Podcasts about permissible

What if someone unwittingly ate forbidden food with the intention of serving Hashem—and even used the energy derived from that food to fuel their Torah study and prayer? Can this energy rise to holiness and become clothed within the words of Torah and prayer?The vitality within forbidden foods is intrinsically tied to the three completely impure kelipot, meaning it cannot be elevated to holiness, no matter how pure one's intentions. This reflects the Torah's definition of assur—“tied up”—an objective reality that renders these foods inherently bound to impurity.Permissible foods, by contrast, draw their vitality from kelipat nogah and can be elevated to holiness when approached with proper intent. However, indulging in them solely for self-gratification temporarily drags them into impurity, leaving a lasting imprint even after a person realigns themselves with holiness. This residual impurity requires chibut hakever, the “beating of the grave,” to divest the body of its attachment to worldly pleasures.

If a person prepared tea with a teabag on Shabbat (following the relevant Halachic guidelines), is he then allowed to remove the teabag from the cup? At first glance, it appears that removing the teabag would violate the prohibition of Borer – separating – as one is removing Pesolet – an undesirable substance – from Ochel – the food he desires. The Halachic authorities discuss this question and rule that one may, in fact, remove the teabag from the cup, on the basis of a ruling of the Maharitatz known as "En Berera Be'lah," which means that the laws of Borer do not apply to removing a solid from a liquid. Just like one may, according to this position, remove an insect from a beverage on Shabbat, similarly, one may remove a teabag from a teacup. An additional question arises concerning the drops of liquid that fall from the bag into the cup during the process of removing the bag. At the moment when the teabag is hovering over the cup, drops of tea drip from the bag into the cup, which seemingly pose a problem of Borer. Even though by holding the bag over the cup one separates the Ochel (the drops of tea) from the Pesolet (the teabag), which is permissible, we should perhaps regard the bag as a Keli – a utensil. One of the conditions for allowing Borer on Shabbat is that the separation is done by hand, and not with a utensil. In this situation, however, one separates with a teabag, as the drops of water fall through the small perforations in the bag into the cup, seemingly in violation of the prohibition of Borer. Rabbi Moshe Halevi (Israel, 1961-2001) writes that one may remove the teabag from the cup even if drops of tea will then fall from the bag into the cup. He explains that even if we indeed regard a teabag as a Keli, it is certainly not a utensil made specifically for the purpose of separating, like a sifter or sieve. As such, the prohibition of Borer potentially applies in this case only on the level of Mi'de'rabbanan (Rabbinic enactment), since the Biblical prohibition applies only when using a utensil especially made for the purpose of separating. And when one removes a teabag from a cup, he certainly does not intend to have drops of tea fall from the bag into the cup, and thus this situation is one of "Pesik Resheh De'lo Niha Leh" – where one performs an action that will inevitably result in an action forbidden on Shabbat, but one has no interest in that forbidden action. "Pesik Resheh" is permitted on Shabbat when the prohibition involved was enacted by the Sages and is not forbidden on the level of Torah law. Therefore, since separating with a teabag is forbidden only by force of Rabbinic enactment, it is permissible to remove it from a cup even if drops will invariably fall from it. However, this line of reasoning suffices to permit removing the teabag only if one indeed has no interest in those drops of tea that fall from the bag. Some people, however, specifically want those drops in their cup of tea, as those drops have absorbed the flavor of the tea. This then changes the situation to one of "Pesik Resheh De'niha Leh," where one is interested in the resulting forbidden action, regarding which we cannot apply the leniency mentioned above. Therefore, the Shemirat Shabbat Ke'hilchatah (Rav Yehoshua Neubert, contemporary) rules that one should remove the teabag from the cup with a spoon, so that any drops that drip from the teabag will fall into the spoon and be discarded along with the teabag, such that no separation is done. This is also the ruling of Rav Yitzhak Zafrani in his Vayizra Yitzhak. Although those who are lenient in this regard and remove the teabag by hand have authorities on whom to rely, it is preferable to follow the stringent view and remove it with a spoon. Certainly, according to all opinions, it would be forbidden to intentionally hold the spoon over the cup of tea in order for drops to fall into the tea. Summary: After preparing tea on Shabbat, it is preferable to remove the teabag with a spoon, and not by hand. Some authorities permit removing it by hand, as long as one does not intentionally hold the bag over the teacup to allow drops to fall from the bag into the cup.

In this brief episode, Chris follows up on his recent informal debate with Marek Kizer with some thoughts on the concept of "pre-adjudication" and its implications for biblical justice. Biblical law requires that judges "inquire diligently" in matters of justice (Deut. 19:18). Pre-adjudication bypasses this requirement.

A re-upload of episode 176 featuring Jon & Jason chatting about medical marijuana and Christian use.

The Shulhan Aruch in Siman 675 establishes an important Halachic principle: "Hadlakah Osah Misva"-The act of lighting the Menorah fulfils the Misva, as opposed to "Hanaha Osah Misva"-the placement of the Menorah is the Misva. That is, it makes no difference if the Menorah was set up by a minor or others who are exempt from the Misva; one would not have to set it up again. This is also true regarding the Shabbat and Yom Tob candles. There is a discussion amongst the Poskim whether may light the Menorah in one place and then move it to another place. All agree that it is preferable to leave it in the place it was lit. Shulhan Aruch (675:1) clearly writes that the Menorah should not be moved after it was lit, because people will assume that he lit it for his own benefit like a lantern. The Shulhan Aruch also rules that one may not light the Menorah and hold it in his hands for the full half hour. This also appears that he is using it for his own benefit. Based on this, the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) ruled that a sick person who is bedbound upstairs should not light the Menorah in his bedroom and then have it brought downstairs to his window. Rather he should appoint an agent to light for him downstairs. Hacham Ovadia writes that today the circumstances have changed. It is not such a severe concern that people will think he is using the Menorah for his own benefit, since we use a special Menorah designated for the Misva. Therefore, even if he moved around with it, nobody would assume that he is using it as a lantern. In the olden days, people used regular candles both for the Misva and for illumination, so it was easy to get confused. Therefore, if one moved his Menorah, his Misva is not invalidated. This is also the opinion of the Mishna Berura in Siman 675. In the case of the sick person, Hacham Ovadia would allow him to light in his bedroom and then have it brought downstairs, but he still prefers the option of appointing an agent. It is also preferable not to move the Shabbat and Yom Tob candles after they have been lit. (Although not preferable, one may move Shabbat candles as long as hee didn't accept Shabbat yet.) Although the Taz (Rabbi David Segal, Poland, 1586-1667) holds that Shabbat and Yom Tob are different, The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) defends the position of those who equate the two Misvot. The way to remember this Halacha is that the Beracha for all these Misvot is "L'Hadlik"-to light-meaning that the lighting is the Misva. SUMMARY It is preferable not to move the Chanukah candles after they have been lit, but doing do would not invalidate the Misva..

Rabbi Breitowitz- Permissible Marriages by Mayanot

On this episode, we discuss how nonprofits can engage in advocacy during this time of transition and prepare for 2025. Attorneys for this episode Sarah Efthymiou Víctor Rivera Labiosa Melissa Marichal Zayas Show Notes   Post-Election Communications: Prohibition on Campaign Intervention ·       Keep in mind that 501(c)(3)s should never indicate that they support or oppose candidates for public office, whether in the past, present, or future. Permissible communications for 501(c)(3)s: Congratulating a newly elected official or thanking a former candidate for their hard work during the election. Discussing the organization's nonpartisan voter engagement. Commenting on the demographics of who voted or didn't vote. Encouraging a peaceful continuation or transfer of office. ·       Impermissible communications for 501(c)(3)s include: o   Suggesting that the organization attempted to influence the outcome of an election. o   Supporting efforts to draft a named person to run for office in a future election. o   Declaring that the organization or voters will hold an elected official accountable in the next election.   Transition Advocacy: Is it Lobbying? ·       Transition advocacy is a hot topic, especially after elections, and one of the most common questions we get from 501(c)(3) public charities is whether it counts as lobbying. The short answer? Sometimes, yes—but often not. ·       In general, lobbying involves efforts to influence specific legislation. For 501(c)(3) organizations operating under the insubstantial part test, advocacy for or against legislation qualifies may count as lobbying. ·       If an organization has made the 501(h) election—which allows nonprofits to maximize and clarify their lobbying limits—the IRS uses a different definition. Under the 501(h) expenditure test, lobbying breaks down into two categories: o   Direct lobbying: Speaking to a legislator and expressing a view about specific legislation. o   Grassroots lobbying: Communicating with the general public to express a view on specific legislation andincluding a call to action. ·       Under the 501(h) expenditure test, two key factors determine whether your activity qualifies as direct lobbying: o   Are you speaking to a legislator? o   Is the topic you're discussing considered specific legislation? If the answer to both is "yes," it likely counts as lobbying. ·       Examples of lobbying activities during transition period: o   Advocating about spending priorities o   Supporting/opposing nominations of new exec cabinet officials or judiciary o   Advocating for changes in laws or amending current laws o   Advocating for a new program – if would require new legislation ·       Important to assess what you're saying, who you're saying it to, and whether any exceptions apply.   Transition Advocacy: When is it Not Lobbying? ·       Some organizations may try to avoid engaging in lobbying activities so it's important to understand what their non-lobbying options are during this transition ·       During this period, organizations can try to get to know their newly elected officials. Meeting with these officials, without trying to influence any nomination process or any piece of legislation (including the budget process), does not count as a lobbying activity. ·       On top of that, nonprofit organizations can do the following: o   Recommend transition team members o   Get involved in the executive order process o   Develop relationships with these newly elected officials o   Talk about nominations that do not require the advice and consent of a legislative body (or a legislative vote) o   Actively participate in the rulemaking process §  Beware: it may count as a lobbying activity at the state/local level o   Take advantage of the 501(h) lobbying exceptions!   Resources Can We Say That? Post-Election Advocacy for 501(c)(3) Organizations Preparing for Change: How Nonprofits Can Shape Policy By Engaging Transition Teams Transition Advocacy: Is it Lobbying? The Advocacy Playbook Series

Question: I have a Bible question which I don't understand—would you mind teaching me? In a Zoom Bible study originating from a Hong Kong Ministry, the teacher who is teaching suggested it is permissible to worship and sacrifice to the LORD at the high places since the Temple wasn't built yet and is forbidden after the Temple was built:But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire (Deuteronomy 7:5); And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God. But unto the place which the LORD your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come: And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks…. (Deuteronomy 12:3-6)1 Kings 3:2-3 said that Solomon offered 1,000 sacrifices to the LORD at the high place at Gibeon and after that God was revealed to him and accepted him, but in 2 Chronicles 1:5 Solomon actually went to the Tabernacle and offered at the brazen altar. So, did he do the right thing? Response: 2 Chronicles 1:3 tells us that Solomon, early in his reign and before the temple was built, worshiped at a high place. Verse 3 reads, “So Solomon, and all the congregation with him, went to the high place that was at Gibeon; for there was the tabernacle of the congregation of God, which Moses the servant of the LORD had made in the wilderness.” We know that the tabernacle was set up there. But, both Deuteronomy 7:5 and 12:3-6 clearly tell us that all the pagan materials are to be removed from the high place prior to any worship of the Lord. A “high place” itself is not a pagan location, except if the statues and the other things used in their rituals are there.Consequently, the reason Solomon worshiped at this particular high place was, as already noted, that the tabernacle was set up there. It was the same tabernacle that the children of Israel, according to the instructions given Moses, had constructed in the wilderness. Therefore, before the construction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, the tabernacle was what God had chosen for the sacrifice and worship by Israel.It has been pointed out that Solomon's father King David had previously worshiped the Lord at this high place in Gibeon. First Chronicles 16:39 notes, “[David left] Zadok the priest, and his brethren the priests, before the tabernacle of the LORD in the high place that was at Gibeon….” The tabernacle was where the altar of burnt offering had been set up (see 1 Chronicles 21:29).Again, it was not the high place itself that made it a suitable place for the sacrifices, but rather a place cleansed of all pagan paraphernalia and with the tabernacle already set up there.

We explore cases where it is permissible to move a candlestick after the flame has gone out on Shabbat.

Why does Paul say all things are permissible, but not all things are profitable? What does it mean to be unequally yoked? Why is that such a big deal? How exactly are we saved? Can we lose it? How do I break strongholds when it comes to addiction? Are we allowed to sell things in churches? My family life is filled with verbal abuse. What can I do? *previously aired To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1258/29

This week Sean and Scott continue the conversation about the morality of IVF. Don't forget to listen to Part 1, last week, when they defined and explained the nature of IVF and began the conversation about the moral permissibility of practicing it. This week, we uncover further differences and clarify the moral issues beneath the debate. ==========Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture is a podcast from Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, which offers degrees both online and on campus in Southern California. Find all episodes of Think Biblically at: https://www.biola.edu/think-biblically. Watch video episodes at: https://bit.ly/think-biblically-video. To submit comments, ask questions, or make suggestions on issues you'd like us to cover or guests you'd like us to have on the podcast, email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu.

Why does Paul say “all things are permissible, but not all things are profitable”? What does it mean to be unequally yoked? Why is that such a big deal? How exactly are we saved? Can we lose it? How do I break strongholds when it comes to addiction? Are we allowed to sell things in churches? My family life is filled with verbal abuse. What can I do? *previously aired

Why does Paul say all things are permissible, but not all things are profitable? What does it mean to be unequally yoked? Why is that such a big deal? How exactly are we saved? Can we lose it? How do I break strongholds when it comes to addiction? Are we allowed to sell things in churches? My family life is filled with verbal abuse. What can I do? To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1258/29

Is IVF ever morally permissible for Christians? And if so, what conditions must be met? Is it ever morally justified to freeze embryos? These are just a few of the questions Sean and Scott discuss in this first part of a two-part discussion on the morality of IVF. If you are looking for a substantive discussion about the case for and against IVF, you will enjoy this first part. Join us next week for part 2. ==========Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture is a podcast from Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, which offers degrees both online and on campus in Southern California. Find all episodes of Think Biblically at: https://www.biola.edu/think-biblically. Watch video episodes at: https://bit.ly/think-biblically-video. To submit comments, ask questions, or make suggestions on issues you'd like us to cover or guests you'd like us to have on the podcast, email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu.

Why does Paul say “all things are permissible, but not all things are profitable”? What does it mean to be unequally yoked? Why is that such a big deal? How exactly are we saved? Can we lose it? How do I break strongholds when it comes to addiction? Are we allowed to sell things in churches? My family life is filled with verbal abuse. What can I do?

One may only use sechach which has grown from the ground (gidulei karka), is detached from the ground, and is not susceptible to impurity (eino mekabel tumea). Zip ties are generally made from a material which one may not use for sechach. One should not support sechach with a material which cannot be used for sechach. This principle is known as "ma'amid bedavar hamekabel tumea." If the sechach can stay down in a normal wind (ruah mesuya), and the zip ties are only used to ensure that the sechach does not move out of its place in a gust of wind (ruah she'eina mesuya), then zip ties may be used. If, however, zip ties are used to hold down the sechach and ensure that it does not move from its place even in a normal wind, then one cannot use zip ties to secure the sechach.

In this episode, philosopher Ian Peeble's 2021 article, “To Race or Not to Race: A Normative Debate in the Philosophy of Race,” is discussed. An argument is put forth that Peeble's argument for the morally permissible use of race in medicine is not deductively sound. This opinion is held as I believe that Peebles misses an important fourth necessary condition for the permissible use of race in medicine — the patient consent requirement.

Send us a textIs there such a thing as a free lunch in healthcare? In this episode, Captain Integrity Bob Wade gives you the rules, regulations, and requirements as it relates to the Stark Law. Hear why there's no such thing as a free lunch, what you can do when there are service deficiencies, how to approach providing technology, recent cases that involve free lunches, and the history of free lunches. Learn more at CaptainIntegrity.com

'When is Hatmana permissible on shabbos?'

Everything is permissible in this life but not everything is beneficial. Today I talk about this notion in our everyday...

Halacha forbids deriving benefit from a Melacha (forbidden activity) performed on Shabbat. Thus, if a person cooked food on Shabbat in violation of Halacha, it may not be eaten. This prohibition was enacted by the Sages. As far as Torah law is concerned, food that was cooked on Shabbat is permissible for consumption; it was the Sages who enacted this provision prohibiting eating food that was prepared in violation of Shabbat. The Rabbinic origin of this prohibition yields important ramifications. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that if food was prepared on Shabbat in violation of Halacha, but there are authorities who permitted food preparation in that fashion, then the food is permissible for consumption. Even though Halacha does not follow that opinion, and forbids performing the act in question, nevertheless, if the act was done, the food may be eaten. Since the prohibition against eating food cooked on Shabbat constitutes a Rabbinic, rather than Biblical, prohibition, it does not apply in situations of Safek (Halachic uncertainty). As such, if there is some question among the Halachic authorities as to whether the food was in fact prepared in violation of Shabbat, the food may be eaten. One example of this rule is the case of food that had been half-cooked before Shabbat, a situation known in Halacha as "Ke'ma'achal Ben Derusai." According to some authorities, if a food had been half-cooked before Shabbat, one who cooks that food on Shabbat has not violated Shabbat. Since the food was already edible, at least for some people, completing the cooking process does not violate the Shabbat prohibition against cooking. However, the Shulhan Aruch does not follow this view, and rules that fully cooking this kind of food constitutes a violation of Shabbat. Therefore, if a food had not been fully cooked before Shabbat, one may not put it on the stove or on the Blech on Shabbat to complete the cooking process. Nevertheless, if a person did place half-cooked food on the Blech to finish cooking, the food is nevertheless permissible. Since there are authorities who permitted cooking food in this fashion, the food may be eaten despite the fact that it was cooked in violation of the accepted Halacha. Thus, for example, if a person is a guest at somebody's home on Shabbat, and the host mentions that the food being served had only been half-cooked before Shabbat, and it was placed on the Blech in the morning to finish cooking, he may eat the food. Even though the host acted incorrectly by placing the food on the Blech, it is nevertheless permissible. Another example is soup that was reheated on Shabbat. The Shulhan Aruch rules that one may not reheat liquid food on Shabbat, even though it had been fully cooked before Shabbat. Therefore, one may not take Kibbehamda (soup with meatballs), for example, out of the refrigerator on Shabbat morning and put it on the Blech so it can be served during lunch. Nevertheless, if somebody did place a pot of soup on the Blech on Shabbat morning, it may be eaten. The Rambam (Rabbi Moshe Maimonides, Spain-Egypt, 1135-1204) held that reheating liquid food is permissible on Shabbat, because, in his view, cooking any food that has been cooked before Shabbat does not violate the prohibition of "cooking" on Shabbat. Halacha does not follow this opinion, and forbids reheating liquid food on Shabbat. Nevertheless, if one did reheat liquid food, the food may be eaten, in light of the different opinions on the subject. Hacham Ovadia (listen to audio recording for precise citation) also applies this rule to a case of raw food that one cooked during the period of Ben Ha'shemashot (twilight) on Friday afternoon. The term Ben Ha'shemashot refers to the 13.5-minute period immediately after sundown, and it is uncertain whether this period should be considered daytime or nighttime. It is therefore clearly forbidden to cook during this period, as one thereby may be violating a Torah prohibition. However, food that was cooked during the period of Ben Ha'shemashot may nevertheless be eaten. This food has the status of Safek; there is a possibility that it was cooked on Shabbat, but there is also a possibility that it was cooked before Shabbat. Therefore, this food may be eaten, since it is uncertain whether or not it had been cooked on Shabbat. It must be emphasized, however, that it is certainly forbidden to cook during Ben Ha'shemashot; this discussion refers only to a case of someone mistakenly cooked during this period, in violation of Halacha. Summary: Generally speaking, food that was cooked on Shabbat in violation of Halacha may not be eaten. There are, however, several exceptions: 1) If food was half-cooked before Shabbat, one may not put it on the fire or Blech to finish cooking on Shabbat, but if he did, the food is permissible. 2) One may not reheat soup or other liquid foods on Shabbat, but if one did reheat liquid food that had been cooked before Shabbat, it may be eaten. 3) One may not cook during Ben Ha'shemashot (the 13.5-minute period after sundown) on Friday afternoon, but food cooked during this period may be eaten.

In this episode of The Tent Making Christianity Podcast, the team discusses self defence from a Biblical perspective.  

In Siman 303, Maran discusses various items which may not be worn in the public domain on Shabbat, out of concern that one may remove it and carry it. This could happen because either he wants to show it off to someone else, or he is embarrassed and wants to hide it from someone else. One example of an item that a person may be embarrassed by is a gold tooth. Therefore, the Shulhan Aruch prohibits walking in the public domain with such a tooth. On the other hand, a silver tooth does not present a problem because it does not stand out in the same way. Hacham Bension (Or Lesion 23:1) rules that nowadays even a gold tooth is not a problem. Today, such teeth do not embarrass people. Moreover, even if one would want to remove it, they are implanted in a permanent fashion. He also rules that a bite plate is not a problem for the same reason. He reasons that it is no different from a Kami'ah (amulet) worn for health. Braces would certainly be permissible, because they are attached. Yalkut Yosef rules that dentures are not a problem to wear in the public domain. It is not likely that someone would remove them in public, and there is nothing embarrassing about them. Similarly, there is no problem to wear Invisalign. SUMMARY It is permitted to wear gold teeth, dentures, bite plates, braces and Invisalign in the public domain on Shabbat.

Beverage Digest Editor & Publisher Duane Stanford chats with industry expert & The Breeze contributor John Sicher about the future of prebiotic sodas, how health and wellness soft drinks fit into the broader packaged beverage sector, and whether these products present a growth opportunity for soda makers like Coke, PepsiCo, and Keurig Dr Pepper.

Halacha forbids listening to music – either live or from a radio, tape, disc player and the like – during the three weeks from Shiba Assar Be'Tammuz through Tisha B'Ab. This applies even to religious music, such as prayers and Pizmonim; even these songs may not be sung with musical accompaniment during the Three Weeks. Just as a mourner, Heaven forbid, may not listen to music due to his state of bereavement, similarly, during the Three Weeks, when we mourn the destruction of the Mikdash, we must refrain from listening to music. There are, however, a number of exceptions to this rule, situations in which listening to music would be permissible during this period. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Israel, 1910-1995) ruled that a person who suffers from depression or anxiety, Heaven forbid, and depends upon music to relieve his emotional distress, may listen to music during the Three Weeks. A similar situation would be a person who lives alone and experiences loneliness, and relies on music to lift his or her spirits. Rav Shlomo Zalman maintained that situations such as these are treated no differently than medical disorders, and thus the prohibition against listening to music is waived in consideration of the serious health concerns involved. This is also the ruling of Hacham Ovadia Yosef. Of course, one must be honest with himself before applying this Halacha. A person cannot simply decide that he's in a "bad mood" so he can now listen to music. This ruling refers to people suffering considerably from depression, and not to anyone who happens to have had a difficult day. Hacham Ovadia also addressed the question posed by a camp director concerning the music played during camp hours as part of the camp's routine. Would it be permissible to continue playing music in the camp during the Three Weeks? Hacham Ovadia allowed playing music in this framework, since the music is played not for enjoyment, but rather to help the counselors by keeping the children attentive and on schedule. This is comparable to the situation of oarsmen who often sing to keep them in rhythm as they row; the music is played not for enjoyment, but rather as part of the counselors' work routine. If a person earns a living as a musician, he may play music for gentile audiences during the Three Weeks, but only until the week of Tisha B'Ab. He may not, however, play for fellow Jews already from Shiba Assar Be'Tammuz, even for Jews who are not halachically observant. A musician who earns a livelihood from teaching music – such as piano teachers, violin teachers, and so on – may continue giving lessons during the Three Weeks, but not during the week of Tisha B'Ab. Since he would lose a substantial amount of money by refraining from teaching for three weeks, and in light of the fact that he is not playing music for enjoyment, he is allowed to continue teaching until and not including the week of Tisha B'Ab. Summary: Although it is generally forbidden to listen to music during the Three Weeks, people suffering from depression or anxiety who need music to relieve their distress may listen to music. Music may also be played at summer camps when this is necessary to keep the young campers attentive and happy. It is permissible to play music for gentile audiences – but not Jewish audiences – until the week of Tisha B'Ab, and one may also teach music lessons until the week of Tisha B'Ab.

In the 1990s, India's mediascape saw the efflorescence of edgy soft-porn films in the Malayalam-speaking state of Kerala. In Rated A: Soft-Porn Cinema and Mediations of Desire in India (U California Press, 2024), Darshana Sreedhar Mini examines the local and transnational influences that shaped Malayalam soft-porn cinema—such as vernacular pulp fiction, illustrated erotic tales, and American exploitation cinema—and maps the genre's circulation among blue-collar workers of the Indian diaspora in the Middle East, where pirated versions circulate alongside low-budget Bangladeshi films and Pakistani mujra dance films as South Asian pornography. Through a mix of archival and ethnographic research, Mini also explores the soft-porn industry's utilization of gendered labor and trust-based arrangements, as well as how actresses and production personnel who are marked by their involvement with a taboo form negotiate their social lives. By locating the tense negotiations between sexuality, import policy, and censorship in contemporary India, this study offers a model for understanding film genres outside of screen space, emphasizing that they constitute not just industrial formations but entire fields of social relations and gendered imaginaries. Dr. Darshana Sreedhar Mini is an Assistant Professor at the University of Wisconsin- Madison. She did her PhD from the University of Southern California. Her teaching and research lie at the intersection of gender, sexuality, transnational media, migrant media and screen cultures of South Asia. She is the co-editor of South Asian Pornographies: Vernacular Formations of the Permissible and the Obscene (Routledge, 2024). Priyam Sinha recently graduated with a PhD from the South Asian Studies Programme at the National University of Singapore. Her interdisciplinary academic interests lie at the intersection of film studies, disability studies, production cultures, affect studies, anthropology of the body, creative media industries and cultural studies. She can be reached at https://twitter.com/PriyamSinha Khadeeja Amenda is a PhD candidate in the Department of Communication and New Media, National University of Singapore, Singapore. She can be reached at khadeejaamenda@u.nus.edu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In the 1990s, India's mediascape saw the efflorescence of edgy soft-porn films in the Malayalam-speaking state of Kerala. In Rated A: Soft-Porn Cinema and Mediations of Desire in India (U California Press, 2024), Darshana Sreedhar Mini examines the local and transnational influences that shaped Malayalam soft-porn cinema—such as vernacular pulp fiction, illustrated erotic tales, and American exploitation cinema—and maps the genre's circulation among blue-collar workers of the Indian diaspora in the Middle East, where pirated versions circulate alongside low-budget Bangladeshi films and Pakistani mujra dance films as South Asian pornography. Through a mix of archival and ethnographic research, Mini also explores the soft-porn industry's utilization of gendered labor and trust-based arrangements, as well as how actresses and production personnel who are marked by their involvement with a taboo form negotiate their social lives. By locating the tense negotiations between sexuality, import policy, and censorship in contemporary India, this study offers a model for understanding film genres outside of screen space, emphasizing that they constitute not just industrial formations but entire fields of social relations and gendered imaginaries. Dr. Darshana Sreedhar Mini is an Assistant Professor at the University of Wisconsin- Madison. She did her PhD from the University of Southern California. Her teaching and research lie at the intersection of gender, sexuality, transnational media, migrant media and screen cultures of South Asia. She is the co-editor of South Asian Pornographies: Vernacular Formations of the Permissible and the Obscene (Routledge, 2024). Priyam Sinha recently graduated with a PhD from the South Asian Studies Programme at the National University of Singapore. Her interdisciplinary academic interests lie at the intersection of film studies, disability studies, production cultures, affect studies, anthropology of the body, creative media industries and cultural studies. She can be reached at https://twitter.com/PriyamSinha Khadeeja Amenda is a PhD candidate in the Department of Communication and New Media, National University of Singapore, Singapore. She can be reached at khadeejaamenda@u.nus.edu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

In the 1990s, India's mediascape saw the efflorescence of edgy soft-porn films in the Malayalam-speaking state of Kerala. In Rated A: Soft-Porn Cinema and Mediations of Desire in India (U California Press, 2024), Darshana Sreedhar Mini examines the local and transnational influences that shaped Malayalam soft-porn cinema—such as vernacular pulp fiction, illustrated erotic tales, and American exploitation cinema—and maps the genre's circulation among blue-collar workers of the Indian diaspora in the Middle East, where pirated versions circulate alongside low-budget Bangladeshi films and Pakistani mujra dance films as South Asian pornography. Through a mix of archival and ethnographic research, Mini also explores the soft-porn industry's utilization of gendered labor and trust-based arrangements, as well as how actresses and production personnel who are marked by their involvement with a taboo form negotiate their social lives. By locating the tense negotiations between sexuality, import policy, and censorship in contemporary India, this study offers a model for understanding film genres outside of screen space, emphasizing that they constitute not just industrial formations but entire fields of social relations and gendered imaginaries. Dr. Darshana Sreedhar Mini is an Assistant Professor at the University of Wisconsin- Madison. She did her PhD from the University of Southern California. Her teaching and research lie at the intersection of gender, sexuality, transnational media, migrant media and screen cultures of South Asia. She is the co-editor of South Asian Pornographies: Vernacular Formations of the Permissible and the Obscene (Routledge, 2024). Priyam Sinha recently graduated with a PhD from the South Asian Studies Programme at the National University of Singapore. Her interdisciplinary academic interests lie at the intersection of film studies, disability studies, production cultures, affect studies, anthropology of the body, creative media industries and cultural studies. She can be reached at https://twitter.com/PriyamSinha Khadeeja Amenda is a PhD candidate in the Department of Communication and New Media, National University of Singapore, Singapore. She can be reached at khadeejaamenda@u.nus.edu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/film

If one has a close friend or family member who is gravely ill and enduring a great deal of suffering, and the physicians have determined that the patient cannot be cured, it is permissible, or proper, to pray that the patient should die so he does not suffer any longer? A possible Talmudic source for this kind of prayer is the story told in Masechet Ketubot (104) of the death of Rebbe (Rabbi Yehuda Ha'nasi). The Rabbi took ill, and all the Rabbis prayed on his behalf. Rebbe's maidservant went to the roof of the house and cried, "The upper worlds want Rebbe, and the lower worlds want Rebbe. May it be His will that the lower worlds prevail over the upper worlds." The maid went inside, and she noticed how terribly Rebbe was suffering. His illness forced him to make frequent trips to the restroom, causing him an inordinate amount of discomfort. The maid returned to the rooftop and cried, "May it be His will that the upper worlds prevail over the lower worlds." Once she saw Rebbe's suffering, it seems, she changed her prayer, and prayed that Rebbe should die. Seeing that Rebbe remained alive in the merit of the Rabbis' prayers, the maidservant threw a glass off the roof, and when it reached the ground and shattered, it made a loud, sudden noise that disrupted the Rabbis' prayers. At that moment, Rebbe died. The Ran (Rabbenu Nissim of Gerona, Spain, 1320-1380), in Masechet Nedarim, references this story, and draws proof from the maidservant's prayers that in certain situations, it is proper to pray that a patient should die. Specifically, the Ran explains, such a prayer is appropriate if there is no longer any possibility of the patient recovering, and the patient endures suffering because of his illness. On this basis, the Ran explains the Gemara's comment in Masechet Nedarim (40a) that visiting an ill patient is vitally important, because if one does not visit the patient, then he "does not pray for him – neither that he should live, nor that he should die." The Ran explains that one of the purposes of visiting the sick is to observe the patient's condition firsthand so he will be aroused to pray. Sometimes, he will be aroused to pray that the patient should live, and in other occasions, he will be aroused to pray that the patient should die. Specifically, as in the case of Rebbe's maidservant, if one sees that the patient cannot be cured, and endures suffering, he should pray for the patient's life to end so he will not suffer any longer. A different view is presented by the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in his Ben Yehoyada commentary to the Talmud (Masechet Ketubot). He explains that the maidservant made these pronouncements not as prayers to G-d, but rather to relay to the Rabbis information about Rebbe's condition. As she tended to the Rabbi's needs, she knew about his condition and wished to convey the latest information to Rebbe's colleagues. When she saw that Rebbe was suffering, she announced to the Rabbis that the time had come for the "upper worlds to triumph over the lower worlds" – meaning, that Rebbe should die. She was telling the Rabbis that they should stop praying, because their prayers were prolonging Rebbe's suffering. According to the Ben Ish Hai, then, one should not pray for a terminally ill patient to die, but one should instead stop praying for the patient to live, once the situation is such that the prayers would just be prolonging the patient's suffering. This is in contrast to the view of the Ran, who ruled that one may actually pray for the patient to die in such a case. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986), in Iggerot Moshe (Hoshen Mishpat 2:75), posits that even according to the Ran, this Halacha is extremely limited in scope. The Ran stated that one may pray for a patient to die only once it is certain that the patient will not recover. Apparently, Rav Moshe explained, Rebbe's maidservant – who was known to be an especially righteous woman – had a unique power of prayer, and she sensed in this situation that her prayers would be ineffective and Rebbe would not survive. In such a case, the Ran maintains, it is appropriate to pray that a patient should die to avoid further suffering. In the vast majority of situations, however, we have no way of conclusively determining whether or not a patient will survive, and so such a prayer would not be appropriate. Others, however, disagree, and maintain that just as we rely on doctors' medical assessments in other areas of Halacha, such as when a patient should be fed on Yom Kippur, or driven to a hospital on Shabbat, we likewise rely on doctors' assessments in this regard, as well. Accordingly, the Aruch Ha'shulhan (Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein of Nevarduk, 1829-1908), in Yoreh De'a (335:3), accepts the Ran's view as practical Halacha, ruling that if a patient is suffering and it is certain that he will not recover, one should pray for him to die. A third view is presented by Rav Moshe Sternbuch (contemporary), in his Teshubot Ve'hanhagot. He tells that Rav Shmuel Rozovsky (1913-1979), the great Rosh Yeshiva of Ponevezh, was very ill and endured terrible pain. A disciple visited him, and Rav Rozovsky asked the student to pray "that the Almighty shall spare me from suffering – either that I should leave, or that the suffering should leave." In other words, the appropriate prayer to recite in such a situation is that the patient should no longer suffer, and that G-d would decide how this should be achieved – either through the patient's recovery, or through the patient's passing. This is reminiscent of the story told of a certain Lubavitcher Hasid who, like many Rabbis in Lubavitch, was sent by the Lubavitcher Rebbe (Rav Menachem Mendel Schneerson, 1902-1994) to a remote location to help facilitate religious life, but he had a very difficult time. The conditions were so harsh that this Rabbi endured poverty and poor health. Finally, after a number of years, he sent a letter to the Rebbe asking if he could be relieved of his mission, which was causing him great suffering. The Rebbe wrote a letter back to the Rabbi saying, "Every person who comes into this world has a purpose to fulfill. Your purpose is this mission that I sent you on. Instead of asking to be relieved of your mission, you should be asked to be relieved of your suffering." The Rabbi heeded the Rebbe's advice, and decided to remain. With time, the condition improved, he was very successful. In a similar vein, when a terminally ill patient is suffering, according to Rav Sternbuch, the appropriate response is to pray that the suffering should end, in the manner in which G-d sees fit. It is not for us to decide how the suffering to end; we should simply beseech G-d that it should end quickly in the way which G-d decides. It would seem that this is, indeed, the best approach to take in such a situation. Summary: According to some opinions, it is permissible, and even appropriate, to pray that an ill patient should die if the doctors have determined that he cannot be cured and he is enduring great suffering. However, the preferred practice in this unfortunate circumstance is to simply pray to G-d for the patient's suffering to end, in the manner which G-d decides is best for the patient.

Our conversation today features Winchester Fire Marshal, Jeremy Luttrell to talk about firework safety ahead of the July 4th celebrations. Jeremy provides crucial information about what constitutes permissible fireworks in Virginia and emphasizes the importance of using them safely and responsibly. Permissible fireworks are defined by Virginia State Fire Code and state law. They exclude anything that leaves the ground, such as projectiles or fireworks that explode. The state fire marshal's office conducts thorough testing to ensure all fireworks sold in Virginia meet the required safety standards. Localities, like the city of Winchester, can further narrow down the list of permissible fireworks but typically follow the state's guidelines. See the Approved Permissible Fireworks List here. Jeremy highlights several safety precautions for using fireworks, such as wearing eye protection, reading labels, maintaining a safe distance, and ensuring the fireworks are set on stable surfaces. He advises against using fireworks on public properties, such as school parking lots or city parks, and stresses the importance of seeking permission before lighting fireworks on private property. We also touch on the dangers of sparklers, the impact of fireworks on pets and people with PTSD, and the significance of being respectful to neighbors concerning noise and safety. Jeremy suggests attending professional firework displays as a safer and more convenient option for enjoying fireworks. We discuss the benefits of locally organized events, like the one at Jim Barnett Park, which provides a fun and safe environment managed by professionals. Jeremy notes that these events include additional activities, such as food vendors and family-friendly zones, making them ideal for community participation.  

On this edition of One Single Story, Pastors Stephen Mizell and Sharon Schwartz discuss the following questions: Has there ever been something you know you had Scriptural permission to do, but felt like it was better for you to not do it? Can you think of any examples of when it would be more beneficial, for the sake of bringing others to Jesus, to go against what is socially acceptable in our culture? The reading for the day is 1 Corinthians 9.

The Gemara in Masechet Shabbat (48) addresses the question of whether it is permissible to fill a pillow with feathers or other material on Shabbat. If the pillow had not been previously filled, the Gemara establishes, then filling it on Shabbat would constitute "Makke Ba'patish" – completing the process of making a functional item, one of the thirty-nine categories of Shabbat prohibitions. It appears from the Gemara that this would be forbidden on the level of Torah law ("Mi'de'orayta"). However, if the pillow was previously stuffed and the material had come out of the pillow, then returning the material inside the pillow would be permissible. (Of course, this assumes that one does not stitch the pillow, which would certainly be forbidden on Shabbat.) This Halacha is codified by the Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 340:8). Rabbi Gedalya Felder (Toronto, 20th century), in his work Yesode Yeshurun, extends the Gemara's ruling to the contemporary issue of inflating balls on Shabbat. He rules that if the ball was already inflated before Shabbat, and subsequently became deflated, Halacha allows inflating it anew on Shabbat. If, however, the ball had not been inflated before Shabbat, then inflating it on Shabbat would be forbidden due to the prohibition of "Makke Be'patish," as discussed above. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Israel, 1910-1995), by contrast, as cited in the work "Shemirat Shabbat Ke'hilchata" (16:8), disagrees. In his view, one cannot compare the two cases of filling a pillow with feathers and filling a ball with air, and thus he maintains that Halacha allows inflating a ball even if it had not been previously inflated. It should be noted that according to Sephardic practice, balls are in any event considered Mukse and may not be handled on Shabbat. For Sepharadim, then, this Halacha applies only in the case of a child, regarding whom Halacha is more lenient and allows handling and paying with a ball on Shabbat. Children are thus permitted to inflate a ball with which they wish to play on Shabbat, but adults should not inflate a ball or even handle it at all Shabbat. Summary: It is permissible to inflate a ball on Shabbat. However, Sephardic custom forbids handling a ball in any event on Shabbat, except for children.

One of the thirty-nine Melachot (categories of forbidden activity) that apply on Shabbat is "Koser" ("harvesting"). It is forbidden on Shabbat to detach something from the ground, such as stalks of wheat, or fruits from trees, such as grapes, olives dates and figs. It makes no difference whether the item that is picked is used as food for people or for animals, or even if it is not food at all, such as flowers, leaves and twigs. In all cases, the Torah forbids detaching on Shabbat something that is attached to the ground. The question thus arises as to whether it is permissible to walk on a lawn on Shabbat. For example, may a person walk about on the lawn in his backyard? When a person walks on grass, there is the possibility that he will inadvertently detach blades of grass from the ground over the course of his walking. Should we thus forbid walking on grass on Shabbat? Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in his Hazon Ovadia – Shabbat (vol. 4, p. 74), writes that it is entirely permissible to walk on grass on Shabbat, adding that it makes no difference whether the grass is dry or moist. He explains that a person who walks on a lawn has no intention to detach blades of grass, and since it is not definite that grass will be detached through walking, this is a case of "Dabar She'eno Mitkavein," which is permissible. Furthermore, even if grass would definitely be detached as a result of walking, it would still be permissible on Shabbat, because we deal here with a Rabbinic prohibition. Detaching grass with one's feet is obviously not the standard method of "Koser," and thus it is not forbidden on the level of Torah law; it is forbidden only by force of Rabbinic enactment. A situation of "Pesik Resheh De'lo Niha Leh" – where a person performs a permissible act that will definitely result in a forbidden action, in which the person has no interest – is allowed when dealing with a Rabbinic prohibition. Therefore, Hacham Ovadia writes, it is permissible to walk on grass on Shabbat even if this will definitely result in grass becoming detached from the ground. Hacham Ovadia adds that for the same reason, it is permissible to wheel a stroller or baby carriage on a lawn on Shabbat. Even if some grass is detached in the process, this is clearly not the standard way of harvesting, and this therefore qualifies as a situation of "Pesik Resheh De'lo Niha Leh" regarding a Rabbinic prohibition, which, as mentioned, is permissible. The Mishna Berura (commentary by Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan, 1839-1933), in Siman 302 (Se'if Katan 11), writes that if one walked on grass and some pieces of grass became wedged in between his toes, he may not remove them directly by hand on Shabbat. The pieces of grass, according to the Mishna Berura, have the status of Mukseh, and therefore one may not move them with his hand. He must remove them indirectly, such as by running water over his feet. Hacham Ovadia, however, disputes this ruling. He cites proofs to the fact that substances such as detached blades of grass, which are entirely insignificant and worthless, do not have the status of Mukseh. In his view, then, it is entirely permissible to remove pieces of grass from one's feet on Shabbat. Summary: Although it is forbidden to detach any vegetation from the ground on Shabbat, it is permissible to walk or push a carriage on grass, even if this may detach some blades of grass. If one walked on grass and some grass became stuck to his feet, he may remove them from his feet by hand on Shabbat.

May a woman apply makeup to her face on Shabbat? Although one might argue that makeup should be permissible in the interest of Kevod Shabbat (showing honor to Shabbat), a person cannot show honor to Shabbat by doing something that constitutes a violation of Shabbat. Applying makeup to one's face violates the Shabbat prohibition of Tzovei'a, dyeing, and is thus forbidden. Although the prohibition of dyeing does not apply to coloring one's face on the level of Torah law, nevertheless, the Sages enacted a prohibition against any kind of dyeing on Shabbat, including applying makeup to one's face. Applying lipstick entails also the separate prohibition of "Memahek," changing the form of a solid substance into a liquid-type substance. Therefore, women must be instructed to apply makeup only before Shabbat, and not on Shabbat itself. (Menuhat Ahava, Helek 3, Perek 13, Halachot 6-7) Today, there are special types of makeup produced in such a way that circumvents these prohibitions of Tzovei'a and Memahek, and they come with a symbol of Rabbinical supervision. A number of leading Rabbis allow using such makeup on Shabbat, and thus women who so desire may apply these brands of makeup on Shabbat. Other brands, however, should be applied only before Shabbat, and not on Shabbat itself.

Is it permissible on Shabbat to eat or cut foods containing letters, such as crackers that have the company's name imprinted on its surface, or a birthday cake, or does this constitute erasing, which is forbidden on Shabbat? Most authorities agree that one may bite into and eat a cracker or piece of cake with lettering, even though he thereby "erases" the letters. Since this is done "Derech Achila," as part of the normal manner of eating, no prohibition is violated. Concerning, however, the question of cutting through lettering on a cake, we find different views among the Halachic authorities. The Mishna Berura (commentary to the Shulchan Aruch by Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, the "Chafetz Chayim," Lithuania, 1835-1933) in Siman 340, Seif Kattan 17, as well as the Chazon Ish (Rabbi Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz, Lithuania-Israel, 1879-1954) in Orach Hayim Siman 61 Seif Kattan 1, ruled stringently and forbade cutting through letters on a cake on Shabbat. However, Chacham Ovadia Yosef in Yabia Omer Helek 4 Siman 38, disagreed and held that this is permissible. He explained that since the lettering on the cake is not permanent, erasing it would constitute only a Rabbinic violation, as the Torah prohibition of erasing on Shabbat applies only to permanent lettering. Furthermore, one erases without the intention to write which is also is only a Rabbinic violation. And in this case, the individual does not intend to erase the letters, but rather to cut the cake. This situation is thus one of a "Peisk Reishei" – an action that unintentionally results in a Shabbat violation – and, according to Halacha, a "Pesik Reishei" is permissible if the resultant action is forbidden only by force of Rabbinic enactment. Thus, it is permissible on Shabbat both to eat food that has lettering, and to cut through lettering on food. One who chooses to nevertheless be stringent and refrain from cutting through lettering on Shabbat, in deference to the ruling of the Mishna Berura, is to be commended, but strictly speaking one may be lenient in this regard.

If a person set the light in his dining room on a timer before Shabbat, and during the meal he realizes that he will need the light in the room for longer than he had expected, may he adjust the timer so that the lights will turn off later than initially scheduled? Conversely, if a timer is set to turn lights off in a room at a certain time, and a person wishes to go to sleep before that time, may he adjust the timer so that the lights will be turned off sooner? Chacham Ovadia Yosef rules that one may adjust a timer on Shabbat to extend the current status. We do not consider the timer Muktzeh, and thus forbidden to be handled on Shabbat, because of the basic rule that says, "Ein Muktzeh Be'mechubar" – something attached to the ground cannot obtain the status of Muktzeh. Since the timer is attached to the wall of one's house, it is deemed "Mechubar" ("attached" to the ground) and therefore cannot become Muktzeh. Furthermore, one could overcome the issue of Muktzeh by verbally stipulating once each year that he does not deem the timer Muktzeh on Shabbat, and he wishes to use it on Shabbat for the purpose of adjusting the time. This condition is effective in avoiding the prohibition of Muktzeh. Hence, one may extend the timer so that the lights in the room will remain lit for a longer period than for which it had initially been set. In the converse situation, however, it is forbidden to adjust a timer so that the current status will end sooner, as this would constitute "Geram Kibuy" (indirect extinguishing). Thus, one may not adjust a timer to have the light in his room turn off sooner than the time for which it had originally been set. However, Chacham Ovadia makes an exception in cases involving a sick patient for whom the presence of light causes discomfort. In such a case, one may indirectly turn off the lights by switching the timer to an earlier time than for which it had originally been set. This rule applies as well to cases where the lights are turned off and one wishes to adjust the timer to have the lights turn on earlier or later than the currently set time. Here, too, it would be permissible to adjust the timer to extend the current status, meaning, to have the lights turn on at a later time, while Halacha would forbid adjusting a timer to have the lights turn on sooner than the originally set time. Where, however, the lights are needed for the purpose of a Mitzva, such as if somebody wishes to use the room for Torah learning, then he may adjust the timer to have the lights go on sooner. Summary: One may adjust a timer on Shabbat to extend the current status, meaning, to have the light turned on or off later than initially scheduled. One may not, however, adjust a timer on Shabbat to have the light turn on or off earlier than initially planned, except when this is necessary for the fulfillment of a Mitzva or for somebody who is ill. See Halichot Olam, Helek 4, pages 71-72

Is it permissible to invest in a non-Jewish company that conducts business on Shabbat? Rabbi Moshe Halevi, in his work Menuchat Ahava (vol. 1, p. 394), rules that Halacha would allow giving money to a gentile during the week as an investment, even if it is clear that the gentile will conduct his business on Shabbat. Since the gentile does his work on Shabbat for his own convenience, and the Jew did not specifically instruct or request that the work be performed on Shabbat, no prohibition is involved. Even though the work performed by the gentile on Shabbat directly affects the Jewish investor, who receives a percentage of the profits, the investment is permissible because the Jew did not specifically request that work be performed on Shabbat. Rabbi Moshe Halevi adds that the issue of Mar'it Ha'ayin – giving the mistaken appearance of violating Halacha – does not arise in such a case, because when the gentile conducts his business on Shabbat it is not evident that this work involves a Jewish investor. By extension, then, it is entirely permissible to own stock in a company that conducts business, opens its stores, and earns profits on Shabbat. Even though a Jew receives a share of the company's profits, nevertheless, since the employees do not work on Shabbat at the behest of the Jew, and do not give the appearance of doing so, no prohibition is involved. Thus, one may invest during the week in a non-Jewish company that operates and conducts business on Shabbat.

Is it permissible to fill an urn with cold water just before the onset of Shabbat, such that the water will be heated on Shabbat? Halacha imposes certain restrictions on placing raw or partially cooked food on the fire before Shabbat. The Rabbis were concerned that since the food is not fully cooked when Shabbat begins, one might stoke the coals to expedite the cooking process, which would constitute a Shabbat violation. Accordingly, these prohibitions apply only in cases where there is the possibility of accelerating the cooking process. Hence, according to most authorities, if an urn has no dials or knobs, and is simply plugged into the wall, one would be allowed to fill it with cold water just before the onset of Shabbat, since he has no possibility of increasing its heat to accelerate the cooking process on Shabbat. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986), in his sefer Igrot Moshe, Helek 4, Siman 74:23, however, ruled stringently on this issue, forbidding filling an urn with cold water if the water will not become hot before the onset of Shabbat. He was concerned that a person may take some water from the urn before the water is fully heated, which will have the effect of accelerating the heating process, as a lower quantity of water heats more rapidly than a higher amount. Rabbi Feinstein felt that due to this concern we should forbid filling an urn just prior to Shabbat. The majority of authorities, however, disputed this ruling, arguing that the Talmud makes no mention of such a concern. It speaks only of the concern that one might stoke the coals, and therefore in situations where there is no possibility of increasing the heat to accelerate the heating process, one may fill an urn with cold water just prior to Shabbat. See Sefer Matmin U'Mevashel BeShabbat, page 44. Summary: One may fill an urn with cold water just before Shabbat, even though the water will still be cold when Shabbat begins, provided that the urn has no dials or knobs for adjusting its heat.

Halacha strictly forbids reheating liquids on Shabbat. Once a soup, gravy or stew has cooled off, one may not place it on a stove (even if it is covered with a "Blech") or a hotplate to be reheated on Shabbat. Doing so may constitute a Torah violation, which is punishable with Sekila (execution by stoning). The question arises as to whether one may set an electric hotplate on a timer, and place cold soup on the hotplate before the hotplate is activated by the timer. For example, one may wish to set the timer to activate the hotplate at 10 AM, and place the soup on the hotplate just prior to that time, so that he could have hot soup during Shabbat lunch. Since the hotplate is cold and inactive at the time he places the pot, perhaps we should not consider this person to be reheating the soup on Shabbat. This issue is subject to a debate among the Halachic authorities. A number of recent Poskim, including the Hazon Ish (Rabbi Abraham Yeshaya Karelitz, 1879-1954), Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986) and Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (Israel, 1915-2006), ruled that this is forbidden, each for different reasons. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, in his work Yabia Omer (vol. 10), rules leniently, noting that this situation falls under the category of "Gerama" – an indirect action. Since the person does not actively reheat the soup, but rather indirectly causes it to be reheated, this is permissible. This is also the view of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Israel, 1910-1995). Hence, one who wishes to be lenient in this regard certainly has authorities on whom to rely. It must be emphasized, however, that one must be careful not to mistakenly compare different cases, and draw conclusions from one situation to another. We deal here specifically with reheating soup or another liquid that has been fully cooked and then cooled, by placing it on a hotplate before the hotplate is activated by a timer. One cannot necessarily extrapolate from this case to other situations of reheating food on Shabbat. Summary: The authorities debate the question of whether one may place cold soup or other liquids on an electric hotplate on Shabbat, before a timer activates the hotplate so it can heat the soup. One who wishes to be lenient in this regard certainly has authorities on whom to rely.