Podcasts about rabbenu tam

**Today's Halacha is dedicated f or the refuah and haslacha of Ronnie, Sharon, Eli and all the children of CARE** When Yom Tob begins on Mosa'eh Shabbat, one may not light the Yom Tob candles until the end of Shabbat. Therefore, a woman must recite "Baruch Ha'mabdil Ben Kodesh Le'kodesh" before she lights the Yom Tob candles, unless she recited Arbit with the special insert of "Va'todi'enu," which serves as a kind of "Habdala" and formally ends Shabbat. Those who every week follow the view of Rabbenu Tam, and refrain from Melacha until 72 minutes after sundown, should do so also when Yom Tob begins on Mosa'eh Shabbat, and should not light candles until 72 minutes after sunset. When Yom Tob falls on Mosa'eh Shabbat, we combine Kiddush and Habdala, and recite the Berachot in the sequence known by the acrostic "Yaknehaz": "Yayin" ("Boreh Peri Ha'gefen" over wine), "Kiddush" ("Asher Bahar Banu…Mekadesh Yisrael Ve'ha'zmanim"), "Ner" (the Beracha over the candle), "Habdala" (the Beracha of "Ha'mabdil Ben Kodesh Le'kodesh"), and "Zeman" ("She'hehiyanu"). We do not recite the Beracha over spices ("Besamim") when Mosa'eh Shabbat is Yom Tob (Mishna Berura 473:3). The custom in our community is to recite these Berachot while standing. Although we generally sit for Habdala, we nevertheless stand for the recitation of "Yaknehaz," since it is primarily Kiddush, for which we stand. One may recite the Beracha of "Boreh Me'oreh Ha'esh" over the Yom Tob candles, since they were lit for the purpose of illumination. However, if a Yahrtzeit candle was lit in memory of a departed loved one, it should not be used for the Beracha of "Boreh Me'oreh Ha'esh," since it was not lit for illumination, but to honor the memory of the deceased. If the candle was lit with the intention that the light should be used, then one may recite the Beracha of "Boreh Me'oreh Ha'esh" over it. In general, it is preferable to recite the Beracha of "Boreh Me'oreh Ha'esh" over an "Abuka" ("torch"), which means two or more wicks holding a single flame. When Yom Tob falls on Mosa'eh Shabbat, there is a practical problem using a conventional Habdala candle, since one may not extinguish fire on Yom Tob, and thus the candle will have to be left burning until it extinguishes. Therefore, if possible, one should prepare before Shabbat a surface with two wicks with some wax underneath them. These wicks should be lit on Mosa'eh Shabbat from an existing flame, and then the Beracha can be recited over this flame, which will naturally extinguish soon thereafter once all the wax has melted. If one did not prepare these wicks before Shabbat, he should recite the Beracha of "Boreh Me'oreh Ha'esh" over one of the Yom Tob candles. One should not combine two candles together for the Beracha, as it is questionable whether it would then be permissible to separate the candles. On an ordinary Mosa'eh Shabbat, if one forgot to recite "Ata Honantanu" – which is a sort of Habdala – in the Amida in Arbit, he does not have to repeat the Amida, because he will in any event recite Habdala. However, if he then ate before reciting Habdala, Hazal imposed a "penalty" requiring this person to repeat the Amida. When Yom Tob falls on Mosa'eh Shabbat, however, one who forgot to recite "Va'todi'enu" and then ate before Habdala does not have to repeat the Amida. This is the ruling of Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Israel, 1923-1998), who explains that whereas "Ata Honantanu" was established by the Ansheh Kenesset Ha'gedola (Men of the Great Assembly), and is thus considered part of the prayer, "Va'todi'enu" was established later, during the time of Rav and Shemuel. As such, "Va'todi'enu" is not an integral part of the Amida, and therefore the "penalty" that applies to one who forget to recite "Ata Honantanu" does not apply to one who forgot to recite "Va'todi'enu." Needless to say, however, one must make every effort to remember to recite "Va'todi'enu" and not to eat before reciting the combination of Kiddush and Habdala.

The Gemara in Rosh Hashanah states that the transgression of not wearing Tefilin is in a special category of harshness. One who is not scrupulous to wear Tefilin is classified as "Karkafta D'la Manach Tefilin"-The scalp that does not don Tefilin and receives an extended sentence in Gehenom. Normally, the maximum sentence in Gehenom is twelve months. However, such a person stays in Gehenom until his soul is incinerated and his ashes are placed under the feet of the Saddikim. The Rishonim debate what degree of not wearing Tefilin constitutes this special category of "Karkafta D'la Manach Tefilin." The Rif interprets the Gemara to mean someone who never wore Tefilin even once in his life. This seems to be Rambam's opinion in Hilchot Teshuba. According to this opinion, if a person wore Tefilin even once, he is saved from being included in that category of sinners. The Rosh, however, questions the Rif's interpretation, because the Rif's text of the Gemara read "A scalp that NEVER wore Tefilin," whereas his text did not have the word "Never." On the other hand, Rabbenu Tam understands the Gemara to refer to one who does not wear Tefilin because he is repulsed by them. However, if he doesn't wear them because he feels that he is unworthy, he is not included in that category. For example he may be concerned that he cannot maintain a clean body or the proper intent. If that is his motivation, although he will be held accountable, he is not called a "Karkafta D'la Manach Tefilin." If someone does not wear Tefilin, because he is lazy, The Bach holds that he is considered "Karkafta D'la Manach Tefilin." If it would be important to him, he wouldn't be lazy, and therefore, it is considered a derision of Tefilin and included in Rabbenu Tam's definition. Therefore, one must insure that his children and grandchildren don't fall into this category and are diligent to put on Tefilin, even on vacation days, when sometimes them may be lax in this important Misva. On the other hand, the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1807) understood Rabbenu Tam to mean that only if one actively derides the Tefilin. Laziness is not included in that category. He brings a proof from one of Rabbenu Tam's students, Rabbi Eliezer of Metz, who clearly states that one who doesn't put on Tefilin because he is lazy, is punished, but is not considered "Karkafta…" The Bet Yosef understands from the Tur, who did not make any distinctions, that the category of "Karkafta" applies to all circumstances. This discussion underscores the supreme importance the Misva of Tefilin. While we are obligated to perform all the Misvot, there are certain Misvot that have more severe consequences than others. Therefore, one must insure that his Tefilin are Kosher. If one's Tefilin are invalid, he could put on Tefilin every day of his life and still, Has V'shalom, be considered "Karkafta D'la Manach Tefilin." To avoid this, he must buy the Tefilin from a reputable source and check them as mandated by the Halacha.

The Assuta Hospital in Ashdod does fabulous work. They've treated many of our injured soldiers that were injured in Gaza. When Rabbi Tzvi Goodman, the Rabbi of the Bet Chabad at the hospital told me that they lacked Rabbenu Tam tefillin, we took it upon ourselves to provide a brand new, super "mehudar" set. We presented it to them on Thursday, Nov. 21, 2024.

We are up to the pasuk of Tapuach Omer. What is the Tapuach ? For now I'll say Tapuach is apple , but we'll soon see a very big hiddush . תַּפּוּחַ אוֹמֵר. כְּתַפּוּחַ בַּעֲצֵי הַיַּעַר כֵּן דּוֹדִי בֵּין הַבָּנִים בְּצִלּוֹ חִמַּדְתִּי וְיָשַׁבְתִּי וּפִרְיוֹ מָתוֹק לְחִכִּי: (שיר השירים ב ג) Like the Tapuach in the forest, so too is My beloved, amongst the children. I coveted to sit in his shade and his fruit is sweet to my palate . What are we talking about? Rashi says it's a tree of tapuchim among non-fruit bearing trees in the forest (such as pine trees and the like) And everyone's very happy with this fruit tree that has a good smell and a good taste. That's what my beloved is. Hashem is the most choice of gods and therefore I want to sit in His shade. Furthermore, the Midrash says, according to Rashi, that the Tapuach tree doesn't have that much shade so people go away from it. So too, everybody else left God at Har Sinai- the goyim didn't want the Torah, and we did. We went under His shade, even though it might not be the most covered of shades. The Mabit adds that as we said before, even though the Tapuach doesn't have so much shade, we want to sit under it because there's a great smell and we're going to wait for the fruit to ripen and then eat it. So too, we say to Hashem, even right now we're in Galut and Your shade is not complete, we know that in the future Your shade will be complete; and Your fruit is sweet and it's worth waiting for. We're in this world waiting for Hashem, and we know that our reward will be in the world to come. That's the simple pshat of this pasuk. But the Gemara in Masechet Shabbat 88A says the Jewish people are compared to a Tapuach in that the fruit comes first and then the leaves, which is out of order. So too, the Jewish people said Na'aseh V'Nishma first we said we will do , then we will hear- so we are like the Tapuach ! But there are a few questions. Firstly, Rabbenu Tam and Tosafot say, That's not the way apple trees work , and says that this Tapuach refers to an Etrog . He cites a pasuk- וְרֵ֥יחַ אַפֵּ֖ךְ כַּתַּפּוּחִֽים You smell like the fragrance of Tapuachim which the Targum says is the smell of an Etrog , whose fruit comes before the leaves! **The timing of this is unplanned and really unbelievable. First our Erev Succot lesson mentioned the Lulav , and now today we are up to the Etrog ! How Hashem works that out is beyond me! ** The Tosafot asks a bomb question, if anyone was paying attention, the Tapuach B'Etzeh Hayaar was initially compared to God. So how can we now say that the Jewish people are compared to Etrog tree? The Nefesh HaChaim gives an unbelievable answer. He says that there's a rule that the way Hashem acts is dependent on the way we act down- that here arouses the way God acts. And therefore, he says, since the Jewish people act like the apple tree, Hashem reciprocates and acts that way with us. So if Hashem is the Etrog tree, that means that we, the Jewish people, are also like the Etrog tree. As we know, the Etrog refers to the sadik , and the Arba Minim refer to the four different types of Jewish people. And yet it says that the Arba minim also refer to the four letters of God's name. There's a famous Bet Yosef that brings down the following: It's not clear in halacha that when you hold the Lulav and Etrog, you have to hold them together. He quotes the story of a great rabbi who had a dream of another rabbi writing on a piece of paper, a yud and a hay and a vav , then left a space and wrote a hay at the other side of the page. He wondered why that rabbi did that in his dream. The next day was Succot, so he watched the rabbi and saw that he wasn't holding his Lulav and Etrog together. So the rabbi who had the dream explained that the four species correspond to the four letters of God's name, and by separating the Lulav from the Etrog, he was separating three letters of God's name from the fourth. Again, we could say, Make up your mind- do the four minim correspond to God or to the Jewish people ? And the answer, again, is both . When the Jewish people act like the four species of the Lulav and Etrog and praise God, God reciprocates with us with the four letters of His name of mercy and brings us all the blessing. Have a wonderful day.

Women light candles on both nights of Rosh Hashanah. On the second night, the candles must be lit only after nightfall, once the first day of the holiday has ended, as it is forbidden to make preparations on the first day of Yom Tob for the second day. The common custom is to wait until 40 minutes after sunset on the second night of Rosh Hashanah before lighting candles. There are those who, every Shabbat and Yom Tob, refrain from Melachot De'Orayta – activities proscribed by force of Torah law – until 72 minutes after sundown, in deference to the view of Rabbenu Tam (Rav Yaakob Tam, France, 1100-1171) that the day ends only at that point. Such people should wait until 72 minutes after sundown before lighting the candles on the second night of Yom Tob, because this, too, involves a Melacha forbidden by Torah law. (They may, however, heat food for the Yom Tob meal already 40 minutes after sundown.) Although kindling a flame is permitted on Yom Tob, this is allowed only from a preexisting flame; it is forbidden to create a new flame, such as by striking a match, on Yom Tob. It is therefore customary to light before Rosh Hashanah a flame that will remain kindled throughout Rosh Hashanah, so that one may light fire whenever it is needed. Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Israel, 1924-1998) ruled that it is forbidden on Yom Tob to create a flame even by placing a match on a hot surface, as kindling is allowed only from a preexisting flame. It is also forbidden to extinguish fire on Yom Tob, and therefore, after lighting the Yom Tob candles on the second night, the woman must put the candle or match with which she lit on a metal surface and allow it to extinguish by itself. The custom of women in our community is not to recite "She'hehiyanu" when lighting candles on Yom Tob, and to instead fulfill the requirement of "She'hehiyanu" by listening to its recitation at Kiddush. Summary: Candles should be lit on the second night of Rosh Hashanah no earlier than 40 minutes after sundown. Those who generally refrain from Melacha after Shabbat until 72 minutes after sundown (in deference to the view of Rabbenu Tam) should ensure not to light until this point on the second night of Yom Tob. The candles must be lit from a preexisting flame, and therefore one must ensure to light a long-lasting flame before Yom Tob. One may not extinguish a flame on Yom Tob, and so after lighting the Yom Tob candles on the second night, the woman must put the candle or match with which she lit on a metal surface and allow it to extinguish by itself.

The custom in many communities, including ours, is to allow reciting the Arbit prayer early, before sundown, during the summer months, especially on Friday night. How exactly does this work, and under what circumstances is this permitted? The primary source of this discussion is the Mishna in Masechet Berachot which brings a famous dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the other Sages in identifying the point at which one can no longer recite Minha, and can already recite Arbit. According to the majority opinion, this point is sundown. This means that one may recite Minha until sundown, and may not recite Arbit before sundown. Rabbi Yehuda, however, maintains that this transition occurs earlier, at the time known as Pelag Ha'minha. This view is more stringent in that it requires reciting Minha before Pelag Ha'minha, but more lenient in that it allows reciting Arbit already at Pelag Ha'minha. The Gemara, interestingly enough, concludes that one is able to choose which view to follow in this regard. If one wishes, he can follow the view permitting the recitation of Minha until sundown and requiring the recitation of Arbit after sundown, or the view requiring the recitation of Minha before Pelag Ha'minha and allowing the recitation of Arbit already at Pelag Ha'miha. The Shulhan Aruch brings the Gemara's conclusion as the Halacha (Orah Haim 233:1), but he adds that the custom is to follow the majority opinion, which permits reciting Minha until sunset, but requires reciting Arbit only from sunset. As such, the Shulhan Aruch writes, one should not recite Arbit before sunset, except in a She'at Ha'dahak – situations of dire need. Many communities, however, including ours, do not follow this custom mentioned by the Shulhan Aruch, and permit reciting Arbit before sundown. According to our custom, it is acceptable, even Le'hatehila (optimally), to recite Arbit before sundown, as long as it is recited after Pelag Ha'minha. The Mishna Berura (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin, 1839-1933) adds a crucially important point, noting that one must ensure not recite both Minha and Arbit in an inherently self-contradictory manner. If one recites both Minha and Arbit within the period between Pelag Ha'minha and sundown, then he is following neither Rabbi Yehuda nor the majority opinion. According to Rabbi Yehuda, he is reciting Minha later the final time for Minha, and according to the majority opinion, he is reciting Arbit before the earliest time for Arbit. Therefore, one who wishes to recite Arbit before sundown must ensure to recite Minha that day before Pelag Ha'minha. However, many synagogues – including synagogues in our community – have the practice of reciting both Minha and Arbit within the period between Pelag Ha'minha and sunset. This practice is based upon the custom mentioned by the Magen Abraham (Rav Abraham Gombiner, 1633-1683), who explains (233:6) that a synagogue is allowed to recite both prayers within this period, due to the concern that people would not return to the synagogue for Arbit. Since people might not return after sundown for Arbit, a special dispensation was made for congregations allowing them to recite both Minha and Arbit between Pelag Ha'minha and sundown, despite the inherent contradiction of such a practice. Significantly, Rav Yisrael Yaakov Algazi (Turkey-Jerusalem, 1680-1757), in his work Shalmeh Sibur, writes that this was the practice of the Arizal (Rav Yishak Luria, Safed, 1534-1572). This custom was also observed in Baghdad, as mentioned by the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim, 1833-1909), in Parashat Vayakhel (Shana Alef, 7). It must be emphasized, however, that this practice is acceptable only when praying together with a Minyan. If one prays privately, and he wishes to recite Arbit before sundown, he must ensure to recite Minha before Pelag Ha'miha. The Ben Ish Hai makes an exception for women, who, due to their obligations in the home, are very busy and thus less flexible when it comes to their prayer schedule. Just as Halacha permits a congregation to recite both Minha and Arbit in the period between Pelag Ha'minha and sunset due to the difficulty involved in forcing the congregants to return after sundown, the Ben Ish Hai similarly permits women to recite both prayers during this period. There is some discussion as to whether there is perhaps greater room for leniency on Friday afternoon. The Shulhan Aruch, who – as we saw earlier – generally discourages reciting Arbit before sunset, writes (267:2) that it is permissible to recite Arbit earlier on Friday night. The Magen Abraham explains this ruling based on the Gemara's teaching that the evening Arbit prayer corresponds to the placing of animal sacrifices on the altar in the Bet Ha'mikdash. Although no sacrifices were slaughtered in the Bet Ha'mikdash at night, the sacrifices which had been slaughtered during the day would be placed on the altar at night to be burned, and our evening Arbit service corresponds to that stage of the sacrificial offerings. On Friday night, however, it was forbidden in the Bet Ha'mikdash to place on the altar the sacrifices which had been slaughtered on Friday; this had to be done before sundown. Correspondingly, the Magen Abraham explains, we recite Arbit earlier on Friday evening than we do during the week. Would there be greater room for leniency on Friday according to our custom, which permits reciting Arbit before sundown even during the week, but requires when praying privately not to recite both Minha and Arbit in the period between Pelag Ha'minha and sunset? A number of Poskim cite the Peneh Yehoshua (Rav Yaakov Yehoshua Falk, Germany, 1680-1756) as claiming that one may, indeed, be lenient on Friday night, and recite both Minha and Arbit during this period, even when praying in private. He contends that on Friday night, once one accepts Shabbat, he establishes that Halachic "night" has begun. And thus, even if one recited Minha after Pelag Ha'minha, following the majority view, by accepting Shabbat he begins the nighttime even though the sun has not set, even according to the majority view. The Peneh Yehoshua's position is cited by the Magen Abraham, who writes that one should not rely on this leniency. However, the Aruch Ha'shulhan (Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein of Nevarduk, 1829-1908) writes (233:3) that one may, indeed, rely on this view, and recite Minha and Arbit between the period of Pelag Ha'minha and sundown on Friday night, even when praying privately. In practice, one should not rely on this leniency, and so if one prays privately, and he wishes to recite Arbit before sundown, even on Friday night, then he must recite Minha before Pelag Ha'minha. Rav Yisrael Bitan (contemporary) writes that an exception may be made if one forgot on Friday to recite Minha before Pelag Ha'minha, and forcing his family to wait for him to recite Arbit after sundown would cause a great deal of inconvenience, and thus compromise Shalom Bayit (marital harmony). In the summertime, waiting until sundown to recite Arbit on Friday night means delaying the meal until a very late hour, which could make the family unhappy, and therefore, in the interest in maintaining peace and joy in the home, one may rely on the Aruch Ha'shulhan's ruling if he forgot to recite Minha before Pelag Ha'minha on Friday. It must be emphasized that even though Arbit may be recited early, as discussed, the Torah obligation to recite the nighttime Shema may be fulfilled only after Set Ha'kochabim (nightfall), defined as either 72 minutes after sundown (according to Rabbenu Tam) or 40 minutes after sundown (according to the Geonim). Therefore, even when one is allowed to recite Arbit early, he must remember to repeat Shema later at night, after dark. This applies as well to Sefirat Ha'omer. Summary: According to our community's custom, one may, if he so wishes, recite Arbit before sundown, as early as Pelag Ha'minha. However, if one is praying privately, and he wishes to recite Arbit before sundown, he must ensure to recite Minha before Pelag Ha'minha. This is in contrast to a Minyan, which is permitted to recite both Minha and Arbit in between Pelag Ha'miha and sunset. Women may also recite Minha and Arbit within this period, if their schedules do not allow reciting Minha before Pelag Ha'minha. On Friday, if a man is praying privately and he forgot to recite Minha before Pelag Ha'minha, he may recite Arbit before sundown if waiting until sundown to begin Arbit would cause his family great inconvenience. It must be emphasized that if one recites Arbit before Set Ha'kochabim (nightfall), he must repeat Keriat Shema (and count the Omer) after Set Ha'kochabim.

In a year when Purim falls on Mosa'eh Shabbat, an interesting question arises concerning those who normally observe Shabbat until the time when it ends according to the view of Rabbenu Tam – seventy-two minutes after sundown. If the congregation ends Shabbat in accordance with the more widely-accepted view, forty-two minutes after sundown, and they read the Megila at that point, do those who normally wait until the time of Rabbenu Tam fulfill their obligation? According to their position, it is still Shabbat, and thus Purim has not yet begun. Seemingly, then, it is too early for them to fulfill the Misva of Megila reading. Rabbi Mazuz rules that people who follow Rabbenu Tam's view of the end of Shabbat may, indeed, fulfill their obligation by hearing the Megila reading before the time of Rabbenu Tam. He notes that the Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 692:4) cites a view allowing one to read the Megila as early as Pelag Ha'minha (approximately one and a quarter hours before sundown). This view is also cited in the Kaf Ha'haim (692:31). According to this view, it is certainly acceptable to hear the Megila forty-two minutes after sundown, even if one normally follows Rabbenu Tam's opinion that Shabbat ends a half-hour after that point, since it is certainly past Pelag Ha'minha, even according to Rabbenu Tam. And although the Sages enacted a prohibition against reading the Megila on Shabbat, this applies only to reading the Megila, not hearing the Megila. The one who reads the Megila in the synagogue is following the view that Shabbat has already ended, and those who follow Rabbenu Tam's view are only listening, which is not included in the prohibition against reading the Megila on Shabbat. Moreover, even according to Rabbenu Tam, forty-two minutes after sunset is within the period of Ben Ha'shemashot (the period between sunset and nightfall), and it is quite likely that the Sages did not extend their enactment to this period, and that it is thus permissible to read a Megila during Ben Ha'shemashot. Furthermore, most people who follow Rabbenu Tam's position concerning the end of Shabbat do so only as a "Humra," a measure of added stringency, while acknowledging that Halacha in truth follows the view of the Ge'onim, that Shabbat ends forty-two minutes after sundown. And many people who follow Rabbenu Tam's view refrain during this period only from acts that are prohibited on Shabbat by Torah law (as opposed to by force of Rabbinic enactment). They would not go so far as to insist on waiting until seventy-two minutes past sundown before hearing the Megila reading. Therefore, for all these reasons, Rabbi Mazuz rules that those who follow Rabbenu Tam's position may fulfill their obligation of Megila reading by hearing the reading on Mosa'eh Shabbat before the time of Rabbenu Tam. However, people who follow Rabbenu Tam's position should not read the Megila before the time of Rabbenu Tam; they may hear the Megila, but should not read it themselves until Shabbat ends according to Rabbenu Tam's view. Summary: When Purim falls on Mosa'eh Shabbat, and the congregation begins reading the Megila forty-two minutes after sundown, which is when Shabbat ends according to the commonly accepted view, even those who follow the later time for the end of Shabbat (the time of Rabbenu Tam) fulfill the Misva by hearing the reading.

The first real Hebrew dictionary, dissed by jealous rivals, used by Rashi and defended by Rabbenu Tam

If two parties are negotiating a transaction and approaching a final agreement, is it permissible for a third party to disrupt the negotiations by outbidding the prospective buyer? The Shulhan Aruch (Hoshen Mishpat 237:1) rules that if the negotiating parties have agreed upon a price for the transaction, then even if the deal has yet to be finalized, it is unethical for a third party to offer a higher bid. Once the negotiations have reached the point of a mutually-accepted price, it is deemed unethical for a different party to interfere by outbidding the prospective buyer. In fact, the Shulhan Aruch adds, a person who interferes with a deal once negotiations have reached this point is deemed a "Rasha" – a wicked person. If a third party does interfere and pays a higher sum, the transaction is legally binding (because the original deal was never finalized), but he has violated Halacha's ethical code. If, however, the negotiating parties had yet to reach an agreed-upon sum, and they had merely suggested various amounts without concluding upon a specific figure, then a third party is indeed entitled to interfere by offering a high price. Since the original parties have not even agreed upon any sum, and the negotiations had yet to progress beyond their incipient stages, Halacha does not deem it unethical for a third party to enter the fray with a higher bid. The Shulhan Aruch then cites an important ruling of Rabbenu Tam (grandson of Rashi, France, 1100-1171) who imposed a significant qualification upon this Halacha. In his view, the aforementioned regulations apply only if the commodity under negotiation can be reasonably found elsewhere. Since the third party can find other opportunities to acquire the desired asset with relative ease, it is deemed unethical for him to outbid another prospective buyer once that original buyer and the seller had agreed upon a price. If, however, the commodity in question cannot be easily obtained, then it is not deemed inappropriate for a third party to outbid a prospective buyer, even in the latter stages of negotiations. Consider, for example, the case of an exceptional employee with unique talents that works for a certain company. According to Rabbenu Tam, it is entirely permissible for a competing company to offer the employee a higher salary in order to solicit his services. Since this worker is of a unique caliber that cannot easily be found, no breach of ethics is entailed by winning his services through a higher wage. According to the first view, however, outbidding is forbidden even when dealing with a rare commodity, and hence a company may not "steal" a competitor's employee by offering higher pay. This debate will similarly affect a situation of prospective purchasers vying for a used car. If, for example, the car is nearly brand new and the owner, desperate for cash, offers it for an exceptionally low price, Rabbenu Tam would allow a person to offer a higher amount even after the seller had agreed upon a price with somebody else. Once again, since a person cannot expect to easily come upon such an opportunity – to purchase a new car for this low price – it is within his right to outbid his fellow even after the latter had agreed upon a price with the seller. In this instance, too, the first view would forbid outbidding the first prospective buyer, despite the fact that this opportunity will not likely present itself again. Given the difference of opinion in this regard and the confluence of factors involved in this Halacha, in all such cases one must consult with a competent Halachic authority for guidance. (Based upon Dayan Shlomo Cohen's work "Pure Money," pp. 93-95) Summary: If two negotiating parties have agreed upon a price for a given commodity, it is deemed unethical for a third party to interfere by offering a higher bid, even though the deal has not yet been finalized. According to some opinions, a third party may interfere with a higher bid (even after the original parties have agreed upon a sum) if the commodity cannot be easily found and this will likely represent his only opportunity to acquire the item. These Halachot apply as well to "stealing" employees by offering a higher wage. In all such cases, a competent Halachic authority must be consulted.

Shabbat is over when three medium stars appear in the sky. This is shortly after sunset, however the exact timing is a big debate among the rabbis. The timing also depends on the location. In Baghdad for example, the Ben Ish Hai (Rabbi Yosef Haim, Baghdad 1833-1869) writes that they would wait until 37 minutes after sunset. In Aleppo, they would wait until 35 minutes after sunset. These timings were unique to the Middle East where it got dark early. In New York and New Jersey where it gets dark later one should wait till 42 minutes after sunset. Hacham Obadia Yosef writes that one should try to follow the opinion of Rabbenu Tam (France, 1100-1171) to wait till 72 minutes after sunset. If one can't follow this opinion to refrain from all labor forbidden on Shabbat he should at least follow this opinion to refrain from labors which are forbidden biblically. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986) writes that in Europe where Rabbenu Tam lived it took longer for it to get dark. Accordingly, Rabbenu Tam's 72 minutes in New York time where it gets darker faster, would be equivalent to 50 minutes. Rabbi Shelomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1919-1995) writes that if one who follows Rabbenu Tam's opinion heard or said the Habdallah before this time he fulfills his obligation even though it is still Shabbat for him.

The poem Yatziv Pitgam, recited on the second day of Shavuot in connection with the haftarah, is an obscure but beautiful window into the religious world of medieval Ashkenaz, written by the great Tosafist, Rabbenu Tam. In this class we will read and unpack the poem in order to reflect on what it teaches about Shavuot, and on the intellectually rich but also tragic period in which it was written.

One should not learn Torah or eat a meal from a half-hour before the time for Hanukah candle lighting, until he lights the candles. Our community's practice is to light the candles around 15-20 minutes after sundown, and so one should not begin learning or eating a meal from around 15 minutes before sundown, which in New York City this time of year is around 4:15pm. Although eating a meal is forbidden during this time, it is permissible to eat less a Ke'besa of bread, and certainly to eat fruit or "Mezonot" foods. Moreover, if the father will be returning from work later in the evening, the family may eat supper before he arrives, and they do not have to wait for him to light candles. This is the ruling of Hacham Ovadia Yosef. A person who did not light at the preferred time – which, as mentioned, is 15-20 minutes after sunset, according to our custom – may light even later, even until daybreak, and he may even recite the Berachot. The only condition, however, is that there are people who will see the candles and thus "Pirsumeh Nisa" (publicizing the miracle) will take place. Therefore, if one lights at a time when the candles will be visible, either to people outside or to people inside the home, then he may light and recite the Berachot. If, however, a person arrives home very late at night, and there is nobody to see the candles, he must wake up members of his household so they can be present for the lighting, as otherwise he cannot recite the Berachot. Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Israel, 1924-1998) rules that two people besides the person lighting and besides his wife must be present for "Pirsumeh Nisa" to be achieved. These two people may be minors, as long as they have reached the age of training in Misvot. Therefore, in the case of a father who returns home very late at night, after everybody is asleep, and he has not yet lit Hanukah candles, he would need to wake up at least two children so he can light with the Berachot. Otherwise, he lights the candles without reciting the Berachot. Hacham Bension adds that if a person lives alone, and he arrives home late at night, he lights the Hanukah candles without a Beracha. It should be noted that different opinions exist as to the proper procedure a family should follow if the father cannot be home at the time of the Hanukah candle lighting. Hacham Bension was of the opinion that lighting at the proper time takes precedence over all other considerations. Thus, for example, he maintained that if a person would have to miss the Arbit service in the synagogue by lighting Hanukah candles on time, he should do so. Additionally, he writes, if the father would be returning from work later than the proper time for lighting, a family member should light at the proper time on his behalf. What's more, according to Hacham Bension, if all the family members will be out of the house at the time for lighting, they should appoint somebody else as their Shaliah ("messenger") to light in their home on their behalf at the proper time. Hacham Bension felt very strongly about the importance of lighting at the proper time, which, in his view, overrides all other considerations. Others, however, disagree, and maintain that since nowadays we in any event light indoors, we do not need to be that strict with regard to the preferred time for lighting. According to this opinion, a family may light candles when the father arrives home in the evening, even if this occurs later than the preferred time. According to all opinions, however, one should make an effort to light at the proper time, as stated by the Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles of Cracow, 1530-1572), in his glosses to the Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 672:2). If a person, for whatever reason, missed the lighting one night, he does not make up the missed lighting by lighting the next day, or by adding candles on the next night. However, a missed night of lighting has no impact at all on his obligation on the subsequent nights of Hanukah, and he lights as usual on each of the subsequent nights, with the Berachot. (Hanukah candle lighting differs from Sefirat Ha'omer, in that a missed day of counting prevents one from reciting the Beracha when he counts on subsequent nights.) Hacham Bension Abba Shaul writes that if a person missed a night of lighting and feels a desire to make up what he missed in some way, he can add some oil to the candles on the next night. Once a half-hour has passed since the lighting of the candles, one may, if he so wishes, blow out the candles, or benefit from the light. Although the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) ruled stringently in this regard, Hacham Ovadia followed the opinion of the Shulhan Aruch, that one may extinguish or benefit from the Hanukah candles after a half-hour. Additionally, after a half-hour one may derive personal benefit from the oil. If the candles were extinguished before a half-hour, one may not derive benefit from the oil, unless he had specifically stipulated before lighting the candles that he wishes to use the oil. Hacham Bension maintained that it is proper, as a measure of stringency, to have the candles burn for longer than a half-hour – specifically, until a half-hour after the time for lighting according to the view of Rabbenu Tam. The time for lighting according to Rabbenu Tam is around one hour later than the time we light the Hanukah candles, and thus following this stringency requires placing enough oil or using large enough wax candles to sustain the flame for an hour-and-a-half. Although this is not required according to the strict Halacha, nevertheless, given that oil and candles nowadays are not expensive, it would be worthwhile to observe this measure of stringency. Summary: One should not eat a meal with bread starting a half-hour before the time for lighting. However, if the family is waiting for the father to return home and light, they may eat supper in the meantime. Our custom is to light the Hanukah candles 15-20 minutes after sunset, and one should try to light at this time. One who did not light at this time may light anytime later, throughout the night, but if there aren't at least two people besides him and his wife who will see the candles, the Berachot are not recited. According to one opinion, if a person will not be home at the preferred time for lighting, another family member should light instead of him, or, if necessary, he should appoint somebody else to light in his home in his stead. Others disagree. After the candles have burned for a half-hour, one may extinguish the candles and make personal use of the oil, or make use of the light. It is preferable, though, as a measure of stringency, to have the candles lit for an hour-and-a-half.

Vayera | Who Were Those Three "Men"? by Rav Yitzchak Etshalom Who were the three visitors to Avraham?  Parashat Vayera opens with a familiar scene - Avraham's hospitality lavishly presented to three strangers, whom the text refers to as אנשים - "men". Yet, these three seem to know things that mortals shouldn't know and, at several points during the conversations which ensue, God's own voice is heard and He is entreated. Rashi has long provided the conventional understanding of this narrative, wherein the "men" are angels, acting like humans but endowed with special knowledge. Although Rashi is near the beginning of the exegetical chain here, there are numerous alternative ways to read the Parasha among the Rishonim. We study Rashbam's approach which apparently takes Rashi a step or two further - and then Rambam's understanding which almost completely reverses both Rashi and Rashbam. We conclude with a survey of the commentary of R. Yosef Bekhor Shor of Orleans, student of Rabbenu Tam. who stakes out a unique approach and alludes to the polemical motivation behind his ground-breaking commentary. Source sheet >>

A weekly shiur by Dayan Levi Yitzchok Raskin, Rov of Anash in London, explores interesting Torah questions and halachic dilemmas. The following issues are discussed by Dayan Raskin in this week's episode: 1)       Bread kneaded with beer instead of water, is it HaMoitzi or Mezonos? [1] 2)       I somehow managed to mix up my Tefilin, Rashi and Rabbenu Tam. Is the only solution to have a Sofer open them and confirm which is which?[2] 3)       Where there's no minyan present, is there a need for a Mechitza or separation between genders?[3] 4)       May I employ a Goy to walk my dog on Shabbos?[4] 5)       This Friday is Rosh Chodesh. If we begin our meal before sunset, should Yaale veYovoi be in included in bentsching?[5] 6)       Why is יהיו לרצון said twice at אלוקי נצור, once at the beginning and once at the end?[6]   Join Zoom Meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/9764852268 Index to previous Panorama Shiurim: Panorama Index 2 - Google Docs [1] בס' שערי הברכה פט"ז הערה קו מביא שדן בזה בשו"ת תפארת יוסף (פרעמישלא תרכ"ט) סי' יד. דיון זה קשור עם דין יין-צימוקים, אם יש לו דין יין. ובשו"ת צמח צדק (מהדורת תשע"ח: סי' כח) האריך בזה.  ובשו"ת האחרונים דנו לגבי מיץ-ענבים משוחזר. ולכאורה בנדו"ד, רק אם ללחם טעם חזק של בירה, אז הוי 'מזונות'. [2] ראה שוע"ר סי' לב סעיף סט. [3]  . [4] ראה שוע"ר סי' רנג ס"י.. [5] ראה שוע"ר סו"ס קפח. [6] ראה שוע"ר סי' קכג.

The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in Parashat Korah (9), discusses the situation of a milk or meat pot that had not been used in the past twenty-four hours (listen to audio recording for precise citation). When a person cooks meat in a pot, for example, the walls of the pot absorb the flavor of the meat, and therefore one may not cook milk in the pot, since the milk will then absorb the meat flavor from the walls. However, after twenty-four hours, the absorbed flavor becomes "Pagum," or spoiled, and loses its status as meat. Therefore, if a person mistakenly boiled milk in a meat pot that had not been used in the previous twenty-four hours, the milk is permissible for consumption. Since the meat flavor absorbed in the pot's walls has already spoiled, it does not render the milk forbidden.However, this Halacha applies only "Bedi'abad," meaning, after the fact. If a person mistakenly cooked milk in a meat pot, and the pot had not been used in the last twenty-four hours, then the milk is permissible. But one is not permitted to intentionally use such a pot for milk; it is only after the fact that the milk is permissible if it was mistakenly boiled in a meat pot twenty-four hours after the pot had been used.There is another opinion, that of Rashi (Rabbi Shelomo Yishaki of Troyes, France, 1040-1105) and Rabbenu Tam (France, 12th century), who held that absorbed flavor spoils after just twelve hours. Halacha does not follow this view; the Shulhan Aruch rules that, as mentioned, absorbed flavor is considered spoiled only twenty-four hours after the pot has been used. Nevertheless, Rashi and Rabbenu Tam's position becomes significant in a case where one is unsure how much time has passed since the pot was last used. If a person knows with certainty that a meat pot had not been used in twelve hours, but is unsure whether twenty-fours had passed, and he accidentally cooked milk in the pot, then the milk is permissible. This is a situation referred to in Halachic jargon as "Sefek Sefeka," or "double doubt." First, it is possible that twenty-four hours had passed since the pot had been used with meat, in which case the milk is permissible. And even if only twelve hours have passed, there is the possibility that Rashi and Rabbenu Tam were correct, that twelve hours suffices to render absorbed taste spoiled. In such a case, then, it would be permissible to drink the milk cooked in the meat pot.Summary: It is forbidden to cook milk in a pot that is used with meat (or vice versa). If one accidentally cooked milk in a meat pot, the milk may be eaten if the pot had not been used for twenty-four hours before the milk was cooked. Additionally, if one is unsure whether the pot had been used in the previous twenty-four hours, but he knows for certain that it had not been used in the previous twelve hours, then the milk is permissible. In all other instances, however, the milk is forbidden.

1) A man who has no sense of smell (Covid?) is reciting Havdolo; may he say the brocho over spices and his wife will enjoy the fragrance?[1] 2) In a moment of duress, someone committed to keep Shabbos until Rabbenu Tam's time. He now wishes to absolve that vow. Is that allowable?[2] 3) Someone asked a non-Jew to take a photo on Shabbos. May one use that photo?[3] 4) We don't have space to bury ‘Shaimos' in the cemetery. May we bury in the Shul yard?[4] 5) In several letters of the Rebbe, the obligation of Mezuza at a workplace is contingent upon whether the space is used for eating. What's the source for this position?[5] 6) May I gift my Shabbos-host a book on Shabbos?[6] (We're both within the Eruv). 7) What is our Minhag re. saying Kaddish at Shabbos Mincha, after leining?[7] 8) Feedback on walking in front of one reciting Shmoine Esrei: What about Kaddish?[8] 9) Follow-on from some weeks ago: Another explanation for the 23 or 25-minute margin for lighting candles for Shabbos:שעות זמניות . 10) What's the background to the changes in Haftorah [according to Minhag Chabad] for these two weeks? [1] מבואר בשוע"ר סי' רצז ס"ז שלא יברך. [2] במגן אברהם סי' תקנא סק"ז מבואר שבחומרא כדעת פוסק מסויים, אין מועיל התרת נדרים. נסמן בליקוט לש"פ תולדות. וע"ע כל נדרי פע"ו ס"י, וש"נ. וכל זה לבד מהדיון אם אפשר להתיר נדר שנעשה בעת צרה (ראה רמ"א יו"ד סי' רכח סמ"ה). [3] בס' ארחות שבת ח"ב פכ"ג סל"ז הביא בשם הגריש"א לאסור, כי לא שייך כאן "בכדי שיעשו". משא"כ בצלם של עיתון נכרי. [4] הגהות חתם סופר באו"ח סי' קנד. בכנסת יחזקאל יחזקאל סי' יד מגביל הקבורה למקום שאינו מדרס לבני אדם. בס' גנזי הקודש (פט"ו ס"ח) ממליץ לשולחם לLANDFILL. [5] אגרות קודש ח ע' לח; יג ע' ח; יז ע' ק. ראה שדי חמד ערך מזוזה (כרך ג ע' תקלא ואילך), דלא כט"ז יו"ד סי' רפו סק"י. [6] ראה שמירת שבת כהלכתה פכ"ט סכ"ט. [7] לשון ההוראה שבשולי 'סדור תהלת ה' השלם' מהדורת תשל"ח: מנהגנו - הש"ץ מתחיל לומר חצי קדיש קרוב לסוף הגלילה, ומאריך באמירתו באופן שיסיים אחר כניסת הס"ת לארון. אכן בשנים האחרונות חלו שינויים בכל זה, כי כאשר הזדמן לכ"ק אדמו"ר זי"ע יארצייט בשבת, הי' ממתין מלהתחיל הקדיש עד שיכניסו הספר־תורה אל ההיכל. ברם יתכן שאין לראות בזה שינוי דעת, כי אם שזה קשור עם שבאותה תקופה נהג כ"ק אדמו"ר זי"ע להתפלל מנחה תיכף אחר ההתוועדות, כאשר הוא נשאר במקומו שישב בזמן ההתוועדות ק' - באמצע ביהכ"נ, ולא הלך אל מקומו שבקידמת ביהכ"נ, ליד ארון הקודש[7]. גם שלחן הקריאה העמידו אז סמוך למקום מושב כ"ק. עקב כך, אילו היה מתחיל הקדיש בעת גלילת הס"ת (כבקדמת דנא), הרי עקב עומס הקהל, היתה החזרת הס"ת למקומו מתאחרת הרבה, אחרי גמר הקדיש. ולכן נאלץ לנהוג כמנהג העולם, להמתין ולהתחיל באמירת הקדיש עד החזרת הס"ת למקומו. ואם כנים הדברים, הרי אין ללמוד ממנו לגבי שאר דוכתי, ויש להמשיך במנהג רבותינו נשיאנו דמקדמת דנא, וכהוראת כ"ק אדמו"ר זי"ע, להתחיל הקדיש קרוב לסיום הגלילה וכו'. [8] ראה קצות השלחן סי' טז ס"ו.

As we enter the month of Elul . I always like to quote from the letter that was hanging in the great Yeshiva of Kelm, throughout the month of Elul. And this is what it says: It's well known that the Gemara Rosh Hashanah 34B says,“Say in front of God, verses of kingdom on Rosh Hashanah, in order to coronate Him” And he adds, “If we analyze the strength of a kingdom of flesh and blood, it only works when the servants are united in the service of the king. That's what keeps the kingdom going. If there is a breakdown in the unity of the servants of the king, the entire kingdom breaks down, and the world will be destroyed. As it says in Pirkei Avot (perek 3, Mishan 2 )”If not for the fear of government, man would swallow his friend up alive.” So if there's a breakdown in government, there's anarchy. The unity of the servants is what keeps the kingdom going. Rabbenu Tam, in his Sefer Yashar, writes that through the flesh and blood kingdoms, we can understand how to serve God. And if that's the case, we understand that the main point in coronating God upon us has to do with the unity of servants. As it says in Devarim 33, 5 (and as we say in our Rosh Hashana prayers), God is King amongst the Jewish people (and if the leaders are united then the tribes are united as well). God knows what's going on in our hearts, as well as what is revealed, equally. And therefore, before the great judgment day of Rosh Hashanah, we have to accept upon ourselves to involve ourselves the entire year in the positive commandment of VeAhavta LeRe'echa Kamocha. In that way. there'll be unity among the servants, the kingdom will stand properly, we will cause the strength of the kingdom and God will remember us for the good. But if, heaven forbid, we have the sin of hatred in our hearts, how can we not be embarrassed to lie in front of God- Heaven forbid, and say, “Be King upon the whole world in Your glory,” if we ourselves are not preparing the main fundamental to keep the kingdom going. Therefore, we should accept upon ourselves, this involvement in loving each other and unity. Slowly but surely, we will get better at it. And we'll be considered someone who is returning and repenting a little bit. Who could imagine the great merit for us, and the whole world, if there was a group of people involved, the entire upcoming year, in working on this trait . And a person should not say, “It's too hard..loving each other is too hard.” First of all, it's a commandment from God and we have to do it, but it's not as hard as it seems. If you keep on thinking about it, slowly but surely not only will it not be hard, you're going to enjoy it. This concept should not be removed from your consciousness the entire year. And with that, we'll all merit a great year, amongst the rest of the Jewish people. It's a good idea to set aside a spot during our prayers, to think about this every day. The suggested spot is when we say before our Amida Al sfat hayam , yahad kulam / On the sea, we, all together, said… That's an indication of love and brotherhood. And we said, “We all made God King upon ourselves.” That means the prerequisite to saying Hashem Yimloch L'Olam Va'ed/ Hashem will be King forever, is only if it's Yachad Kulam/ all together. Without that, it's not really accepting God is king. Therefore, we have to work on this constantly. We should merit, with God's help, to accept upon ourselves God's kingdom in the proper way, with all the Jewish people. Amen This is the beautiful letter that was hanging on the front door of the Yeshiva of Kelm, to be read by everybody, every single day. It would be a wonderful idea to print this out and insert it in your prayers every day, when you're thinking about it. That would be a great preparation for the high holidays.

The Torah in Parashat Emor (Vayikra 21:8), amidst its presentation of laws relevant to the Kohanim, commands, “Ve'kidashto Ki Et Lehem Elokecha Hu Makrib” – “You shall glorify him, for he offers the food of your G-d.” This command requires that we show honor to the Kohanim by granting a Kohen precedence. For example, a Kohen is called to the Torah for the first Aliya in the synagogue; a Kohen is allowed to enter a room first; and when food portions are distributed, the Kohen is invited to choose first. This command requires respecting all Kohanim, even Ba'aleh Mum – Kohanim with a physical blemish that disqualifies them from performing the Aboda (service in the Bet Ha'mikdash). The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that G-d commanded us to give honor to the Kohanim because a master receives honor when people honor those who serve him. When we give honor to the Kohanim, this reinforces our sense of awe and our respect for the Almighty Himself, as the Kohanim are honored due to their lofty position as G-d's ministers. If no Kohen is present in the synagogue, then a Yisrael is called to the Torah; there is no need to call a Levi for the first Aliya. If a Kohen is present but there is no Levi, then the Kohen who received the first Aliya receives also the second. A different Kohen is not called up, as people might mistakenly conclude that the first Kohen was discovered to not be a Kohen. A Kohen who is known to commit sins does not receive this special honor. As the Mishna teaches, a Torah scholar who is a Mamzer (the product of an incestuous or adulterous relationship) takes precedence over a Kohen who is ignorant in Torah. The Rambam writes that a Kohen does not have the right to decline the honor owed to him by force of this Misva. Since, as mentioned, the Kohanim are given honor as an expression of honor to G-d, the Kohen does not have the right to forego this honor. The command “Ve'kidashto” is understood as implying that a Kohen must be given respect even against his will. Later writers raised the question of how to reconcile the Rambam's ruling with the Gemara's comment in Masechet Gittin (59) that a Kohen may waive the right to lead the Zimun (the introduction to Birkat Ha'mazon). How is this allowed, if a Kohen may not decline the privileges owed to him? One answer given to this question revolves around the story told by the Mordechi (Rav Mordechai Ben Hillel, Germany, d. 1298) about Rabbenu Tam (France, 1100-1171), who allowed a student, who was a Kohen, to wash his hands for him. When he was asked why this was allowed, Rabbenu Tam replied that the command of “Ve'kidashto” applies only when the Kohanim wear their special garments, as they did in the times of the Bet Ha'mikdash. Nowadays, this obligation does not apply. The obvious problem with this theory is that we continue giving Kohanim the first Aliya in the synagogue, even today. When Rabbenu Tam was confronted with this question, he remained silent. Another student of Rabbenu Tam, named Rabbenu Peter, defended his mentor's position by explaining that nowadays, Kohanim have the right to decline honor. Accordingly, the Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, 1530-1572) rules (Orah Haim 128) that although one may not have a Kohen serve him, this is allowed nowadays if the Kohen waives his right to honor. The Taz (Rav David Segal, Poland, 1586-1667) explains that Rabbenu Tam's student was allowed to forego his honor because he received greater honor by washing his esteemed Rabbi's hands. Normally, a Kohen is not entitled to waive the privileges owed to him, but if a Kohen receives greater honor by foregoing, such as to have the opportunity to serve a distinguished figure, then this is allowed. Later writers add that this explains why Rabbenu Tam remained silent when he was asked why he allowed a Kohen to wash his hands. It would be arrogant on his part to say that his student received honor by being granted the privilege of washing his hands. He therefore gave the excuse that nowadays this Misva does not apply, when in truth, the reason this was allowed is because the Kohen received greater honor by serving his great Rabbi. Returning to the Rambam's ruling, then, it is possible that the Gemara in Masechet Gittin addressed a case where a Kohen received greater honor by inviting a distinguished person to lead the “Zimun.” Although a Kohen generally is not entitled to forego the honor owed to him, this is allowed in a situation where the Kohen enjoys greater honor by declining, and this was the case spoken of by the Gemara. This command applies in all times and all places, and to both men and women.

The Torah in the beginning of Parashat Emor (Vayikra 21:1) commands the Kohanim, “Le'nefesh Lo Yitama Be'amav” – that no Kohen is allowed to become “defiled” through contact with a human corpse. The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that as the Kohanim are chosen for the special role of ministering before G-d in the Bet Ha'mikdash, they are required to avoid Tum'at Met – the impurity caused by exposure to a dead body. This impurity is considered repulsive, and is the strictest form of Tum'a (impurity), and it is therefore not befitting a Kohen to be exposed to this form of impurity. The Sefer Ha'hinuch notes that although Kohanim are generally required to avoid Tum'at Met, an exception is made in the case of immediate family members. The Torah explicitly permits Kohanim to tend to the burial of immediate family members, even though they will then become Tameh. The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains this exception based on the general principle of “Deracheha Darcheh Noam” – that the Torah's “ways are ways of pleasantness.” The Torah acknowledges the human need to weep and grieve over a deceased family member, and so it did not apply the prohibition of “Tum'at Kohanim” to cases of immediate family members who passed away. The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that the Torah permits Kohanim “Le'hasbi'a Nafsham Be'bechi” – “to satiate themselves with weeping” over a deceased family member, recognizing that this is a basic human need which must be met. A human corpse transmits Tum'a in three ways. The first is “Maga” – direct physical contact. If a person touches any part of a human corpse – even a fingernail or tooth – with any part of his body – such as his hand, foot or tongue – he becomes Tameh. The second method is “Masa” – carrying a corpse, even if one does not directly touch it, such as if one carries a coffin or stretcher with a dead body. A form of “Masa” is “Heset” – causing a dead body to move without touching it, such as moving a rod when the other end is near a corpse, such that it causes the corpse to move. Another example is “Tum'at Bet Ha'setarim” – if a person carries a source of Tum'a under his arm, even though this does not qualify as “Maga” (because he touches the source of Tum'a with a part of the body that is normally concealed), he becomes Tameh. The third way by which one contracts Tum'at Met is “Ohel” (literally, “tent”) – by being under the same roof as a corpse. All people, utensils, foods and beverages that are under the same roof as a corpse become Tameh. Even if a person puts just his hand, or even just one finger, into the building where a corpse is situated, he becomes Tameh. One becomes Tameh even through contact with a portion of a corpse; a Ke'zayit of flesh from a human corpse suffices to transmit Tum'at Met. A complete limb (that is among the 248 limbs of the human body) transmits Tum'a even in a size smaller than a Ke'zayit. A piece of flesh or limb can transmit Tum'a in any of the aforementioned three methods – “Maga,” “Masa” and “Ohel.” Bones, too, can transmit Tum'at Met. There is some discussion among the Poskim as to whether the remains of a Sadik transmits Tum'at Met. One of the sources of this discussion is a famous comment in Tosafot (Ketubot 103b) that Rav Haim Kohen – a prominent Tosafist who was a Kohen – said that if he had been in the area of the funeral of his mentor, Rabbenu Tam (France, 1100-1171), he would have attended the funeral and involved himself in the burial. This might mean that in the view of Rav Haim Kohen, the remains of a Sadik do not emit Tum'a. However, some explain this remark based on the Halacha mentioned in the Talmud Yerushalmi that when a Nasi (head of the Sanhedrin) passes away, he is to be considered like a “Met Misva” – a deceased person with nobody to bury it. For a person of such stature, there will never be enough people to give him the respect he deserves, and therefore, just as a Kohen may bury a “Met Misva,” he may likewise attend the burial of a Nasi. Rav Haim Kohen may thus have felt that Rabbenu Tam, the leading sage of his generation, had the status of a Nasi, such that even Kohanim were bidden to attend his funeral. This command applies in all places and times, and to male Kohanim. A Kohen who comes in contact with the remains of a person who is not one of his immediate family members is liable to Malkut.

Kavod HaBeriot/Respect for Creations is something very important in the Torah, to the point that the Gemara tells us that in certain circumstances, Torah prohibitions are waived due to respect for people. One example that brings out the importance of Kavod HaBeriot is the following: A Koh en is not allowed to contaminate himself with the dead . When someone passes away, a kohen is not allowed to enter the funeral home, b ecause the re is a contamination of the dead that a Kohen has to stay away from . Ye t the Torah makes an exception for the Kohen 's seven close relatives. D ifferent reasons for this exception, are offered by different Rishonim. The Sefer Hinuch says that Hashem is understanding of human emotions, and because people are in extreme pain when a close relative passes away, to ask a kohen to stay away would be asking too much. Therefore the Torah allows it. The Ramban offers a different reaso n, citing a very interesting concept in the Gemara that when a Nasi/prince passes away, according to some opinions, a Kohen is allowed to go to the funeral. And furthermore, it's brought down in Tosafot that when a great rabbi, Rabbenu Tam passed away, one of the Kohan im, Rav Chaim Cohen said, “ If I would have been there at the time , I would have gone to the funeral. ” All the rabbis are bothered by th is . What does that mean? How c ould a Kohen go to the funeral, even for a great Rabbi? He is not allowed to contaminate himself with the d ead. The Ramban explains the concept of contaminating oneself to a prince , and also for the Met Mitzvah ( When someone passes away, and there is no one there to bury him, even a Kohen Gadol/ the high priest, has the right to contaminate himself to perform this mitzvah ) . The Gemara says, b ased on the understanding of the great rabbis, that it is because of Kavod HaBeriot/Respect for Creations. This man's body was lying there without anyone to bury him. That lack of respect for the human body with its Tselem Elokim, halachically r equires a K ohen to contaminate himself. And the Ramban says that the Kohen can contaminate himself for his seven c lose relatives for the same reason. It would be a lack of respect to the relative if his close ones were not there at the funeral. He takes it a step further and says that the prince deserves great honor at his funeral, and thus Kohanim can attend his funeral, in order to bring honor to the deceased. With that, they explain the T osafot about Rabbenu Tam's funeral as well. Although it is not for us today to decide who great rabbis are , u nder the circumstances then, Rabbi Chaim Cohen felt that he would be allowed to go to the funeral of this great Rabbi, out of respect for him. This is an unbelievable concept. As contaminated as the dead body is, and as improper as it is for a Kohen to have any connection to that contamination, out of respect for the deceased, the T orah itself allows this to happen. Of course , this does not mean that we are allowed to transgress sins in order to bring people respect. We can't drive to somebody's party on Shabbat out of respect. The re are guidelines. But it brings out how important it is to have respect for people, and certainly in case s in which there is no Halacha preventing it. If it means walking a great distance for somebody's affair on a Shabbat, or whatever it may be, going the extra mile falls under the concept of Kavod HaBeriot/Respect for Creations, w hich is a great Torah- sanctioned and recognized concept. Have a wonderful day.

Laws of Tefillin. Rabbenu Tam

Laws of Tefillin .Rabbenu Tam.

Laws of Tefillin .Rashi and Rabbenu Tam.

The Poskim discuss the Halachic status of "Massa Ashira," literally "Rich Massa," which is commonly referred to as Egg Massa. The Gemara clearly states that "Meh Perot"-fruit juice does not cause leavening. This is in contrast with water, which causes dough to become Hames after 18 minutes. Therefore, if one kneaded dough with "Meh Perot," which include pure fruit juice, wine, eggs, honey and oil, it will not become Hames, even if left all day. Even if the dough would begin to rise, it is not considered Hames. This is the understanding of the Rambam, Rif, Rosh and Rabbenu Tam, as well as Maran in Siman 462. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azoulai, 1724-1807) cites his grandfather, Rabbi Avraham Azulai who attests that the custom of Sepharadim is to eat "Massa Ashira" on Pesah. Ashkenazim have the custom that only elderly or infirm eat this Massa. Even according to the Sepharadic custom, "Massa Ashira" may not be used to fulfill the Misva of Massa on the Seder night. Only the basic Massa, comprised of flour and water alone, is considered "Lehem Oni"-the bread of affliction. The richer "Massa Ashira" does not meet this requirement. Since it is not fit for the Massa of the Misva, it would be permitted to eat on Ereb Pesah. The prohibition to eat Massa on Ereb Pesah only applies to Massa suitable for use on the Seder Night. Massa Ashira presents a challenge with regard to proper supervision. "Meh Perot" do not engender Hames, only when the dough is kneaded exclusively with them. If they are combined with even a minute amount of water, on the contrary, they expedite the leavening process, and the dough will become Hames in even less than 18 minutes. Therefore, the Hashgacha supervision must be exceedingly strict and cautious. There is also a question as to whether the water present in wine constitutes a problem. The Mishna Berura (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin, 1839-1933) rules that water added during the fermentation process is considered an integral part of the wine and does not cause Hames, whereas, water added later will expedite the leavening process.SUMMARYSepharadim may eat Massa Ashira on Pesach, if it has proper Kosher for Pesah supervision. It may not be used to fulfill the Misva of Massa on the Seder night.

There is a major disagreement between the Poskim regarding how many Berachot are recited before putting on Tefilin. Rabbenu Tam )R. Ya'akob b. Meir, 1100-1171, France) and the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, 1250-1327, Germany-Spain) rule that two Berachot are recited, one on the Shel Yad (Tefilin of the arm) and one for the Shel Rosh (Tefilin of the head). They hold that they are two distinct Misvot, requiring a separate Beracha on each. On the other hand, the Rif (Rabbi Yishak of Fez, Morocco, 1013-1103), as well as Rashi and Rambam disagree and hold that only one Beracha of "L'haniah Tefilin" is recited before the Shel Yad, and that covers both. Both sides bring a proof to their position from the same Gemara in Menahot. The Gemara states that if a person spoke in between putting on the Shel Yad and the Shel Rosh, he must make a Beracha on the Shel Rosh. From here, Rashi derives that one makes a special second Beracha on the Shel Rosh only if he spoke, but ordinarily there is only one Beracha. Rabbenu Tam interprets the Gemara in line with his position. He says that of course one always makes a Beracha on the Shel Rosh. The Gemara is saying that if he talks, he now has to make two Berachot on the Shel Rosh, since he interrupted the first Beracha made on the Shel Yad. There is disagreement as to what Rabbenu HaAri's opinion was. The Ben Ish Hai writes that the Arizal explained the reasoning for each opinion, but did not rule in favor of one practice. The Kaf HaHaim writes in SIman 25 that he has proof from Sha'ar HaKavanot that the Arizal held like Rashi and the Rif.This disagreement evolves into divergent practice between Ashkenazim and Sepharadim. The Sepharadim follow the opinion of the Rif and Rambam that only one Beracha is recited. The author of the She'elot U'Teshubot Min Hashamayim (Responsa from Heaven, Rabbi Ya'akob of Mirvish, d. 1243) would ask a Halachic question of the Heavens before going to sleep and would receive answers in his dream. When he asked whom to follow in this question, he saw the Pasuk "And I will establish my covenant with YISHAK." He understood from this that the Halacha is in accordance with the Rif-Rabbi YISHAK Alfasi. That is the accepted practice.The Bet Yosef cites the Rabbenu Ya'akob b. Habib who says that those who recite two Berachot should say, "Baruch Shem K'vod Malchuto L'Olam Va'ed" after the second Beracha. This is meant to alleviate the possibility that the second Beracha was said in vein. The Bet Yosef, after paying respect to this opinion, says that it is hard to understand. If the Ashkenazim have a genuine uncertainty whether to say the second Beracha, they must refrain from making the doubtful Beracha and not risk saying Hashem's name in vein. The Mishna Berura (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin, 1839-1933) answers that saying "Baruch Shem…" is just a Humra, and not really because of a doubt. There ae enough authorities to rely on who rule in favor of saying the second Beracha. Interestingly, saying "Baruch Shem…" became the accepted practice of the Ashkenazim.The Be'ur Halacha (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin, 1839-1933) cites Rabbi Akiva Eger (1761-1837) who suggests in his glosses to Shulhan Aruch a way for Ashkenazim to recite the second Beracha without entering a Halachic uncertainty. He says that they should say the first Beracha on the Shel Yad with explicit intent that it should NOT cover the Shel Rosh. The Peri Megadim objects to this solution, but does not explain why. The Be'ur Halacha explains that the Peri Megadim objected because it is changing a long standing Minhag (custom). For generations, Ashkenazim recited two Berachot on Tefilin and said "Baruch Shem…" If there was a better way to do it, the giants of the previous generations would have already done so.The Poskim discuss whether a Sepharadi may answer Amen to an Ashkenazi's second Beracha. Hacham Bension rules that there is no problem since it is a legitimate Beracha for the Ashkenazi reciting it. This ruling applies to other cases where an Ashkenazi recites a Beracha that Sepharadim do not, such as Hallel on Rosh Hodesh and a Beracha by women on the Lulav. It is important to note that this was also the opinion of Hacham Baruch, even though Hacham Ovadia disagreed. Hacham Ovadia held that any Beracha that one cannot make for himself is considered a Beracha L'vatala (in vein), and he should not answer Amen to someone else who makes that Beracha. According to him, one should not answer Amen to an Ashkenazi's second Beracha, nor to Hallel on Rosh Hodesh and a woman's Beracha on the Lulav.L'Ma'aseh, one can adopt a compromise suggested by Hacham Bension. He can avoid the issue altogether by synchronizing the end of the other person's Beracha with saying the Pasuk "Baruch Hashem L'Olam Amen v'AMEN," which ends with Amen. However, if one did not do so, he MAY answer Amen, in accordance with Hacham BaruchSUMMARYA Sepharadi may answer Amen to the second Beracha recited by an Ashkenazi on his Tefilin, as well as to all other Berachot which Ashkenazim recite, but Sepharadim do not.

Normally, when a Korban Minha (grain offering) is brought, olive oil and Lebona (frankincense) are added to the flour. An exception to this rule is the Minhat Hoteh – the Minha offering brought by a sinner to atone for his misdeed. In certain situations, the Torah prescribes a Minha – which is far less expensive than an animal sacrifice – for a sinner who is poor and cannot afford an animal. The Torah (Vayikra 5:11) commands that when this grain offering is brought, oil and Lebona must not be added. The Mishna in Masechet Menahot (59b) teaches, “Hayab Al Ha'shemen Bi'fneh Asmo Ve'al Ha'lebona Bi'fneh Asmah” – adding oil and Lebona to a Minhat Hoteh violates two separate commands, and the violator is thus liable to two separate sets of Malkut. The simple reading of this statement is that if one adds oil and then Lebona to a sinner's grain offering, he transgresses two prohibitions. This is, indeed, how Rashi and Tosafot understand the Mishna's comment. Rabbenu Tam (Rashi's grandson, France, 1100-1171), however, argued, noting that once oil has been added, the Minha is disqualified, such that adding Lebona cannot then be considered a forbidden act. Once the Minha is no longer valid, Rabbenu Tam contends, adding the Lebona is of no significance, and thus cannot violate the Biblical command. Rabbenu Tam therefore explains the Mishna differently, as referring to two separate Menahot – if a person added oil to one Minha and Lebona to another, he has committed two separate violations, and is liable to two sets of Malkut. The Gaon of Rogatchov (Rav Yosef Rosen, 1858-1936), in Sofnat Pa'ane'ach, notes a subtle nuance in the Rambam's formulations of these two prohibitions – against adding oil, and against adding Lebona. In discussing these prohibitions in his Sefer Ha'misvot (Lo Ta'aseh 102-103), the Rambam writes that “placing oil” on a Minhat Hoteh renders one liable to Malkut, but in regard to the Lebona, he writes that we are commanded “not to offer a Minha with Lebona.” Curiously, when it comes to the oil, the Rambam writes that the prohibition is violated when one places the oil on the Minha, but with regard to the Lebona, the prohibition is violated when one offers the Minha on the altar with Lebona. The Gaon of Rogatchov explains this distinction very simply, by noting that once oil is added to flour, it is absorbed and cannot then be removed. Frankincense, however, is dry, and can thus be removed after it is added to flour. Therefore, it is only once the Minha has been placed on the fire with the Lebona that the prohibition is violated, whereas one who adds oil to a Minha violates a prohibition immediately, because the act cannot be undone. The reason for the prohibition against adding Lebona to a Minhat Hoteh is the same reason why the Torah forbids adding oil, which has already been discussed (in Misva 125). As the Sefer Ha'hinuch explains, adding oil and spices is a sign of grandeur and stature, and one who has sinned and requires atonement must be humbled. Therefore, the Torah prescribed for him a simple, austere offering. Secondly, since the Minhat Hoteh is offered by a destitute pauper, who cannot afford an animal sacrifice, the Torah has compassion and does not require him to incur the additional expense of oil and frankincense.

The Gemara in Rosh Hashanah states that the transgression of not wearing Tefilin is in a special category of harshness. One who is not scrupulous to wear Tefilin is classified as "Karkafta D'la Manach Tefilin"-The scalp that does not don Tefilin and receives an extended sentence in Gehenom. Normally, the maximum sentence in Gehenom is twelve months. However, such a person stays in Gehenom until his soul is incinerated and his ashes are placed under the feet of the Saddikim. The Rishonim debate what degree of not wearing Tefilin constitutes this special category of "Karkafta D'la Manach Tefilin." The Rif interprets the Gemara to mean someone who never wore Tefilin even once in his life. This seems to be Rambam's opinion in Hilchot Teshuba. According to this opinion, if a person wore Tefilin even once, he is saved from being included in that category of sinners. The Rosh, however, questions the Rif's interpretation, because the Rif's text of the Gemara read "A scalp that NEVER wore Tefilin," whereas his text did not have the word "Never."On the other hand, Rabbenu Tam understands the Gemara to refer to one who does not wear Tefilin because he is repulsed by them. However, if he doesn't wear them because he feels that he is unworthy, he is not included in that category. For example he may be concerned that he cannot maintain a clean body or the proper intent. If that is his motivation, although he will be held accountable, he is not called a "Karkafta D'la Manach Tefilin."If someone does not wear Tefilin, because he is lazy, The Bach holds that he is considered "Karkafta D'la Manach Tefilin." If it would be important to him, he wouldn't be lazy, and therefore, it is considered a derision of Tefilin and included in Rabbenu Tam's definition. Therefore, one must insure that his children and grandchildren don't fall into this category and are diligent to put on Tefilin, even on vacation days, when sometimes them may be lax in this important Misva. On the other hand, the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1807) understood Rabbenu Tam to mean that only if one actively derides the Tefilin. Laziness is not included in that category. He brings a proof from one of Rabbenu Tam's students, Rabbi Eliezer of Metz, who clearly states that one who doesn't put on Tefilin because he is lazy, is punished, but is not considered "Karkafta…"The Bet Yosef understands from the Tur, who did not make any distinctions, that the category of "Karkafta" applies to all circumstances.This discussion underscores the supreme importance the Misva of Tefilin. While we are obligated to perform all the Misvot, there are certain Misvot that have more severe consequences than others. Therefore, one must insure that his Tefilin are Kosher. If one's Tefilin are invalid, he could put on Tefilin every day of his life and still, Has V'shalom, be considered "Karkafta D'la Manach Tefilin." To avoid this, he must buy the Tefilin from a reputable source and check them as mandated by the Halacha.

Session 33: Are We Really The Same? (Part 8) In this week's class, we will explore the next of the fifty-one (51) instances where Sepharadim and Ashkenazim differ in matters of Jewish practice, with a special focus on the Tefillin of Rashi and Rabbenu Tam (and featuring a letter from Rabbi Shalom Messas to Rabbi Yosef Peretz, father of Rabbi Yaakov Peretz!). (8/24/2021) This class is part of our newest series “Expanding Horizons: Refreshing Perspectives From Giants of Jewish Thought” at the Shiviti Bet Midrash UK, and is the seventeenth of a series in which we focus on the writings of Rabbi Shemtob Gaguine, utilizing them as a springboard to engage in important conversations which are relevant to our lives as modern, thinking Jews. — For source sheet, click here: https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqblpEa2phQ3ViZzl6S2hKYl9yU2VDYm9RWDFFZ3xBQ3Jtc0tsYm93cXpQd1J6R0ZYZEMyNW9vbjNDV2FtRXlya0NFbnlzXzhiSk42cnQ4eU83ZkpMZWw4RUpkcHRrNC1oRklNZkw1eGRsdWQteG5TOUpMbmV6WFRtazk5TlRNUm1QaWZ3TWx2Ukd4T0hicVpVazdOZw&q=https%3A%2F%2Fshiviti.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F12%2FKeter-Shem-Tov-3-1-30-Rabbi-Shemtob-Gaguine.pdf (https://shiviti.org/wp-content/upload...) https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqbjhWSGZtM255TW5tT29wZnlPSXI2TDExR195Z3xBQ3Jtc0tuaGNzbzJQUHBSSmI4ZzE3bGhvMTlxZ1U2YzVENXVNb0hXeVg4T0czNG1HV1gtUzZLZEVYUmNLUjB6QXRsTVJxa2JIaUkyall0MWVjcC1SRDVFdTV4NTZzdlpfREpWSVF2bk9BcjZJUi1relJVaVV2aw&q=https%3A%2F%2Fshiviti.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F07%2FKeter-Shem-Tov-1-349-352-Rabbi-Shemtob-Gaguine.pdf (https://shiviti.org/wp-content/upload...) — Google Classroom Please email info@shiviti.org with your request to join the Google Classroom. Please do not join the Classroom out of curiosity as inactive members will be removed. At this time, Google Classroom admission is prioritized for those actually living in the UK. — Shiviti's official YouTube channel! Subscribe for the newest audio and video coming out of Shiviti/Kehillat Shaar HaShamayim!

A Kohen is prohibited by Torah law from becoming Tameh (ritually impure) by coming in contact with a corpse. Even though most Kohanim today are already Tameh, nevertheless the Rambam and other authorities rule that they are not permitted to "add" more Tumah. However, The Ra'avad disagreed and held that there are no restrictions on a Kohen who is already Tameh.A Kohen is not only prohibited to touch a corpse, but also from being under the same roof with one, as well. This is called Tumat Ohel (Impurity under a Tent). Therefore, a Kohen must be careful not to enter a building in which there may be a corpse, such as a hospital or funeral home.Rabbenu Tam holds that any metal item, such a fork, knife or even a paper clip, that were under the same roof as a corpse, becomes Tameh to the same degree as the corpse itself. Accordingly, even if the corpse was removed from the building, any remaining metal items would prevent the Kohen from entering. This opinion would make it exceedingly difficult for a Kohen to enter any building. He could never be sure whether the metal items inside were ever under the same roof as a corpse. This position presents such a difficulty to Kohanim, that Rabbenu Tam's student, Rav Haim HaKohen, who was a Kohen, asked his master, "Ayeh Makom Menuhati?" (According to your opinion, where can I rest?). He, as well as Rambam and Ramban argue with Rabbenu Tam, and hold that the metal objects in the room do not have the same status as the corpse. The Rama (YD 369) cites both opinions and concludes that the custom is to be lenient. Hacham Ovadia (Hazon Ovadia, Hilchot Avelut, Vol. 2) ruled that Sepharadim are also lenient in this Halacha, even though Maran (YD 372) brings the stringent opinion of the Yera'im (Rabbi Eliezer of Metz). He reasons that there is a "Safek Sefekah" (Double Doubt) to justify being lenient. First, perhaps the Halacha is in accordance with the Rav Haim HaCohen and the other Rishonim who disagree with Rabbenu Tam. Second, even if the Halacha is like Rabbenu Tam, there is still the opinion of the Ra'avad, who holds that there is no restriction at all for Kohanim, who are already Tameh, to be exposed to corpses. Therefore, a Kohen may enter a building without concern whether the metal objects inside where in contact with a corpse.SUMMARYA Kohen may enter a building without concern whether the metal objects inside where in contact with a corpse.

Shulhan Aruch (Siman 18) discusses whether bedsheets with four corners are obligated in Sisit. Seemingly, the question is rooted in the Machloket between the Rambam and the Rosh as to what the Gemara means that a "nighttime garment" is exempt from Sisit. The Rambam understands that any garment worn at night is exempt, and therefore the sheets would be exempt at night. However, if one slept wrapped in them during the day, it could be a problem. According to the Rosh, as long as the garment is specifically made for night use, it is exempt even in the day. Therefore, since sheets are made for nighttime use, they would be exempt, even if one continued to sleep after daybreak. Maran rules that bedsheets are exempt from Sisit, seemingly ignoring the opinion of the Rambam. Some explain that he based his ruling on the Mordechi that says that covering oneself with a sheet does not constitute wearing a garment. Therefore, sheets are exempt, even according to the Rambam. Others explain, from the Eliyah Rabbah, that since he went to sleep at night, when the sheets were exempt, even if he awakens during the day, the sheets remain exempt. The exemption is based on the status of the garment at the beginning of the use. Therefore, even according to Rambam the sheets remain exempt.Some authorities follow the Magen Avraham (Rabbi Abraham Gombiner, Poland, 1637-1682) who ruled to round one of the corners of the sheet to avoid the problem altogether. He based himself on Rabbenu Tam who clearly stated that covering oneself is also considered wearing. Nevertheless, the Mishna Berura (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin, 1839-1933) and the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) understand that the Magen Avraham is referring only to sheets made of wool, which would potentially be obligated MiD’Oraita (By Torah Law). Most of our sheets are made of cotton, but the question would be regarding a wool blanket. Many times a person lies down on the couch on Shabbat afternoon and covers himself with a wool "throw" blanket. There are a number of reasons to be concerned: It is made of wool; it’s meant for daytime use and being used during the day; being covered constitutes wearing according to Rabbenu Tam. Therefore, the English Yalkut Yosef rules that one should round one of the corners.----People often ask when the earliest time for putting on a Tallit is. The Kaf HaHaim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939) writes in Siman 18:18 that the Minhag of Sepharadim in Yerushalayim is one hour before sunrise, which is equivalent to 12 minutes after dawn. These are standard times and apply equally in both the winter and the summer. Hacham Ovadia, following the Pri Megadim, is slightly more lenient and says that one can already don a Tallit six minutes after dawn. Sepharadim should follow one of these two opinions, whereas the Ashkenazim follow the Rema that one may even put the Tallit on at dawn. SUMMARYCotton bedsheets are exempt from Sisit. A wool throw-blanket is a potential issue and one of its corners should be rounded.The earliest time to don a Tallit is 12 minutes after dawn, or even six minutes after dawn

Aggadeta: Berachot 2b - A Thorough Reading Of A Brief Talmudic Passage - Class 29 Class highlights: Reading a brief passage in the Talmud; twilight is a like the blink of an eye; the life and commentary of "Haboneh", Rabbi Leon de Modena, and the greatness of HaKadosh Baruch Hu; the Ben Ish Hai and the soul of Benayahu Ben Yehoyada; the unique relationship between the wealthy and the poor, and it's connection to the sun and moon; homelessness in America; the wealthy shine when no one else cares; Rabbi David Nieto and his Triumph Of Poverty; Tzedakah increases peace and suppresses the Yetzer HaRah; the long-lasting effect Tzedakah and the donors to our Shiviti Studio; Rabbi Shalom Messas and HaKadosh Baruch Hu's time versus Rabbenu Tam's time; day and night refer to actions of Tzadikim and Resha'im; Rabbi Kook ties this to the argument between Rabbenu Bahya and the Re'avad regarding how many categories of actions exist in the world; Rabbi Yosef Kapach and the false understanding of "secular studies"; and more! (3/11/2021) — Tonight's Shiur is dedicated in merit of the Refuah Shelemah of Dr. Arthur Platt - Chaim Ozer Ben Leah. — The Shiviti Night Kollel has expanded with a unique Talmud Track! Join us as we delve into the non-Halachic segments of the Talmud, otherwise known as Aggadeta! — Google Classroom Please email info@shiviti.org if you wish to join the Google Classroom. Please do not join the Classroom out of curiosity as inactive members will be removed.

Pg. 78 siguiente --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/georgina-garza1/support

We look at the contradiction between the Gemaros in Pesachim and Shabbos and introduce Rabbenu Tam's resolution.

The 13 Attributes of Mercy are found after the incident of the Golden Calf, when God threatened to destroy the people of Israel rather than forgive them (Exod. 32:10). According to the Talmud, Moses felt that Israel's sin was so serious that there was no possibility of intercession on their behalf At this point, God appeared to Moses and taught him the 13 Attributes, saying: “Whenever Israel sins, let them recite this [the Thirteen Attributes] in its proper order and I will forgive them.” Thus this appeal to God's mercy reassures us that repentance is always possible and that God always awaits our return.” The 13 Attributes of Mercy are based on two verses in Exodus: “The Lord! The Lord! God, Compassionate and Gracious, Slow to anger and Abundant in Kindness and Truth, Preserver of kindness for thousands of generations, Forgiver of iniquity, willful sin, and error, and Who Cleanses (but does not cleanse completely, recalling the iniquity of parents upon children and grandchildren, to the third and fourth generations)” (34:6-7). The 13 Attributes of Mercy, according to the generally accepted opinions of Rabbenu Tam and Abudraham, are as follows: – The Lord! (Adonai)–God is merciful before a person sins! Even though aware that future evil lies dormant within him. – The Lord! (Adonai)–God is merciful after the sinner has gone astray. – God (El)–a name that denotes power as ruler over nature and humankind, indicating that God's mercy sometimes surpasses even the degree indicated by this name. – Compassionate (rahum)–God is filled with loving sympathy for human frailty does not put people into situations of extreme temptation, and eases the punishment of the guilty. – Gracious (v'hanun)–God shows mercy even to those who do not deserve it consoling the afflicted and raising up the oppressed. – Slow to anger (ereh apayim)–God gives the sinner ample time to reflect, improve, and repent. – Abundant in Kindness (v'rav hesed)–God is kind toward those who lack personal merits, providing more gifts and blessings than they deserve; if one's personal behavior is evenly balanced between virtue and sin, God tips the scales of justice toward the good. – Truth (v'emet)–God never reneges on His word to reward those who serve Him. – Preserver of kindness for thousands of generations (notzeir hesed la-alafim)–God remembers the deeds of the righteous for thebenefit of their less virtuous generations of offspring (thus we constantly invoke the merit of the Patriarchs). – Forgiver of iniquity (nosei avon)–God forgives intentional sin resulting from an evil disposition, as long as the sinner repents. – Forgiver of willful sin (pesha)–God allows even those who commit a sin with the malicious intent of rebelling against and angering Him the opportunity to repent. – Forgiver of error (v'hata'ah)–God forgives a sin committed out of carelessness, thoughtlessness, or apathy. – Who cleanses (v'nakeh)–God is merciful, gracious, and forgiving, wiping away the sins of those who truly repent; however, if one does not repent, God does not cleanse.

Switching Rabbenu Tam to Rashi? Apr 23, 2015

When Is The Best Time To Wear Rabbenu Tam May 26, 2014

Can A Sofer Who Doesn't Wear Rabbenu Tam Tefilin Write Them? May 15, 2014