read "Hok Le'Yisrael" – a collection of texts that includes passages from the Tanach, Mishna, Halachic works, Zohar, and other sources. "Hok Le'Yisrael" follows a regimented schedule, with different pieces of texts being recited each day. Often, the people who read "Hok Le'Yisrael" do not understand the material they read. The question arises whether a person may read "Hok Le'Yisrael" in the morning before reciting Birkot Ha'Torah. Halacha requires reciting Birkot Ha'Torah before learning Torah for the first time in the morning, but does this apply even if one reads Torah literature without understanding the text? Does this qualify as "learning" with respect to the obligation of Birkot Ha'Torah? Rav Schneur Zalman of Liadi (first Rebbe of Lubavitch, 1745-1812), in his Shulhan Aruch Ha'Rav, distinguishes in this regard between the Tanach and other texts. When one reads verses from the Torah, Nebi'im or Ketubim, this constitutes Torah learning regardless of whether or not he understands what he reads. When it comes to all other texts, however, reading them qualifies as Torah study only if one understands the material he reads. Similarly, the Mishna Berura cites the Magen Abraham (Rav Abraham Gombiner, Poland, 1635-1683) as stating that if one reads "Ezehu Mekoman" – the chapter of Mishna which is customarily read during the "Korbanot" section each morning – without understanding the text, this is not considered Torah study. This is true also of "Rabbi Yishmael Omer," the paragraph which is customarily read in the morning, listing the thirteen methods by which the Sages extracted Halachot from the Biblical text. If a person does not understand this passage, reading it does not qualify as Torah learning. This rule has ramifications with regard to Ereb Pesach, when it is customary for firstborns to participate in a Siyum celebration in order to be absolved from the "fast of the firstborn" (Ta'anit Bechorot) on this day. Hacham Ovadia Yosef writes that a Siyum is effective in absolving the firstborns of their obligation only if the person making the Siyum truly understood all the material in the Masechet (tractate of Talmud) which he completes. Simply reading the words does not suffice. The exception to this rule is the Zohar, the reading of which qualifies as Torah learning even if one does not understand what he reads – and even if he does not read the words correctly. This is the ruling of the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) and of Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868). The words of the Zohar have such power and potency that reading them has the effect of absorbing the content into one's being even if he does not understand what he reads. It is told that the Arizal (Rav Yishak Luria, 1534-1572) once advised somebody to read five pages of Zohar each day as a Tikkun (rectification) for his soul. And many have the custom to read from the Zohar Hadash each day during the month of Elul, until Yom Kippur, because the reading itself brings great spiritual benefits, even if one does not understand the text. Therefore, one who reads Zohar in the morning must first recite Birkot Ha'Torah. This exception is unique to the Zohar. Other Kabbalistic works – such as Sha'ar Ha'kavanot and the teachings of the Rashash (Rav Shalom Sharabi, 1720-1777) – elucidate and expound upon the teachings of the Zohar, and thus simply reading them without understanding what they say does not qualify as Torah learning. Returning the case of those who read "Hok Le'Yisrael," since this reading includes passages from the Tanach, one must recite Birkot Ha'Torah before reading this text in the morning, even if he does not understand anything he reads. This applies also to somebody who wishes to read Tehillim in the morning – he must first recite Birkot Ha'Torah, even though he does not understand the verses he recites, because Tehillim is part of the Tanach. In conclusion, it should be emphasized that although reading Tanach and Zohar without understanding the text qualifies as Torah study, we should always aspire to understand to the best of our ability. The sin of "Bittul Torah" (neglecting Torah) is normally defined as wasting time which could have been used for Torah, but it includes also wasting one's capabilities which could have been used to understand Torah. G-d gave us intellectual skills, the ability to comprehend, and we must utilize these powers to understand as much Torah as we can to the greatest extent possible. Today, when virtually every Torah text is available with translations and commentaries, there is really no excuse for reading any part of Torah literature without understanding the material. Summary: If one wishes to read verses from the Torah – such as Tehillim – in the morning, he must first recite Birkot Ha'Torah, even if he will not understand the text he will be reciting. This applies also to someone who wishes to read passages from the Zohar which he does not understand. Reading any other Torah text, however, does not qualify as Torah study unless one understands what he reads, and thus one who reads in the morning other Torah texts without understanding does not need to first recite Birkot Ha'Torah.

Virtually all the Berachot that we are required to recite were introduced by the Sages. One notable exception is Birkat Ha'mazon – the obligation to recite a series of blessings after eating bread, which is explicitly mentioned by the Torah: "You shall eat and be satiated, and you shall bless Hashem your G-d…" (Debarim 8:10). According to some Rishonim, however, there is also another exception – Birkot Ha'Torah, the special blessing recited over Torah study each day. The Gemara (Berachot 21a) infers the obligation to recite a Beracha over the Torah from the verse in Parashat Haazinu (Debarim 32:3), "Ki Shem Hashem Ekra, Habu Godel L'Elokenu" – "When I call the Name of G-d, give praise to G-d." The Torah is comprised of the Names of Hashem; they are encoded in the text of the Torah. Thus, this verse means that when we learn the Torah – "calling" the Names of G-d – we must give praise to Hashem for granting us this precious gift. Indeed, the text of the blessing over the Torah includes a prayer that we and all our descendants should be "knowers of Your Name, and people who study Torah for its sake." By studying the Torah, we become "knowers" of Hashem's Name. Based on the Gemara's comment, the Ramban (Rav Moshe Nahmanides, Spain, 1194-1270) maintained that this Beracha constitutes a Torah obligation. Others, however, disagree. They explain the verse to mean that when we hear someone recite G-d's Name in a Beracha, we must respond "Amen." According to this view, the Gemara does not actually point to this verse as the source of the obligation of Birkot Ha'Torah, but rather it finds a subtle allusion in the Biblical text to a law enacted later by the Sages. This is the opinion of the Rambam, who does not include Birkot Ha'Torah in his list of Torah commands. The Shulhan Aruch appears to follow this view, ruling that if someone is uncertain whether or not he recited a required Beracha, he does not recite it – except in the case of Birkat Ha'mazon. Since Birkat Ha'mazon is required on the level of Torah obligation, we apply the rule of "Safek De'Orayta Le'humra" – that we must act stringently in a situation of uncertainty when a Torah law is at stake. The fact that the Shulhan Aruch mentions Birkat Ha'mazon as the only exception clearly indicates that this is the only Beracha mandated by the Torah, and he regarded Birkot Ha'Torah as a Rabbinic obligation, such that we act leniently in a situation of doubt. This inference is made by the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806), who notes that others disagree, and follow the opinion that Birkot Ha'Torah is a Biblical requirement. Later scholars who embraced this position include the Peri Hadash (Rav Hizkiya Da Silva, 1659-1698), the Mor U'kesi'a (Rav Yaakov Emden, Germany, 1697-1776), the Yad Aharon (Rav Aharon Alfandari, d. 1774), the Hikreh Leb (Rav Raphael Yosef Hazan, 1741-1820), and the Sha'agat Aryeh (Rav Aryeh Leib Ginsburg, d. 1785). The Mishna Berura writes that given the large number of Aharonim (later scholars) who accept the view that Birkot Ha'Torah constitutes a Biblical obligation, it is difficult to rely on the lenient position in a case of uncertainty. As for the practical Halacha, the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that although we follow the Shulhan Aruch's view, that Birkot Ha'Torah is required only by force of Rabbinic enactment, nevertheless, we must seek to satisfy the stringent view. Therefore, if one cannot remember whether or not he recited Birkot Ha'Torah, he should recite it, but instead of verbalizing the words "Hashem Elokenu Melech Ha'olam," he should instead think these words in his mind. This is the ruling accepted by the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939) and Hacham Ovadia Yosef. Summary: If a person is unsure whether or not he recited Birkot Ha'Torah, he should recite it, but instead of verbalizing the words "Hashem Elokenu Melech Ha'olam," he should instead think these words in his mind.