Podcasts about Rashba

We are joined by Rabbi Daniel Korobkin, medieval scholar and the translator/annotator of the Feldheim edition of Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi's Kuzari, who takes us into the story of a community in arms over whether and when to permit the study of secular knowledge. By looking at several responsa of the Rashba (1:415-417; Kisvei Yad no. 150) we get a glimpse into the age old question of how Judaism ought to interact with the broader world around it. 

Grains for Matzah [Part 1]: Chimutz while attached to the ground; Rashba; Wheat growth (color, moisture); BBCH Stages 89 and 92; Harvest; Understanding Rashba. See seforim by Rabbi Cohen at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.kashrushalacha.com⁠

Gittin Shiur #47 Daf 4a- Mezuyaf Mitocho, Rashba Rif and Tosfos

Gittin Shiur #38 Daf 3b- Ksav Yado, Rashi Tosfos Ramban Rashba

The accepted custom is to recite the Beracha of "She'ha'kol" over coffee, and this is, of course, the Halacha. Interestingly, however, there is considerable discussion among the Poskim as to why this should be the case. The Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, 1250-1327) was of the opinion that if a fruit is boiled, the Beracha over the liquid is "Ha'etz," like the fruit itself. Seemingly, this should apply to coffee, which is produced by boiling coffee beans that grow on trees. And even the Rashba (Rav Shlomo Ben Aderet of Barcelona, 1235-1310), who disputes the Rosh's ruling, concedes that if this is the primary use of the fruit – to boil it and drink the liquid – then the Beracha over the liquid is "Ha'etz." Clearly, the primary method of consuming coffee beans is by producing coffee, and so even according to the Rashba, there is reason to believe that the Beracha over coffee should be "Ha'etz." As mentioned, common practice is to recite "She'ha'kol" over coffee, but the Poskim establish that the possibility of the proper Beracha being "Ha'etz" has certain implications. Namely, if a person mistakenly recited "Boreh Peri Ha'etz" over a cup of coffee, he has fulfilled his obligation, and does not then recite "She'ha'kol." Hacham Ovadia Yosef added that this is true also if one mistakenly recited "Ha'adama" over coffee. He brought a view that a tree which produces fruit already within its first year does not have the Halachic status of a "tree" with respect to Berachot, and thus the Beracha over its fruit is "Ha'adama," and not "Ha'etz." The coffee bean tree produces the beans within its first year, and so there is room to argue that the Beracha over coffee is "Ha'adama." Therefore, if one recited "Ha'adama" over a cup of coffee, he has fulfilled his obligation and does not then recite "She'ha'kol." Another practical application of this discussion is a case of one who eats a fruit together with coffee, as often happens at dessert. If one recites "Ha'etz" over the fruit before drinking the coffee, then the coffee might be covered by this Beracha, and, as such, one would not then recite "She'ha'kol" over the coffee, given the uncertainty as to whether it still requires a Beracha. Therefore, Hacham Ovadia Yosef advised that if one eats a fruit with coffee, he should have specific intention while reciting the Beracha over the fruit that the Beracha should not cover the coffee. If he does not have this intention, then he does not then recite a Beracha over the coffee, as the coffee might have been covered by the Beracha recited over the fruit. This discussion demonstrates that when it comes to Berachot, we must be aware not only of which Beracha should be recited over a given food item, but also which Berachot would cover the food after the fact if they are recited, as this, too, is a significant factor in regard to the Halachot of Berachot. Summary: Although it is accepted to recite "She'ha'kol" over coffee, it could be argued that the proper Beracha is "Ha'etz." Therefore, if one mistakenly recited "Ha'etz" over coffee, he does not then recite "She'ha'kol." And, if one is eating a fruit with his coffee, he should have specific intention that the Beracha recited over the fruit does not cover the coffee, and if he does not have this intention, he does not then recite a Beracha over the coffee.

Gittin Shiur #11 Daf 2a- Sikum of Tosfos, Ramban, Rashba

¿Qué tan lejos ha llegado el extremismo sobre el contacto físico en el judaísmo? ¿Está realmente prohibido que un hombre judío toque a una mujer que no es su esposa, incluso para un simple saludo? Hoy nos sumergimos en la halajá y exploramos qué dicen la Torá y las fuentes rabínicas sobre este tema, desafiando algunas creencias arraigadas. ¿Será verdad que no podemos ni siquiera darnos la mano? ¡Descúbrelo en este episodio de Judaísmo Picante! Fuentes: Rab David Golinkin; Torá; Tanaj; Ervah; Arayot (Levítico 18); Niddah; Midrash Tanaítico (Sifra, Ajarei Mot 13:2); Levítico 18:6; Levítico 18:19; Najmánides; Deuteronomio 22:14; Isaías 8:3; Levítico 20:16; Ketubot 17a; Rashi; Kiddushin 81b-82a; Shmuel; Shabat 13a; Avodah Zarah 17a; Génesis 29:11; Génesis Rabbah 70:12; Yerushalmi Sotah 3:1, fol. 18c; Números 5:25; Mishná Sotah 3:1; Rab J. Simcha Cohen; Tosafot a Kiddushin 82a; Ritba (Jidushim a Kiddushin 81b); Rema en Even Ha'ezer 21:5; Rabí Shmuel b”r Baruch; Mordejai; Rabí Yosef Caro; Rashba; Rabí Yehonatan Eibeschitz; Rabí Yosef Steinhart; Rabí Ovadia Yosef; Rabí Yitzhak Yosef; Prof. Baruch Levine; Éxodo Rabbah 16:2; Sefer Hassidim; Rabbeinu Yonah Gerondi; Igeret Hateshuvah; Sha'arei Teshuvah; Sefer Hayirah; Rabí Ya'akov Ben Asher (Ba'al Haturim al Hatorah); Testamento Ético de Eliezer ben Shemuel Halevi; Shulján Aruj; Aruj Hashulján; Aseh Lekha Rav, Jerusalén, 2019. Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/6l3kxIeAgGavsMSvEKDnzd Instagram: /pasionygratitud ¡Te invitamos a suscribirte y dejar tus comentarios! El Rab Diego lee personalmente cada uno de los mensajes.

0:00 General Introduction 4:22 General Sources On Agadah 7:30 Who was Rabbah Bar Bar Chana 8:19 Attacks on Agadah Gemarah throughout history 11:00 Did they actually happen? 15:50 Nevuah or Dream 17:50 Comic Relief; Wake Up The Audience. 18:40 Derech Guzmah and Not Literal 20:15 Kuzari's Approach 20:40 Ramban In His Famous Debate 21:51 Shelah; Deeper Meaning to Agadah 25:40 Rambam; Planned Work on Agadah 27:33 Rashba's Approach 29:35 R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's Approach 34:05 Literature devoted to Rabbah Bar Bar Chana 37:49 Darchei Noam 39:50 R' Boskovitz 42:34 Gra's work 46;00 R' Eliyahu Gutmacher's

The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 263) rules (based on the Rashba) that if a person accepted Shabbat early, before sunset – as one is supposed to do – he is allowed to ask another Jew, who has not accepted Shabbat, to perform Melacha on his behalf. As long as the sun has not yet set, one who has accepted Shabbat may have somebody else perform Melacha for him, even though he himself obviously may not perform Melacha, as he has accepted Shabbat. Since the other person has not yet accepted Shabbat, and the person who had accepted Shabbat would be allowed to perform Melacha were it not for his decision to accept Shabbat early, he may ask somebody else to perform Melacha which he needs to be done. One example of this Halacha is a case where a woman needs to go to the Mikveh on Friday night. She may light the Shabbat candles and accept Shabbat, and then her husband can drive her to the Mikveh. As long as she does not open doors or perform any other action that activates lights or electronic devices, she may have her husband drive her to the Mikveh. Conversely, if the husband accepted Shabbat and the wife has not yet accepted Shabbat, she may drive him to the synagogue. Likewise, if the husband accepted Shabbat and prayed in the synagogue before sundown, as many men do in the summertime, and he comes home before his wife lit candles and accepted Shabbat, he may ask his wife to turn on a light, turn on the air conditioner, or perform other activities involving Melacha. This is the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, as discussed by Rabbi Moshe Halevi (Israel, 1961-2001) in his Menuhat Ahaba (vol. 1, p. 111; listen to audio recording for precise citation). Summary: One who accepts Shabbat before sundown may ask another Jew who had not yet accepted Shabbat to perform Melacha on his behalf, such as to turn on a light or air conditioner, as long as the sun has not yet set.

In the 1200s Spanish Jewry faced great challenges within the community including Murder, Immorality & Defection.   This was exacerbated by dangerous teachings within Kabbalah which had to be rooted out by the Rashba and banned. But 700 years later a pathway was found to Redemption.    Chapters 00:00 Challenges of 13th-Century Spain: Tensions, Wealth, and Power 03:06 Controversies in Jewish Scholarship: Philosophy and Kabbalah 08:20 Internal Conflicts and Legal Authority 15:03 Religious Challenges and the Ban on Philosophy 26:50 The Legacy of Rabbi Avraham Abulafia 48:26 Kabbalistic Techniques and Mathematics

Shabbos Shiur #109 Daf 102b- Rashba Ran, Shover es Hachovis

The Gemara in Masechet Shabbat (42) establishes a Halachic equation between hot liquid inside a Keli Rishon – the original utensil in which something was cooked – and hot liquid poured from a Keli Rishon (called "Iruy Keli Rishon"). Namely, as far as the laws of Shabbat are concerned, both liquid inside a Keli Rishon and liquid poured directly from a Keli Rishon have the capacity to "cook" a raw, solid food item. Whether a person places a raw food inside hot water in a pot or if he pours hot water directly from an urn or pot onto raw food, he has transgressed the Torah prohibition of cooking on Shabbat. The Rishonim (Medieval Halachic scholars) debate the question of whether or not this Halacha, equating liquid inside a Keli Rishon with liquids poured from a Keli Rishon, applies to pouring on liquids, as well. A number of Rishonim, including the Rashba, Ran and Rambam, rule leniently in this regard, and allow one to pour hot liquid directly from a Keli Rishon onto cold liquid. According to this view, it would be permissible to heat cold water on Shabbat by pouring hot water into it directly from an urn. Tosefot (Talmudic commentaries by the French and German scholars), however, forbid doing so unless one adds less hot water than the amount of cold water in the cup. In their view, one may add a small amount of hot water from a Keli Rishon into a larger amount of cold water, but it is forbidden to add a large amount of hot water into a smaller amount of cold water. The Shulhan Aruch accepts the lenient position, which allows pouring hot liquid from a Keli Rishon onto cold liquid under all circumstances. Many other authorities, however, including the Ben Ish Hai, Kaf Ha'haim, Rabbi Moshe Halevi and Hacham Ovadia Yosef, accept the stringent ruling of Tosefot. In their view, since we deal here with a potential Torah violation, we must concern ourselves with the stringent position. Therefore, one may not add hot liquid directly from a Keli Rishon onto cold liquid, unless the cold liquid will constitute the majority of the resultant mixture. The exception to this rule is a case where the liquid had been previously cooked, such as if one has a cup of hot tea or coffee that has cooled, and he wishes to add hot water. According to some views, liquid that has been cooked is no longer subject to the prohibition of cooking on Shabbat even after it has completely cooled. Therefore, this situation is one of a "Sefek Sefeka," or "double doubt." The first doubt is whether or not this liquid is subject to "cooking" in the Halachic sense at all, as it had already been cooked, and the second is whether or not pouring onto liquid from a Keli Rishon constitutes cooking. In such a case, then, one may be lenient and add even a significant amount of hot water from a Keli Rishon – such as an urn – into one's tea or coffee. If, however, the liquid in one's cup had never been previously cooked, he may add hot liquid only if the added hot liquid constitutes the minority of the mixture. Summary: One may not add hot liquid directly from a pot or an urn onto raw solid food. One may add hot liquid directly onto cold liquid if the cold liquid had previously been cooked (such as hot tea or coffee that has cooled), or if the amount of hot liquid added is less than the amount of cold liquid in the cup.

Shabbos Shiur #97 Daf 9a- Rashba Eiruvin 9a

Shabbos Shiur #95 Daf 9a- Rashi Tosfos Rashba Eiruvin 9a

Shabbos Shiur #96 Daf 9a- Rashba Milchamos Eiruvin 9a

** Go to www.iTorah.com and click on ‘Matanot La'evyonim' to fulfill the misva of giving to the needy on Purim, and have Rabbi Eli Mansour distribute the funds for you. ** The obligation of Mishlo'ah Manot on Purim requires sending at least two food items to at least one person. Does one fulfill the obligation if one of the two food items he sends is a beverage? For example, if a person sends his friend a cake and a bottle of wine, does he fulfill the Misva of Mishlo'ah Manot with this package? A number of Halachic authorities infer the answer to this question from a story told in the Gemara, in Masechet Megila, about Rabbi Yehuda Nesi'a. Rabbi Yehuda sent a piece of meat and a barrel of wine to Rabbi Oshe'aya, and upon receiving the gift, Rabbi Oshe'aya sent a message to Rabbi Yehuda congratulating him on fulfilling the Misva of Mishlo'ah Manot. Several commentators raise the question of what information the Gemara sought to convey by relating this story, and they explain that this incident demonstrates that a beverage – such as wine – is considered a food with respect to the obligation of Mishlo'ah Manot. Accordingly, one can fulfill the Misva by sending a food and a beverage for Mishlo'ah Manot, or, for that matter, by sending two different beverages. This is the ruling of the Seror Ha'haim (a work by Rav Haim Ben Shemuel, a disciple of the Rashba), as well as of Rav Yisrael Nijara (1530-1600), based on the ruling of the Terumat Hadeshen (Rav Yisrael Isserlin, 1390-1460). This is also the view accepted by the Mishna Berura (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin, 1839-1933). However, there is a discrepancy between different texts of the aforementioned passage in the Gemara. According to some versions, Rabbi Oshe'aya said to Rabbi Yehuda that through his gift he fulfilled the Misva of Matanot La'ebyonim (sending gifts to the poor on Purim), not the Misva of Mishlo'ah Manot. Rabbi Yehuda thereupon sent an additional piece of meat, and Rabbi Oshe'aya then sent the message that he has fulfilled the obligation of Mishlo'ah Manot. According to this version, then, one does not fulfill the Misva by sending beverages. As for the final Halacha, one may, strictly speaking, follow the lenient position and include a beverage as one of the two items sent as Mishlo'ah Manot. However, given the importance of this very special Misva, it is proper to ensure that at least one Mishlo'ah Manot package given on Purim should include at least two dry food items, in order to fulfill the obligation according to all opinions. Summary: The Misva of Mishlo'ah Manot requires sending at least two food items to at least one person. Strictly speaking, beverages count as one food or even as both food items. Nevertheless, it is proper to send at least one Mishlo'ah Manot package that contains at least two dry food items.

One of the thirty-nine Melachot (categories of forbidden activity) that apply on Shabbat is the prohibition of "Tohen," grinding. In light of this prohibition, the question arises as to whether one may cut vegetables into small pieces for a salad on Shabbat. For example, many people prepare "Israeli salad" by cutting fine pieces of cucumbers and tomatoes. Would this be permissible on Shabbat, or does this violate the prohibition of "Tohen"? The Shulhan Aruch writes, "It is forbidden to cut vegetables very fine." According to the Shulhan Aruch, it seems, there is no basis for allowing the slicing of vegetables into small pieces on Shabbat, and one must make the pieces bigger than he normally does when cutting vegetables on Shabbat. However, in his Bet Yosef, Maran (author of the Shulhan Aruch) cites the ruling of the Rashba (Rabbi Shelomo Ben Aderet or Barcelona, 1235-1310) that one may slice vegetables into small pieces shortly before the meal in which they will be served. The Rashba draws a comparison between the prohibition of "Tohen" and the prohibition of "Borer" (separating undesirable items from desirable items). He writes that just as Halacha permits separating undesirable food from desirable food in preparation for a meal that will soon be served, similarly, one may slice vegetables in close proximity to the meal. Maran, after citing this ruling, notes that no authorities disputed the Rashba's position. One might therefore argue that when the Shulhan Aruch codified the prohibition against finely cutting vegetables on Shabbat, he relied on his comments in the Bet Yosef permitting doing so shortly before the meal. He forbade cutting small pieces only when one cuts them for later on Shabbat, but allowed cutting small pieces while preparing for a meal that will soon be served, within a half-hour or so of the meal. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) observed that the prevalent practice in Baghdad followed this lenient reading of the Shulhan Aruch's ruling. Hacham Ben Sion Abba Shaul (Israel, 1923-1998), however, disagreed with this reading. In his work Or Le'sion (both in vol. 1 and in vol. 2), he contended that since the Shulhan Aruch made no mention of this stipulation, we must assume that he forbade finely slicing vegetables on Shabbat under all circumstances, even just prior to the meal. According to Hacham Ben Sion, one who wants to cut vegetables into small pieces on Shabbat may do so only if he deviates from his normal manner of slicing. For example, if he normally cuts vegetables on a cutting board, he should cut them on Shabbat directly on the counter. As for the final Halacha, Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in his work Halichot Olam, follows the lenient position, and allows one to cut vegetables into small pieces on Shabbat shortly before the meal at which they will be served. He adds that one who wishes to act stringently to satisfy all opinions "is worthy of blessing," but those who wish to be lenient certainly have a legitimate Halachic basis on which to rely. Summary: One who wishes to cut vegetables into small pieces on Shabbat may do so if he deviates from the normal manner of cutting (like cutting on the counter, instead of a cutting board), or if he cuts pieces that are larger than the pieces he normally cuts. According to many authorities, one may cut vegetables normally into very small pieces if he does so shortly before the meal at which they will be served, and one may rely on this ruling.

HaRav Simcha Cook discusses a fundamental machlokes between Rambam, Tosfsos and Rashba regarding the obligation of chinuch, and comes out with a very important yesod about how we should make yiddishkeit exciting for our children.

Wake up each morning with purpose and embrace the sanctity of the day ahead. Our latest episode delves into the ancient Jewish tradition of 'netilas yadayim', a morning ritual that symbolizes spiritual readiness and echoes the practices of the Kohanim in the Mishkan. Through the lens of the Rashba, the revered medieval commentator, we examine the profound impact this custom has on infusing our daily lives with a sense of divine service. Just as the Kohanim meticulously prepared themselves with a sacred washing of the hands, we too can start our days with an act that sets the stage for living a life interwoven with the spiritual values of the Torah.Feel the joy and responsibility that comes with each sunrise as we discuss the Ramban's insightful commentary on how these rituals can cultivate a life of meaning. Our conversations are not just about tradition; they're about living with intention. By considering our role akin to that of the Kohanim, we challenge ourselves to let the teachings of the Torah permeate every corner of our existence. Whether you're looking to deepen your spiritual practice or simply seeking a more purposeful start to your day, this episode promises to offer a powerful perspective on how the actions of our mornings can echo throughout our lives.Support the showJoin the WhatsApp community for daily motivational Torah content! JOIN HERE ---------------- SUBSCRIBE to The Weekly Parsha for an insightful weekly shiur on the Parsha of the week. Listen on Spotify or the new Jewish music and Podcast streaming platform 24six! Access all Torah talks and listen to featured episodes on our new website, themotivationcongregation.org ---------------- Questions or Comments? Please email me @ michaelbrooke97@gmail.com

Shabbos Shiur #77 Daf 8a- Rav Chaim - Taz, Rashba

התוכן ישנם הטוענים [בקשר למבצעים וכו'] "היתכן" שעושים מהתורה ספר רפואה או בטחון?! "היתכן" לומר שמ"ש [בסיום שישי דפ' משפטים] שאם יקיימו תומ"צ אז "והסרתי מחלה מקרבך", שהכוונה כפשוטה! הרי "מה הקשר" בין קיום תומ"צ לרפואה?! או "היתכן" לומר שמ"ש בתורה שהעולם נברא בששה ימים, שהכוונה כפשוטה! הרי "התורה לא מתעסקת בעניני בריאת העולם"! הכוונה לשש תקופות וכיו"ב... יש לדעת האמת ש"אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו" (חוץ מאותם מקומות שהתורה אומרת שהכוונה לדרוש וכיו"ב). וידוע מ"ש הרמב"ם והרשב"א בנוגע לאלו שאומרים שמ"ש בתורה אינו כפשוטו. וכן מ"ש בזהר בנוגע לאלו שאומרים שיש ענינים בתורה, כמו "אחות לוטן תמנע", שהם "סתם סיפורים" רח"ל. וכן בעניננו: התורה אינה "ספר רפואה", אבל ביחד עם זה, מ"ש בתורה שקיום תומ"צ הוא "רפואה" – "והסירתי מחלה מקרבך" – ה"ה אמת כפשוטו! משיחת כ"ף מנחם-אב ה'תשל"ו ל"הנחה פרטית" או התרגום ללה"ק של השיחה: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=08-02-2024 Synopsis There are those who argue [regarding Mivtza'im etc.]: How can you turn the Torah into a book of medicine and the like? How can you say that when the Torah says [at the end of shishi of Parashas Mishpatim] that if the Jewish people keep Torah and mitzvos, “I will remove illness from among you,” it means in the literal sense? After all, what connection is there between keeping Torah and mitzvos, and health? Similarly, [they question] how it's possible to say that the world was literally created in six days, and instead they argue that the Torah means “six eras” etc. One must know that “a verse does not depart from its plain meaning” (except in those places where the Torah says something is meant allegorically etc.). We know the harsh things the Rambam and the Rashba wrote regarding those who argued that the Torah wasn't meant to be taken literally. Similarly, the Zohar speaks very harshly of those who say that verses in the Torah like, “And Lotan's sister was Timna” are just “stories” Rachmana litzlan. The same applies here: The Torah is not a book of medicine, but at the same time, when it says that keeping Torah and mitzvos brings healing – “I will remove illness from your midst” – it is true in the literal sense!Excerpt from sichah of 20 Menachem-Av 5736 For a transcript in English of the Sicha: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=08-02-2024

Shabbos Shiur #69 Daf 7b-8a- Chorim, Amud Tisha Rashba

Join us in this insightful episode as we delve into the life and legacy of Rabbi Shlomo ben Aderet, commonly known as the Rashba. A prominent figure in medieval Jewish history, Rashba was not only a brilliant Talmudic scholar but also a defender of Jewish rights and a diplomat in times of religious tension.Explore the stories of Rashba's commitment to upholding Halacha, his ingenious solutions to ethical dilemmas within the community, and his fearless advocacy for the well-being of the Jewish people.Tune in to discover the wisdom, resilience, and enduring influence of Rashba, a luminary whose teachings continue to resonate in the realms of Jewish scholarship and ethics.gedolimstories@gmail.com

 Several Interpretations of the Rashba on How To Understand Dina Demalchusa of our Sugya

Shabbos Shiur #57 Daf 6a- Eiruvin 6b Rashi Tosfos Rashba

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

Shiur given by Rabbi Bezalel Rudinsky on Dvar Halacha Shabbos-39 Melachos. Shiur recorded in Yeshivas Ohr Reuven, Monsey, NY.

Rabbi Yona Reiss presents a fundamental responsum of the Rashba (6:254) to clarify when one may adapt halachic practices for new situations and how to ensure that such innovations remain faithful to both the law and spirit of the Torah. A special thanks to Henry Goldberg for helping organize this episode.

Shabbos Shiur #26 Daf 3a- Rashi according to Tosfos, Rashba

It is customary to perform the "Kapparot" ritual on Ereb Yom Kippur – or, if necessary, anytime during the Aseret Yemeh Teshuba – which involves swinging a chicken around one's head while reciting a special text, and then slaughtering the chicken. The Rashba (Rabbi Shelomo Ben Aderet of Barcelona, 1235-1310), in one of his responsa, expressed his stern opposition to this practice, claiming that swinging and slaughtering chickens as a means of atonement constitutes "Darcheh Emori" – following gentile practices. He describes the efforts he made to abolish the custom in his area, and writes that "with the kindness of God" he succeeded in eliminating the custom. The Rashba's position was adopted by Maran, who writes in the Shulhan Aruch that the custom of swinging chickens for atonement should be abolished. This is also the view of the Peri Hadash (Rabbi Hizkiya De Silva, 1659-1698).However, it has been revealed that the Arizal (Rabbi Yishak Luria of Safed, 1534-1572) indeed followed and strongly encouraged the custom of Kapparot. We, of course, treat all the customs and practices of the Arizal with the utmost seriousness and respect, as they reflect the customs of the Kabbalistic tradition, which we follow. Therefore, we do not accept Maran's ruling on this issue, and we follow instead the custom of the Arizal to perform Kapparot with a chicken. This practice is also codified by the great Rabbi from Halab (Aleppo), the Eretz Haim Sutton, and by the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909).The concept underlying Kapparot is to bring to mind that everything done to the chicken should actually be done to the person. Specifically, the chicken endures all four forms of capital punishment that would be administered by a Bet Din for certain transgressions. Grabbing the chicken by the neck resembles Henek (strangulation); the slaughtering corresponds to Hereg (decapitation); the chicken thrown to the ground after slaughtering, resembling Sekila (stoning); and the chicken then roasted, symbolizes Serefa (burning). One should think in his mind while swinging the chicken that due to his sins he deserves all these forms of punishment, and he should think thoughts of sincere repentance and pray that he should spared the punishments which he deserves. Specifically a chicken is used for this purpose because a chicken is often referred to with the term "Geber," which is also used in reference to people, and thus a chicken is an appropriate "substitute" for the human being.Another purpose of Kapparot is to have the opportunity to perform the Misva of Kisui Ha'dam, which most people do not generally have a chance to fulfill. The Torah requires covering the blood of a chicken after it is slaughtered with earth, which is a relatively simple act that fulfills an affirmative Biblical command. Before Yom Kippur, as we seek to accrue as many merits as we can, we perform Kapparot in order to have the opportunity to perform an additional Misva. One should therefore request from the Shohet to be able to cover the blood after the chicken is slaughtered. Before covering the blood, one recites the Beracha "Baruch Ata…Asher Kideshanu Be'misvotav Ve'sivanu Al Kisui Ha'dam Be'afar." If one performs Kapparot with several chickens for himself and his family members, he should have his wife and children cover the blood of their chickens, with the Beracha, so they can be involved in this Misva.The custom is to take a chicken for every female in the family, and a rooster for every male. If one's wife is pregnant, then he takes for her two female and one male; a female for the wife herself, and both a male and female for the fetus, as its gender is unknown. (This applies even nowadays, when the gender can be determined through ultrasound, since the ultrasounds are not always precise.) One first performs the Kapparot for himself, before performing the ritual for his wife and then children. This is indicated by the verse, "Ve'chiper Ba'ado U'be'ad Beto" ("He shall atone for himself and for his household" – Vayikra 16:6), which suggests that one first brings atonement for himself, and only then for his household. This also follows logically; first one purifies himself, and then, once he has attained a state of purity, he is in a position to bring purification to the members of his family.Some have the custom of immersing in a Mikveh before performing Kapparot; this is recorded by the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939), citing the Mateh Abraham.The chicken is swung three times around the head, during which one recites a three-phrase declaration – one phrase for each swing: "Zeh Halifati, Zeh Temurati, Zeh Kaparati" ("This is my exchange, this is my substitute, this is my atonement"). When swinging the chicken around someone else's head (such as wife or child), then he says, "Zeh Halifatcha, Zeh Temuratecha, Zeh Kaparatecha" for a male, and for a female he recites, "Zeh Halifatech, Zeh Temuratech, Zeh Kaparatech."Although the words "Halifa" and "Temura" seem synonymous (as both denote "exchange"), there is a subtle but important difference between them. The term "Halifa" refers to substituting with something superior, whereas "Temura" means the opposite – exchanging something with something else that is inferior. When we begin Kapparot, we are inferior to the chicken, because we have sins on our record, while the chicken obviously has not committed any sins. We therefore begin Kapparot by proclaiming "Zeh Halifati," indicating that we are substituting ourselves with something superior – the chicken. But then, once we've repented, we are superior to the chicken, and we therefore say, "Zeh Temurati" – we are substituted with something inferior.One must ensure to recite this declaration in the precise sequence of "Halifati," "Temurati," "Kapparati," because the first letters of these words spell "H.T.K.," which is the name of the angel assigned over inscribing people in the book of life (as in the phrase "Hotech Hayim," referring to "cutting out" people for a sentence of good life). Furthermore, "H.T.K." is the divine Name associated with Parnasa (livelihood) that is embedded within the famous verse, "Pote'ah Et Yadecha U'masbia Le'chol Hai Rason" ("You open your hand and willfully satiate all living creatures").After swinging the chicken, one recites a brief prayer text in which he prays that whereas the chicken is killed, he should be spared for life. It is customary to mention one's name and the name of his mother in this prayer. (We generally use the mother's name when we pray for someone, or for ourselves, because the relationship to one's mother can be definitively verified.) When reciting this text, one should recite "Zeh Ha'tarnegol Yelech Le'mita Ve'ikanes Ani L'hayim Tobim U'le'shalom" ("This chicken shall go to death, and I shall go to good life and peace"). It is important to recite this text, and not the erroneous text of "Zeh Ha'tarnegol Yelech Le'mita Va'ani Ikanes…" This text is incorrect because it sounds as though one prays that both he and the chicken shall be killed, Heaven forbid ("Zeh Ha'tarnegol Yelech Le'mita Va'ani" – "This chicken shall go to death, and I"). One must therefore ensure to recite, "Zeh Ha'tarnegol Yelech Le'mita Ve'ikanes Ani…" This is the ruling of the Kaf Ha'haim.The Shohet should slaughter the chicken immediately after the individual swings it around his head; the chicken should not be left in a box to be slaughtered later. While slaughtering the chicken, the Shohet should have in mind that he seeks to "sweeten" the five "Geburot" in the "Yesod Ha'malchut." He should also have in mind to repair the human souls that are reincarnated in the chicken, and to repair the soul of the individual for whom he slaughters the chicken.It is critically important to ensure that the Shohet who slaughters the chicken does so properly, in strict accordance with Halacha. Unfortunately, it sometimes happens that due to the heavy workload, as scores of people bring chickens for Kapparot, the Shohetim are fatigued and thus become lax with regard to the required inspections of their knives and the proper procedure of the slaughtering. Inspecting the knife requires Yir'at Shamayim (fear of God), and also concentration and patience. It could happen that one runs his finger over the blade three times without feeling a nick, but then the fourth time he notices the nick. If a Shohet is tired and overworked, he might not have the concentration or patience required to properly inspect the knife. It is therefore preferable for those who know how to perform Shehita to slaughter the Kapparot themselves, or for one to bring his chicken to a Shohet who is known to be competent and God-fearing. Additionally, it is proper for people to be assigned the job of inspecting the knives during Kapparot, so that the Shohetim, who are busy slaughtering, will not have to bear this responsibility. The Poskim warn that if a chicken is slaughtered improperly, whatever one has gained by performing this ritual is lost by the prohibition of eating non-kosher food. It should also be noted that if it is discovered that one's Kapparot chicken was slaughtered improperly, he has not fulfilled the Misva and must perform Kapparot with another chicken. (If, however, the chicken was found to be a Terefa, he does not need to repeat the Kapparot with a healthy chicken.)In light of this concern, it is acceptable to perform Kapparot earlier than Ereb Yom Kippur, in order to alleviate the pressure on the Shohetim. The preferred time for Kapparot is the early morning hours of Ereb Yom Kippur – based on Kabbalistic tradition – but it may be done earlier if necessary. This would even be preferable if there is concern that the Shohetim will be put under pressure and strain by having to slaughter chickens for many hours from the early morning hours of Ereb Yom Kippur.Some have the custom of giving the chicken to a poor person after the Kapparot. The Maharil (Rav Yaakov Ben Moshe Moelin, Germany, 1365-1427) strongly opposed this practice, as it is insulting to the poor to give them chickens upon which one has transferred his sins. Therefore, some have the custom to either leave the chicken with the Shohet, or to eat it oneself and give money to the poor. In any event, the atonement is achieved primarily through the slaughtering, and not by giving the chicken to the poor.If one cannot use a chicken for Kapparot, this custom can be observed by using money. The money should brre given to a poor person as charity. If one performs Kapparot with money, this money cannot be counted toward his Ma'aser Kesafim (tithe of his income). The money serves as his atonement, as a kind of "ransom" for his life, and it must therefore not come from money that he would in any event have to give to charity. (Nor should the cost of slaughtering the chickens be counted towards one's Ma'aser.)If one uses a chicken, he should state explicitly that he does so "Beli Neder," without accepting this as a lifelong practice, as he cannot know for certain that in subsequent years he will be able to perform Kapparot with a chicken.**You can fulfill your obligation of "Kapparot" by having Rabbi Mansour distribute funds on your behalf to those in need. Simply log on to www.iTorah.com **

There is considerable discussion among the Halachic authorities regarding the recitation of the Beracha of Shehehiyanu on the second night of Rosh Hashanah. It is clear according to all views that one must recite the Beracha in Kiddush on the first night of Rosh Hashanah, before drinking the wine, just as we do on the first night of every other Yom Tob. On the second night of Rosh Hashanah, however, some Rishonim (Medieval Halachic scholars) maintained that one should not recite Shehehiyanu. In their view, the two days of Rosh Hashanah differ from other Yamim Tobim in that they constitute a "Yama Arichta" – a prolonged day of Yom Tob. The two days of Rosh Hashanah, according to this position, are not to be viewed as two separate festive occasions, each of which requiring its own recitation of Shehehiyanu, but rather as a single occasion. As such, the Beracha of Shehehiyanu, which celebrates the onset of the festival, is recited only on the first night, and not on the second night.Other Rishonim, however, including Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yishaki of Troyes, France, 1040-1105) and the Rashba (Rabbi Shlomo Ben Aderet of Barcelona, Spain, 1235-1310), disagreed. They held that Rosh Hashanah is no different from other festivals in this regard, and the two days of the holiday constitute independent festive occasions, both of which require the recitation of Shehehiyanu. This also appears to be the view of the Rambam (Rabbi Moshe Maimonides, Spain-Egypt, 1135-1204).The Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327) suggested a compromise position, advising that one should place a new fruit – meaning, a fruit he had not eaten since the beginning of the fruit's season – on the table during Kiddush on the second night of Rosh Hashanah. He should have in mind while reciting Kiddush that if Halacha follows the view that Shehehiyanu is not required on the second night of Rosh Hashanah, then the Shehehiyanu which he recites should refer to the new fruit, which he then eats with his meal. This way, one may recite Shehehiyanu without running the risk of reciting a Beracha Le'batala (meaningless Beracha) according to all opinions.As for the final Halacha, the Shulhan Aruch rules in accordance with the view of Rashi and the Rashba, that one must recite Shehehiyanu on both nights of Rosh Hashanah. He adds, however, that it is preferable to place a new fruit on the table during Kiddush, as the Rosh recommended, in order to satisfy all opinions, though according to the strict Halacha this is not necessary.Indeed, the widespread practice is to place a new fruit on the table during Kiddush on the second night of Rosh Hashanah, and then to eat the fruit as part of the meal. Although Rav Haim Vital (Safed, Israel, 1543-1620) wrote in his Sha'ar Ha'kavanot that a new fruit is unnecessary, as Halacha accepts the view requiring the recitation of Shehehiyanu, this is nevertheless the widespread custom, in accordance with the Shulhan Aruch's ruling. It should be emphasized, however, that one who does not have a new fruit on the second night of Rosh Hashanah should certainly recite Shehehiyanu nonetheless. This is the ruling of the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909).Many later scholars addressed the interesting question of how placing a new fruit on the table resolves the dilemma and enables a person to satisfy all views. Let us assume, for argument's sake, that it is acceptable to recite Shehehiyanu upon seeing the new fruit, and then eat the fruit later, as part of the meal. Still, reciting this Beracha after reciting Kiddush and before drinking would appear to constitute a Hefsek (improper disruption) in between Kiddush and drinking. As discussed, we place the fruit on the table so that the Shehehiyanu recited as part of Kiddush will refer to the fruit according to the view that Shehehiyanu is not otherwise warranted on the second night of Rosh Hashanah. But if so, then this Beracha is entirely irrelevant to Kiddush, and thus constitutes a Hefsek in between Kiddush and drinking, which should, seemingly, disqualify the Kiddush. It would thus seem to emerge that while endeavoring to resolve one problem, we bring ourselves into another, far more serious, predicament!Rav Haim Palachi (Izmir, Turkey, 1788-1869) suggested that the Beracha of Shehehiyanu would not constitute a Hefsek because, as we saw, Halacha follows the view that one in any event should recite Shehehiyanu on the second night of Rosh Hashanah. This explanation, however, seems insufficient to answer the question, as it essentially concedes that placing a new fruit on the table will not achieve anything according to the view that Shehehiyanu is not recited on the second night of Rosh Hashanah. If so, then why do we place the fruit at all?Another answer is suggested by Rabbi Moshe Halevi (Israel, 1961-2001), in his work Birkat Hashem, where he explains that the Beracha of Shehehiyanu is not inconsistent with the spirit of Kiddush. This Beracha simply expresses gratitude to God for bringing us to this special occasion; it does not contain any specific reference that would be in contrast with the theme of Kiddush. For example, if in the middle of a Kiddush a person recited the Beracha of She'hakol, this would certainly constitute a Hefsek as this Beracha is entirely out of place in Kiddush. This is not the case with regard to Shehehiyanu, and therefore this Beracha would not constitute a disruption.In any event, one should preferably follow the widespread custom to place a new fruit on the table during Kiddush on the second night of Rosh Hashanah, if possible. One should then eat the fruit during the meal, without reciting an additional Beracha of Shehehiyanu, as it was covered by the Shehehiyanu recited at Kiddush.Summary: According to some authorities, one does not recite Shehehiyanu at Kiddush on the second night of Rosh Hashanah. It is therefore customary to place a new fruit on the table during Kiddush on this night, and have in mind while reciting Shehehiyanu that if Halacha follows the view that this Beracha is not recited, then the Beracha he recites applies to the fruit. He should eat the fruit during the meal without repeating Shehehiyanu. Although this is the widespread custom, according to the strict Halacha on recites Shehehiyanu on the second night of Rosh Hashanah even if he does not have a new fruit.

What Beracha should one recite before drinking juice extracted from a fruit? Should he recite "She'hakol," the Beracha generally recited over beverages, or should he recite "Bore Peri Ha'etz," the Beracha recited over fruits?The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 202:8) addresses the situation of one who drinks the nectar honey extracted from a date, and rules that he should recite the Beracha of "She'hakol." He then adds that this ruling applies to all liquids extracted from fruit; even though the fruit itself would require the Beracha of "Bore Peri Ha'etz," one who drinks the juice should recite "She'hakol." The exceptions to this rule, the Shulhan Aruch notes, are the juices extracted from olives and grapes. One who drinks olive oil must (under certain circumstances) recite the Beracha of "Bore Peri Ha'etz," and one who drinks wine and grape juice recites "Bore Peri Ha'gefen." All other fruit juices, by contrast, require the Beracha of "She'hakol."Does this Halacha apply to contemporary fruit juices, such as orange juice?The answer to this question depends on how one understands the unique status afforded to grapes and olives in this regard. From the comments of the Ritva (Rabbenu Yom Tov of Seville, Spain, 1250-1330), in his work on Masechet Berachot, it appears that grapes and olives are singled out because of their special qualities. Wine brings people joy and is drunk for nourishment, not merely to quench thirst, and for this reason it earns a special Beracha. As for olive oil, the Ritva writes, the Torah (Devarim 8:8) speaks of olives as "Zet Shemen" – "oil olives" – suggesting that the oil constitutes an integral part of the olive. Hence, it requires the Beracha of "Bore Peri Ha'etz" just like the olive itself. Other commentators, however, including the Rashba (Rabbi Shelomo Ben Aderet, Barcelona, Spain, 1235-1310) and the Meiri (Rabbi Menahem Meiri, 1249-1315), offered a different explanation for the unique status of these fruits. According to this view, the liquids extracted from grapes and olives earn a special Beracha because these fruits are grown with both the fruit and the liquid in mind; the farmers intend when planting vines and olive trees that the fruits will either be eaten or pressed. This intent lends the juices of these fruits a stature equal to the actual fruit, and they therefore warrant a special Beracha.It stands to reason that the status of orange juice nowadays would hinge on this debate. Most orange juice today is produced from orchards specifically grown for this purpose. Hence, according to the view of the Rashba and Meiri, today's orange juice is similar to olive oil and wine in Talmudic times, and thus one who drinks orange juice must recite "Bore Peri Ha'etz." Indeed, this was the position taken by the Hazon Ish (Rabbi Yeshaya Karelitz, Israel, 1879-1954). However, according to the Ritva, the fact that orange juice is produced from oranges planted for this purpose has no bearing on the question of which Beracha to recite. The unique stature of olives and grapes is reserved specifically for these fruits, and thus one who drinks orange juice would recite "She'hakol."The Shulhan Aruch, in the aforementioned passage, establishes a general rule that liquids extracted from all fruits other than grapes and olives require "She'hakol," without making any exceptions. It thus appears that he accepted the Ritva's view, that no other fruits share the unique quality of grapes and olives. Hence, as Rabbi Moshe Halevi (Israel, 1961-2001) rules in his Birkat Hashem (vol. 3, 7:45; listen to audio for precise citation), one who drinks any fruit juice – including orange juice – recites "She'hakol." What more, Rabbi Moshe Halevi writes that if a person recited "Bore Peri Ha'etz" over a fruit juice other than olive oil or grape juice, he has recited a "wasted" Beracha and must correct the mistake by reciting "Baruch Shem Kevod Malchuto Le'olam Va'ed" and then reciting "She'hakol" before drinking.Summary: One who drinks fruit juices other than wine or grape juice (or olive oil, under certain circumstances) recites the Beracha of "She'hakol"; he does not fulfill his obligation by reciting the Beracha of "Bore Peri Ha'etz."

Puffed wheat – or "Shalva" in Hebrew – is manufactured from whole wheat kernels that are either cooked, baked or air popped. Which Beracha does one recite on puffed wheat? Should one recite "Bore Mine Mezonot," given that this product is made from wheat, or does the fact that the kernels remain whole change their status with respect to the Beracha?The Shulhan Aruch explicitly rules (Orah Haim 208:4; listen to audio for precise citation) that one who eats raw or whole kernels of grain recites the Beracha of "Bore Peri Ha'adama." The Beracha of "Bore Mine Mezonot" is reserved for products made from processed wheat; if one partakes of whole grains, he recites "Ha'adama" just as one would before eating a vegetable.This Halacha applies not only to whole grain cereals such as Puffed Wheat, but also to granola bars, which are made from rolled oats. The grains remain whole throughout the process, and therefore they require the Beracha of "Bore Peri Ha'adama," as opposed to "Bore Mine Mezonot" unless the grains are cooked, which would make the Beracha -Mezonot.Which Beracha Aharona does one recite after eating these foods?The Shulhan Aruch addresses this question in the aforementioned passage and initially rules that after eating whole grains one recites "Bore Nefashot." Since whole grains are not treated as grain products with respect to Berachot, as evidenced by the fact that before eating these foods one recites "Ha'adama," after eating one would recite "Bore Nefashot," as opposed to "Al Ha'mihya" which is recited over grain products.However, after presenting this view, the Shulhan Aruch proceeds to record that the Tosefot (school of French and German Talmud scholars) expressed some ambivalence in this regard. They were unsure as to whether after eating whole grains one should recite the Beracha of "Bore Nefashot" or "Al Ha'mihya." Tosefot therefore advised avoiding this situation by eating whole grains only in the context of a bread meal, so that the Birkat Ha'mazon recited after the meal will cover the grains according to all views. Alternatively, one can eat whole grains together with other foods requiring "Bore Nefashot" and "Al Ha'mihya," such that he would have to recite both Berachot in any event.If one did eat whole grains independently, rather than in a meal or together with other foods, which Beracha Aharona should he recite? People very often eat granola bars as a snack, and two granola bars certainly exceeds the minimum required Shiur (quantity) to warrant the recitation of a Beracha Aharona. Which Beracha should one recite in such a case?This issue is subject to a dispute among the Halachic authorities. Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1923-1998), in his work Or L'sion (vol. 2, p. 127), rules that in such a case one does not recite a Beracha Aharona at all. Since there is some doubt as to whether the proper Beracha is "Bore Nefashot" or "Al Ha'mihya," and neither of these two Berachot satisfies the requirement to recite the other, it is best not to recite any Beracha in such a case. This is also the ruling of Rabbi Moshe Halevi (Israel, 1961-2001), in his work Birkat Hashem (vol. 2, p. 129).Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, in his work Hazon Ovadia (Laws of Berachot, p. 183), disagrees, and rules that in such a case one should recite "Bore Nefashot," in accordance with the first view cited in the Shulhan Aruch. The Shulhan Aruch here mentions one view anonymously and then cites an authority expressing the contrary opinion. This presentation is known as "Setam Ve'yesh," and a basic rule in studying the Shulhan Aruch establishes that in such instances the Shulhan Aruch viewed the first recorded view as the more authoritative opinion. Hence, in this case, the Shulhan Aruch favored the view requiring that one recite "Bore Nefashot" after partaking of whole grains.At first glance, one might question the Hacham's rationale by noting that this situation is a case of "Safek Berachot," meaning, where the authorities disagree with regard to a Beracha. In such cases, Halacha always requires that one refrain from reciting the Beracha in question – even if the Shulhan Aruch accepts the position that the Beracha is warranted.Hacham Ovadia addresses this question and responds that in this instance, the uncertainty expressed by Tosefot does not suffice to render this a case of "Safek Berachot." Had Tosefot ruled unequivocally that one recites "Al Ha'mihya" after eating whole grains, then we would indeed have been faced with a situation of "Safek Berachot" and would have therefore ruled that no Beracha should be recited. However, Tosefot merely expressed their uncertainty concerning this issue, and this uncertainty cannot undermine the definitive ruling of the Shulhan Aruch that the proper Beracha in such a case is "Bore Nefashot." What more, Hacham Ovadia adds, a large list of Rishonim (Medieval Talmudic scholars) – including the Behag, Rav Saadia Gaon, the Sefer Ha'eshkol, the R'avya, the Rashba, the Rashbatz, the Semag, the Meiri, the Hashlama and the Ritva – concur with the first view cited by the Shulhan Aruch, that one recites "Bore Nefashot" after eating whole grains. Hacham Ovadia even speculates that had Hacham Bension Abba Shaul seen the ruling of all these Rishonim, he would have likely concluded that one should recite "Bore Nefashot" after eating whole grains. Hence, in his view, one who eats whole grains should recite after eating the Beracha of "Bore Nefashot," though it is preferable to avoid this situation as mentioned above.Summary: One who eats whole grain products such as puffed wheat or granola bars recites "Bore Peri Ha'adama" before eating, and, if he ate a "Ke'zayit" or more, "Bore Nefashot" after eating. Preferably, however, one should eat these products only in the context of a bread meal or together with other foods requiring "Bore Nefashot" and "Al Ha'mihya," in order to avoid the Halachic debate concerning the Beracha recited after eating whole grains.

#197.** To support the podcast: https://seforimchatter.com/support-seforimchatter/ or email seforimchatter@gmail.com**** Sponsored by Gluck Plumbing Service Division -   732-523-1836 x 1.**With Prof. Ephraim Kanarfogel discussing the Rosh (Rabeinu Asher b. Yechiel, 1250 - 1327)We discussed the Rosh's life: Where he was born, his father, rebbeim, running away from Germany to Spain, relationship with the Rashba, and more. We also discussed his many works: Piskei HaRosh, Tshuvos, Tosafos, Pirushim, and more. 

Rabbi Shlomo ben Aderes (Rashba) took a maximalist position about the eternality of mitzvos, arguing that none of them could ever be suspended, not even in the era of techiyas hameism. But a faction of his rabbinic peers dissented. In this class, we examine the primary sources that are central to this discourse and also analyze the underlying dynamics—namely, the attempt at the time of Christian missionaries to undermine Judaism. This exploration will show how the greatest rabbinic minds responded to this threat and grappled with the more controversial passages of the Talmud and Midrash. Rashba's Rebuttal: Defending Judaism in Medieval Barcelona

Asui Lehishtamesh B'shefah (עשוי להשתמש בשפע): Rashba; Logic; First source; Pegam and Aino ben yomo; Second source; Halacha; Questions. See seforim by Rabbi Cohen at ⁠⁠www.kashrushalacha.com

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

When a person eats pumpkin seeds or watermelon seeds, which Beracha should he recite? Do we consider the seeds part of the pumpkin or the watermelon, such that one should recite "Bore Peri Ha'adama" just as he would when eating pumpkin or watermelon itself? Or, do the seeds constitute a separate entity, thus requiring the Beracha of "She'hakol"?The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 202:3) rules that with respect to Berachot, Halacha treats edible seeds of a fruit as part of the fruit itself. In his view, then, one would recite "Bore Peri Ha'adama" over pumpkin seeds or watermelon seeds. This ruling represents the view taken by many Rishonim (Medieval Halachic authorities). However, the Rashba (Rabbi Shelomo Ben Aderet of Barcelona, Spain, 1235-1310) was of the opinion that seeds comprise a separate entity, and thus require the Beracha of "She'hakol," rather than "Ha'adama." In deference to this position of the Rashba, the Hid"a (Rabbi Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1807), in his work Birke Yosef (202:3), ruled that one should recite "She'hakol" over seeds. The Hid"a applied here the principle of "Safek Berachot Le'hakel" – that one should never recite a Beracha when there is some uncertainty as to whether it is warranted. With regard to seeds, since the Beracha of "Ha'adama" does not fulfill one's obligation according to the view of the Rashba, one should recite "She'hakol," which is effective for all foods, even those which ideally require a more specific Beracha.Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in his work of responsa Yabia Omer (vol. 7, 31), observes that the prevalent custom follows this ruling of the Hid"a, requiring that one recite "She'hakol" before eating seeds. He writes, however, that one who wishes to recite "Ha'adama" in accordance with the Shulhan Aruch's ruling may do so. Hacham Ovadia explains that even the Rashba would agree that one who recites "Bore Peri Ha'adama" over seeds has fulfilled his obligation, even though he maintains that one should preferably recite "She'hakol." Therefore, since the recitation of "Ha'adama" fulfills the requirement even according to the Rashba, one who wishes may follow the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch and recite "Ha'adama."Rabbi Moshe Halevi (Israel, 1961-2001), in his work Birkat Hashem (vol. 3, 7:13), adopts a different position, claiming that one should ideally recite "Ha'adama" over seeds. He contends that since nowadays there is an entire industry marketing seeds for consumption, and orchards are planted specifically for the seeds, even the Rashba would consider the seeds that are packaged for eating as part of the fruit. Hence, under today's circumstances, all authorities would agree that one should recite "Bore Peri Ha'adama."As for the final Halacha, it would appear that the more prevalent practice is to recite "She'hakol," though one who wishes to recite "Ha'adama" may certainly do so.It must be emphasized that this discussion does not pertain to sunflower seeds, over which one must certainly recite "Bore Peri Ha'adama." Sunflower seeds constitute the actual fruit; nothing else grows with them. Thus, they clearly require the Beracha of "Ha'adama."Summary: The more prevalent practice is to recite "She'hakol" over seeds such as pumpkin seeds or watermelon seeds, but those who wish to recite "Ha'adama" may do so. Over sunflower seeds, however, one must recite "Ha'adama."

Delivered Motzei Shabbos Parshas Mishpatim 5783 Shiur is sponsored l'eilu nishmas פעסל בת נחמן And l'refuah sheleimah  יהודה אריה בן צירל

This evening (1/11/23), in our Wednesday night Tefilah shiur, we continued and completed (for now!) our analysis of the midrash about Hashem davening to himself. The good news is that I believe we got the main idea of the midrash. The "bad" news is that we raised a powerful question on the Sefer ha'Chinuch and Rashba, which I THOUGHT I had an answer to, but I realized that I didn't have the answer as clear as I thought, so we didn't end up answering it. If you think of an answer, let me know!-----מקורות:מסכת סופרים טז:בברכות דף ז עמוד ארש"יריטב"אברכות דף לג עמוד ברלב"ג ביאור הפרשה - שמות לג:יטרשב"א - פירוש ההגדות ברכות דף ז עמוד אברכות דף נ עמוד אספר החינוך הערת המחברבראשית רבה ה:ארלב"ג: הקדמה לתורהרש"י - דברים ל:יטשו"ת הרשב"א חלק ה סימן נ-נא -----The Torah content for the remainder of January has been sponsored by Yehuda in gratitude for fifteen years of friendship and learning.-----If you have questions, comments, or feedback, I would love to hear from you! Please feel free to contact me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.-----If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.-----Substack: rabbischneeweiss.substack.com/Patreon: patreon.com/rabbischneeweissYouTube Channel: youtube.com/rabbischneeweissBlog: kolhaseridim.blogspot.com/"The Mishlei Podcast": mishlei.buzzsprout.com"The Stoic Jew" Podcast: thestoicjew.buzzsprout.com"Rambam Bekius" Podcast: rambambekius.buzzsprout.com"Machshavah Lab" Podcast: machshavahlab.buzzsprout.com"The Tefilah Podcast": tefilah.buzzsprout.comWhatsApp Group: https://chat.whatsapp.com/GEB1EPIAarsELfHWuI2k0HAmazon Wishlist: amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/Y72CSP86S24W?ref_=wl_sharel

The Halachot of Hatmana touch on may practical issues. One example discussed by the poskim is warming a baby bottle by immersing it in a bowl of hot water. Since the hot water is a Keli Sheni, there is no issue of Bishul (Cooking). The question is does the fact that the bottle is "insulated" and surrounded by the hot water present a problem of Hatmana.Clearly, the hot water is not considered Mosif Hevel, heat generating insulating; the water temperature is constantly dropping. Nonetheless, Hatmana on Shabbat is prohibited even with non- heat generating substances. Nevertheless, Hacham Ovadia permits fully immersing the bottle in the Keli Sheni. This leniency is based on the ruling of Maran (Orah Chayim 318:13, 257:6) that insulating cold items, such as the bottle, is less problematic than insulating hot items. This is also the opinion of the Eliya Raba (Commentary on the Shulhan Aruch by R. Eliyahu Spira, Prague, 1660–1712) and the Zera Emet Halachic work by R. Yishmael HaKohen 18th Century Italy) who quotes from Rishonim such as the Riaz. Hacham Ben Sion Abba Shaul (Israel, 1923-1998) disagrees and takes into account the stricter opinion of the Mishna Berura (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin, 1839-1933 in siman 258), the Taz (Rabbi David Segal, Poland, 1586-1667), and the Rashba. Hacham Ben Sion concludes that it is forbidden to fully submerge the bottle. It is permitted to put the bottle in hot water, only if part of the bottle remains above the surface. That way, it is only considered a Hatmana B'Miktzat, a partial insulation. While one can rely on the leniency of Hacham Ovadia, nevertheless, it is preferable to adopt the ruling of Hacham Ben Sion, as it is not difficult to insure that the upper edge of the bottle remains above the surface.SUMMARY:It is permissible to immerse a cold baby bottle in hot water of a Keli Sheni. Preferably, part of the bottle should remain out of the water.

The principles of Hatmana can be applied to numerous practical issues. One question that arises concerns wrapped foods submersed in a hot liquid. For example, is it permitted to place a kugel wrapped in foil or rice in a cooking bag inside the Hamin before Shabbat? Is the wrapping considered a type of insulation? One could argue that on Erev Shabbat, it is permitted to insulate with foil and cooking bags, as they are not Mosif Hevel; they don't generate their own heat. Nevertheless, Shulhan Aruch holds that even non-heat generating insulants when placed on a surface which is Mosif Hevel, namely, the pot that's cooking the hamin, the Hatmana is considered Mosif Hevel. Thus, the question remains as to whether it is permitted to submerse wrapped foods in the hamin on Erev Shabbat.Hacham Ovadia, in Hazon Ovadia (Section 1, p. 61) rules that it is permitted. He outlines four reasons to be lenient. First, the Shulhan Aruch (318:4) holds that placing a food within a food is not considered Hatmana. Secondly, there are opinions that there is no issue of Hatmana if one is not planning to eat the food until the morning. In our case the hamin is meant for the morning. Although, we do not hold like that opinion, it can be relied on in conjunction with other factors. Third, the Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles, Cracow, 1520-1572) brings down an opinion that if the food is fully cooked, there's no problem of Hatmana. In our case the kugel or rice is fully cooked. Again, we would not rely on this opinion alone; but, it can be used along with other justifications.Finally, the main reason for being lenient is that the definition of Hatmana is determined by the intent of the person. That is, for what purpose is he covering and insulating this item? In our case, his intent is clearly not to retain the heat of the food. Even without the wrapping, the kugel or rice would stay hot. Obviously, he wrapped it so that the kugel or rice won't intermix with the other foods in the pot; he wants it to remain separate. Therefore, since his intent is not l'shem hatmana, for the sake of insulating heat, rather, it's for separation, it is permitted. Hacham Ben Sion Abba Shaul (Israel, 1923-1998) also rules, that it's permissible to put food in a bag or aluminum foil and submerse it in the hamin(Or L'Sion, Hilchot Shabbat). On the other hand, the Menuhat Ahaba (Rabbi Moshe Halevi Israel, 1961-2001), and the Shebet Ha'levi (Rav Shemuel Wosner, 1913-2015) disagreed and held that it is prohibited. However, we rely on Hacham Ovadia and Hacham Ben Sion. Another question that arises is regarding the custom to put an egg in the hamin before Shabbat. There are those who argue that the shell of the egg serves to insulate the egg and would pose a problem of Hatmana. Hacham Ovadia rejects this view, citing the Rashba who points out that an egg shell cannot be considered an insulating element because it is porous. This can be demonstrated by conducting an experiment in which the egg is immersed in colored water; the result, of course, is that the egg itself becomes colored. Therefore, the egg is not considered a separate entity from the rest of the hamin. Just as there is no Hatmana when one cooks rice and potatoes together, so too, the egg is considered part of the mixture. Thus, it is permissible on Erev Shabbat to put an egg in a pot of hamin over the Shabbat.SUMMARY1. It is permitted on Erev Shabbat to put a kugel wrapped in foil or rice enclosed in a cooking bag into the hamin.2. It is permitted to put an egg into the hamin before Shabbat.

The Shulhan Aruch in Siman 421 presents the Halachot of the Melacha of "Tohen"-grinding- on Shabbat. Maran rules that slicing vegetables thinly is prohibited as Tohen. From this it seems that it would be problematic to cut an Israeli salad on Shabbat, since the vegetables are cut in small pieces. However, Hacham Ovadia explains this ruling based on Maran's commentary in the Bet Yosef. There, Maran cites the opinion of the Rashba that Tohen is only prohibited when done to prepare for consumption at a later time. If done for immediate consumption, such as for the upcoming meal or to eat right away, Rashba rules that it is permitted. The Bet Yosef adds that no authority disagrees with this Rashba. Thus, it can be assumed that this Rashba is accepted as Halacha. Based on this, Hacham Ovadia interprets Maran in Shulhan Aruch to mean that it is only prohibited to slice vegetables for a later time, but for immediate consumption the Shulhan Aruch would permit it, based on the Rashba. This interpretation is strengthened by the fact that the Rema explicitly adds to Maran's ruling that when the chopping is for immediate consumption, it is permitted. The Rema does not present his ruling as a "Yesh Omrim"-opposing opinion, rather as an explanation of Maran's words. Therefore, Hacham Ovadia rules that it is permissible to cut an Israeli salad for immediate consumption or for the upcoming meal (i.e. within one half hour), on a regular cutting board with a regular knife. In Halichot Olam (Parashat Mishpatim) he adds that if one is stringent to cut the salad in bigger pieces, Tavo Alav Beracha-it is praiseworthy.If someone mistakenly cut the vegetables several hours in advance of consumption, does the salad become forbidden to eat? Hacham Ovadia rules that while clearly the person was wrong to do so, yet it does not become forbidden, because the minority opinion of the Rosh may be relied upon. The Rosh holds that the prohibition of Tohen does not apply whatsoever to edible foods, only to grinding grain and so forth. SUMMARYIt is permitted to make an Israeli salad or smash a banana or avocado on Shabbat within half an hour of consumption. If one did not follow this Halacha and prepared the food before that, it does not become forbidden, B'diavad.

A question arose regarding instructing a non-Jew to carry on Shabbat. The custom is to have a special Seudah on the Shabbat Hatan. All of the rabbis and guests come to the house of the family for the meal and sing the special Pizmonim in honor of the Hatan. What is the Halacha if the father of the Hatan forgot to bring the Pizmonim booklets to his home before Shabbat? Most of the guests don't know the songs by heart, and a Seudat Hatan without the Pizmonim significantly detracts from the Simcha. The problem is that the books are in the synagogue, and the route to the house transverses a major thoroughfare, which most probably constitutes a Reshut HaRabim (public domain). Thus, carrying the booklets would seem to be an Issur D'oraita (Torah prohibition). Even though using a non-Jew to carry reduces the prohibition to a D'rabanan (rabbinic) level, the Halacha does not permit this, even for the sake of a Misva.Nevertheless, upon closer analysis, it is possible that the route via the Reshut HaRabim is not an Issur D'oraita, after all. In this case, the non-Jew would begin in a Reshut HaYahid (private domain), the synagogue, and end in a Reshut HaYahid, the house of the Hatan. He is only passing through the Reshut HaRabim, without stopping. Although Tosafot (Shabbat 96) hold that even this is an Issur D'oraita, the Rashba, Ritva and Ran argue and hold that passing through a Reshut HaRabim, without stopping, is only a D'rabanan. The Taz and Hazon Ish hold this to be Halacha. Accordingly, instructing the non-Jew to carry the books would constitute a lenient case of Shevut D'shvut (double rabbinic prohibition). First, instructing the non-Jew is always D'rabanan; second the act he is being asked to do is also only a rabbinic violation. Therefore, in a case of L'sorech Misva, especially for the sake of a Hatan, the Halacha is lenient. Moreover, the status of our busy streets, such as Ocean Parkway, as Reshut HaRabim is questionable. Maran, in one place, implies that today such a thoroughfare does not even exist. However, even if it is a Reshut HaRabim, the non-Jew may bring the books, based on the Taz and Hazon Ish, as long as he is instructed not to stop in the Reshut HaRabim. In the event he does stop, it is not a problem, since he did it of his own accord. Also, effort should be made to explain to questioning bystanders the reason for this leniency.SUMMARYIt is permissible to instruct a non-Jew on Shabbat to bring books from one private domain to another, via a public domain, for the sake of a Misva and to honor a Hatan.