Rabbis and poskim who lived approximately during the 11th to 15th centuries
POPULARITY
Categories
64 episodes with Rishonim
45 episodes with Rishonim
30 episodes with Rishonim
16 episodes with Rishonim
271 episodes with Rishonim
9 episodes with Rishonim
15 episodes with Rishonim
201 episodes with Rishonim
9 episodes with Rishonim
6 episodes with Rishonim
8 episodes with Rishonim
7 episodes with Rishonim
4 episodes with Rishonim
17 episodes with Rishonim
9 episodes with Rishonim
9 episodes with Rishonim
4 episodes with Rishonim
3 episodes with Rishonim
Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour
People mistakenly believe that the concept of modest dress is relevant only to women, whereas men can dress in any way they like. This is incorrect. There are certain restrictions on dress that apply to men. The basic principle is that one must realize that he is constantly in the presence of G-d. Even when a person is in the privacy of his home, and even alone in his bedroom, he must be cognizant of the fact that Hashem fills the earth and accompanies him at all times. King Shaul was praised for his high standards of modesty, as he went into a dark cave to perform his bodily functions, and even inside the cave, he exposed himself only as needed, out of an awareness of G-d's presence. Accordingly, the Shulhan Aruch rules that a person must put something on before getting out of the bed in the morning. Long ago, people would sleep under their blankets unclothed, and the Shulhan Aruch writes that before a person steps out of bed, he should put his garment on under his blankets so he will not be exposed upon leaving his bed. This applies even if the room is dark, as Hashem can see even in the dark. The Poskim debate the question of whether the Shulhan Aruch intended this instruction as an actual Halachic requirement, or only as an admirable practice, a measure of piety that is recommended for the sake of demonstrating one's awareness of G-d's omnipresence. Rav Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986) maintained that there is no strict halachic obligation for a man to avoid being exposed in private, and the Shulhan Aruch's ruling was written only as a recommended practice, a proper mode of behavior for a G-d-fearing individual. By contrast, the Mishneh Halachot (Rav Menashe Klein, 1923-2011) maintained that this law constitutes an outright Halachic obligation, as the straightforward reading of the Shulhan Aruch and other sources suggests. Likewise, the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that according to some Rishonim, these laws are required on the level of Torah law, and so they should be strictly observed. Nowadays, of course, people generally wear pajamas or undergarments when sleeping, so the Shulhan Aruch's instructions would apply in our time to changing one's clothes under the blanket, so that his private parts are not exposed. Many people would naturally find this difficult. Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, accepts Rav Moshe Feinstein's lenient position, that these guidelines were not presented as actual Halachic requirements, and so he rules that they may be suspended if they would cause considerable discomfort. Thus, if somebody finds it very difficult to get dressed under the blanket, this is not necessary. Hacham David writes that this was the position taken by his father, Hacham Ovadia Yosef. In fact, Rav Moshe himself ruled leniently if dressing under the blanket would take too much time, or if one cannot dress neatly in this fashion. Nevertheless, Rav Haim Kanievsky (1928-2022) taught that one who ensures not to expose his private parts while getting changed is worthy of special blessing. Rav Moshe adds that when walking about, a man must dress in a manner in which he would not feel ashamed appearing before ordinary people. When it comes to Tefila, one must dress in a way he would when greeting a prominent figure. At all other times, Rav Moshe writes, it suffices to dress in a manner that is not embarrassing. One's private parts, however, must of course always remain covered. Rav Haim Kanievsky took a more stringent position, writing that one must ensure not to expose his arms above the elbows, or his legs above his knees. Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) wrote that since people in modern society do not walk about barefoot, one should refrain from doing so even in his home. In fact, the Mishna Berura writes that since the feet are normally covered, it is proper to put one's socks on before getting out of bed in order not to expose his feet. The Piskeh Teshubot concluded that one may walk about barefoot in his home under hot weather conditions, when covering the feet is uncomfortable. However, even the Mishna Berura conceded that in Mediterranean countries, where many people walk about barefoot, it is permissible to do so. It thus stands to reason that the guiding principle is the accepted practice in any given locale. In communities where it is not deemed acceptable to walk about with exposed feet, or in short sleeves or shorts, one should abide by the community's standards. In places where these modes of dress are acceptable, then they are allowed. Indeed, Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that one is allowed even to pray wearing very short sleeves or short pants if this mode of dress is accepted in his community (though he added that a person dressed this way should not serve as Hazan). Likewise, despite the Mishna Berura's aforementioned ruling that one should put on his socks before getting out of bed, numerous later Poskim – including the Hazon Ish, the Steipler Gaon, and Hacham Ovadia Yosef – ruled leniently in this regard. This is likely due to the fact that it has become more acceptable to walk about with sandals without socks, and thus exposing one's feet is no longer considered undignified. By the same token, a man may take off his shirt when swimming in a pool or at the beach, as this is the accepted mode of dress in these areas. However, some Poskim ruled that if one is not swimming at the beach, but is playing ball or walking, he should wear a shirt. A man who goes to the Mikveh should not walk about the Mikveh unclothed, and should instead cover himself with a towel or robe on his way to and from the water. Some Poskim allow one to be unclothed in a restroom that has a bath or shower, as such a room has the status of a Bet Ha'merhatz (bathhouse), where it is permissible to be unclothed. Others, however, rule that this is not allowed unless one is planning to bathe. Summary: Men, like women, must adhere to appropriate standards of modest dress. The basic rule is that one must dress in a manner that is deemed respectable and dignified in the place where he is. In some communities, it is inappropriate to walk about in shorts, whereas in others this is allowed. At the beach or swimming pool, a man may remove his shirt. Nowadays it is generally deemed acceptable in most communities to wear sandals without socks, so this is permitted. When one needs to expose himself – such as when dressing, when bathing, when using the restroom, or in a Mikveh – one should expose himself only to the extent necessary, remaining cognizant of G-d's presence.
Shoftim 11: Finding an Opening Yiftach is back from exile. The elders who expelled him now need him, and he knows it. Before the battle, he attempts diplomacy, dismantling the Ammonite king's historical revisionism with a careful, point-by-point legal argument rooted in the Exodus narrative. The king ignores him, not because the argument fails, but because he refuses to recognize Yiftach's authority. Then Yiftach makes his vow. This shiur examines the most contested moment in Sefer Shoftim: the neder of Yiftach and what happened to his daughter. We work through the machlokes Rishonim, including the Ramban and Ibn Ezra, on whether the vow demanded death or separation, and why the Gemara in Taanis condemns it in the sharpest terms. The deeper tragedy, however, is institutional. Pinchas could have annulled the vow. Yiftach could have gone to Pinchas. Neither moved. A girl died between their competing pride. The Bereishis Rabbah is unsparing. Includes a striking parallel to Iphigenia in Greek tragedy and the haftorah connection to Parshas Chukas. Part of the ongoing Judges in the Nach series.
Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org Rav Yosef Greenwald, Rav of K'hal Dexter ParkQuestion: I subscribe to a newspaper that is delivered to my house early every morning. I started to realize that the newspaper doesn't seem so fresh when I bring it into my house. One morning, I looked out my window and spied my neighbor reading my newspaper. I realized that he has been reading it every day before I take it inside. Can I charge him for reading my paper? Answer: This may seem like a case of zeh neheneh v'zeh lo chaseir, which would mean that the neighbor would be patur. However, one could argue that the fact that he made the newspaper not as fresh is considered “chaseir”. This would depend on how we define “chaseir”. What is considered “a loss”?According to almost all Rishonim if one causes a loss of even a minimal amount, the owner is considered chaseir. At that point, these Rishonim say, “megalgelim alav es hakol”, we make him pay the full amount of the benefit he received. Although there is a dissenting opinion, this is how we pasken. In this case, that would mean that if making a newspaper lose its freshness is worth even a shaveh perutah [or perhaps even less], the neighbor would have to pay for the value he received, which may well be something like 50% of the cost of the newspaper.
In this episode of The Why of Judaism, Rabbi Ya'akov Trump explores the meaning behind the practices of Jewish mourning, from shiva, the beis avel, and the seudas havra'ah to kaddish, yizkor, yahrzeit, and the matzeiva. Through sources in Shas, Yerushalmi, Rishonim, poskim, and minhag literature, this shiur explains how aveilus gives structure to grief, honors the neshama, supports the mourners, and slowly guides a family back into life.
The Siddurim of the Rishonim and Kabbalists
Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour
There is a custom that some observe to read the section of the Ketoret from a piece of parchment upon which the text of the Ketoret is written in ink and in the same format as in a Sefer Torah. I was exposed to this custom for the first time when praying with Hacham Ovadia Yosef. When the time came for the recitation of the Ketoret, his assistant brought him a parchment from which the Hacham read the Ketoret. This custom is mentioned by Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868), both in Kaf Ha'haim and in Ru'ah Haim. It appears also earlier, in Seder Ha'yom (Rav Moshe Ben Machir, Safed, 16 th century). These works emphasize the great value and benefit of observing this custom, how it brings wealth and prosperity – just as the Kohen who offered the Ketoret in the Bet Ha'mikdash was blessed with wealth. However, this custom is subject to a great deal of controversy. The majority view among the Rishonim – a position held by both the Rambam and the Rosh – forbids writing a portion of the Torah on parchment. This is based on the Gemara's discussion in Masechet Gittin (60a), where we read that Rabba explicitly forbade writing a portion of the Torah on parchment for a child to study from. By contrast, the Rif (Rav Yishak Alfasi, Morocco, 1013-1103) ruled that it is permissible to write a portion of the Torah on parchment. Maran (author of the Shulhan Aruch), in Bet Yosef, reconciles the Rif's lenient ruling with the Gemara's discussion in Masechet Gittin by noting that other Amoraim disagreed with Rabba's ruling. They allowed writing a small portion of Torah on parchment as this became necessary to ensure the continuity of Torah, that it will not be forgotten. However, despite Maran's defense of the Rif's position in Bet Yosef, in the Shulhan Aruch he follows the stringent opinion of the Rambam and the Rosh. And, generally speaking, when we find conflicting rulings in the Bet Yosef and Shulhan Aruch, it is assumed that the ruling in the Shulhan Aruch – Maran's later work – is the more authoritative position, and should be followed. It would thus seem that one may not write the section of the Ketoret on parchment, or hire a Sofer to do so. By contrast, numerous Ashkenazic Poskim ruled leniently. The Bayit Hadash (Rav Yoel Sirkis, Poland, 1561-1640) writes that the custom is to allow writing sections of the Torah on parchment, and this is the view also of the Shach (Rav Shabtai Ha'kohen, 1621-1662), the Taz (Rav David Segal, 1586-1667), and other Ashkenazic authorities. In modern times, this view was accepted by the Hazon Ish (Rav Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz, 1878-1953). The famous "Lederman Shul" in Bnei-Brak, where Rav Chaim Kanievsky (1928-2022) would pray, features on the wall a large piece of parchment with the Ketoret section, following the lenient ruling of the Hazon Ish. Accordingly, Hacham Ovadia ruled that if a Sepharadi wishes to observe this custom, he must purchase the parchment specifically from an Ashkenazic Sofer, as preparing such a parchment is allowed by Ashkenazic Poskim, but forbidden for Sepharadim because of the Shulhan Aruch's stringent ruling. A number of Sephardic Poskim disagreed with Hacham Ovadia on this point. Most notably, Rav Moshe Levi (1961-2000), in his Tefila Le'Moshe, writes that the Shulhan Aruch forbids writing a small portion of the Torah on parchment only because this is disrespectful to the Torah. However, writing the entire section of the Ketoret, which includes the Gemara's discussion elucidating the Biblical text, is not in any way disrespectful, and is thus permissible even according to the Shulhan Aruch. Others note the practice among Kabbalists to pray from texts written on parchment that included passages from the Torah – thus demonstrating that the Shulhan Aruch's stringent ruling was not accepted. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the custom to recite the Ketoret from a text written on parchment appears already in Seder Ha'yom – a work by a contemporary of Maran. Some have pointed to this source as further evidence that the Shulhan Aruch's stringent ruling was not necessarily accepted. Regardless, in light of Hacham Ovadia's ruling, it is proper for a Sepharadi who wishes to observe this custom to purchase the parchment from an Ashkenazic Sofer. If, however, a Sephardic Sofer prepared such a parchment, it may be used.
Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org Rav Shmuel HonigwachsQuestion: Reuven bought a house in a development. When he moved in, he noticed that the house he bought already has a window that overlooks his neighbor's backyard. Does he have to close off the window or is he allowed to leave it the way it is? Answer: In the halachos of hezek riya, the Halacha will often differ depending upon whom the house was acquired from and the sequence of how it was built. The Gemara discusses a case where two brothers inherited a property from their father. After dividing it, they are left with windows overlooking each other's yards. The Gemara states that they have no legal right to these windows. The Rishonim debate what this means on a practical level. Some say that the brothers can force each other to close off the windows. Others say that they cannot go that far, rather, they are permitted to build a wall on their own property that blocks the window, even though by doing so they are limiting sunlight to the other property. The Shulchan Aruch rules that they cannot force each other to seal the windows. Rema cites the other opinion that they can be forced to block the windows. Rema indicates that the same machlokes would apply in a case where someone purchases a house that has a window facing a neighbor's yard. Which would mean that according to the Rema, the purchaser can be forced to close off such a window, which is a rather unusual conclusion. As we've said previously, whenever there is another consideration at play, one can rely on the opinion that our yards are not comparable to the old courtyards because we do not use them for such private matters. Accordingly, perhaps the buyer could be lenient and rely on the Mechaber's opinion that he does not have to close off his window in this case.
Have any questions, insights, or feedback? Send me a text!Length: 2 hours 19 minutesSynopsis: This morning (5/17/26), in my last YBT Sunday Shiur of the season, I gave an updated version of my Judaism Demystified episode titled "Can God Do Anything/Everything? Can God Do the Impossible?" The shiur had three parts: (1) in the first hour of the shiur, I presented seven approaches to answering the question, "Can God create a rock He can't lift?" largely based on firsthand sources in the Rishonim; (2) I raise and respond to the two most common objections to the approach of these Rishonim; (3) I share my current understanding of why the Rambam broaches this topic as part of his discussion of theodicy. If you've seen or listened to a treatment of this topic before, I guarantee you'll still gain new insights, and if this is your first time thinking about this question, prepare yourself for a wild ride!-----מקורות:R. Norman Lamm, Eulogy for the Ravספר החינוך - הקדמהרמב"ם - מורה הנבוכים ג:יב,טור' משה נרבוני - פירוש למורה ג:טורס"ג - אמונות ודעות ב:יגש"ע או"ח רל:אמאירי - משלי יד:טורשב"א - שו"ת ד:רלדר' יוסף אלבו - ספר העיקרים א:כב; ג:כהרמב"ן - הויכוחMarc B. Shapiro, The Limits of Orthodox Theology, pp.Rabbi Netanel Wiederblank, Illuminating Jewish Thought pp.232-234שם טוב - פירוש למורה ג:טו-----The Torah content for this month has been sponsored by Meir Areman, l'zeicher nishmas Zelda bas Ziesel, his grandmother, whose yahrzeit is on the 21st of Sivan.-----If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider supporting my work via Patreon, Venmo, Zelle, or PayPal — links below. Even a small contribution helps cover production costs and gives me the freedom to create more Torah content. To sponsor a day's or week's worth of content, or to inquire about tutoring or teaching, reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail. Thank you for listening, reading, and supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.Patreon | [Venmo: @Matt-Schneeweiss] | [Zelle/PayPal: mattschneeweiss at gmail]Substack | YouTube | YUTorah | InstagramPodcasts: The Stoic Jew | Machshavah Lab | The Mishlei Podcast | Rambam Bekius | The Tefilah PodcastWhatsApp Content Hub | Old Blog | Amazon Wishlist
Harav Tzvi Krakauer discusses machlokes Rishonim regarding the mitzvah of shemiras Hamikdash and suggests multiple nafka minas.
Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org Rav Aryeh FinkelQuestion: I built an extension on my house and made a new laundry room. My wife put the first load of laundry into the new washing machine and set the machine on the cold cycle. When she opened it at the end of the cycle, she realized that the plumber had mixed up the hot and cold water pipes, which had caused hot water to come out of the pipe that should have been cold water. This ruined all of the clothing in the wash. Is the plumber liable for this damage?Answer: First of all, the plumber should not get paid for the job.Regarding whether or not he should be liable to pay for the ruined clothing, we would have to find a category of mazik to place him under.The Rishonim say that garmi only applies if the damage occurs at the time of the damager's actions. In this case, the plumber made his mistake well before the woman did the laundry; therefore, he cannot be held liable because of garmi.He also is definitely not odom hamazik as he did not do the damage directly.What he did could perhaps be classified as bor because when he mixed up the pipes he is akin to someone who dug a pit that can cause damage; however, bor is potur on keilim, so the plumber could not be held liable for damages to clothing because of bor.The most likely chiyuv would be aish. If someone places an object in a place where it is likely to be moved by an outside force and cause damage, he can be held liable for aish. The problem is that one is only liable for aish if the object he placed is the thing that ends up causing the damage. In this instance, the damage was actually done by the water. The plumber did not put the water into the machine. He merely installed the pipes in a way that caused the water to be diverted the wrong way.Thus, there doesn't seem to be a way to hold him accountable.I would add that when we said that the plumber cannot be held liable with the rule of garmi, this was presuming that he was not a professional. If the homeowner had hired a professional plumber, perhaps the man could be held liable. The Gemara says that if a professional gives bad advice which leads to a loss of money, that professional can be held liable through the rule of garmi. This would mean that if a professional plumber said that the pipes were hooked up correctly when they really were not, he could be held liable for garmi.
Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.orgRav Aryeh FinkelQuestion: Someone is driving and suddenly stops in the middle of the road. The driver behind him isn't able to brake in time and hits him from behind, which causes substantial damage to the second driver's car. Is the car that is parked in the middle of the road considered a bor, which would mean that he is exempt from damages to keilim including the damage to the other car, or is he considered an odom hamazik, which would make him liable to pay for the damages?Answer: The Mishnah discusses a case where a potter trips while holding his pots and a person behind him falls over him and gets hurt. The Mishnah says that the first man is chayav to pay for the damages. The Rishonim argue whether the man is liable as a bor or as an odom hamazik, with the practical difference being whether he is liable on keilim. The Shulchan Aruch rules that he is chayav as a bor. This seems to indicate that when someone is in a stationary position, he is classified as a bor, not as an odom hamazik.On the other hand, another Mishnah says that if someone is carrying a beam in the street and stops suddenly, causing a barrel moving behind it to collide and break, the person is chayav to pay for the barrel. The Rishonim note that this indicates that the person holding the beam is considered to be an odom hamazik, who is liable on keilim, rather than a bor. This seems to contradict the other Mishnah.Rebenu Peretz and the Tosafos Rid resolve this contradiction by saying that if a person is lying prone on the floor and is not doing any action, he is considered to be a bor. Whereas, if he is standing and holding something, even though he isn't moving, holding the item in place is considered to be an action and the person is considered to be an odom hamazik.In our case, it would seem that if the road was inclined and the car would roll down on its own if the driver weren't sitting there and holding the brake, he would be considered to be doing the action of holding the car in place and would be an odom hamazik. If the road was flat and the car would be stationary or rolling very slowly even if his foot was not on the brake, the driver would not be considered to be doing any action; therefore, the car would only be a bor and the driver would be exempt on damages to the other car. [Of course, the victim may pursue a claim against his insurance. -ed. note]
Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org Rav Aryeh FinkelQuestion: Reuven owns a Roomba vacuum cleaner, which rolls by itself across the floor of his house. He brought it over to his neighbor's house to demonstrate to them how it works. During his demonstration, it vacuumed up a child's gold earring and they were unable to retrieve it. Is Reuven liable to pay for the lost earring?In a similar occurrence, a Roomba banged into a parakeet's cage and injured the valuable bird. Is the owner of the vacuum culpable for the injuries to the parakeet? Answer: The Torah says that a person is liable for damages done by his animals. While the Mishnah in Bava Kama lists various categories of animals that one is chayav for, obviously, a Roomba vacuum cleaner is not one of them. The Rambam clearly rules that any liability of animal damages applies only to live creatures; therefore, they would not apply to the case in question. One could suggest that the owner of the vacuum could be liable as a derivative of aish. If one places any object in a place where it is likely that wind will move it and cause damage, he can be held liable as a form of aish. In this case, the individual left his vacuum running in a place where it is likely to vacuum up an earring, which would place it in the category of aish.However, the Gemara says that if someone puts his friend's cow next to a third person's fruit and, as a result of this, the cow eats the fruit, the one who put it there is chayav, even though it is not his cow. The Rishonim discuss which hezek this is. They agree that it cannot be shein, as one is only liable for shein of his own animals. The Rashba says that it is aish. Tosafos disagree and say that it cannot be aish. The Acharonim explain that Tosafos hold that aish only applies in a case where the object is moved by an outside force like the wind, and not on its own. A cow cannot be aish because it moves of its own volition. So too, it would seem that according to this opinion a Roomba cannot either be considered aish because it moves from its own power. Thus, aish would also be ruled out in this case.It is possible that the owner of the vacuum can be held liable because of bor. While a bor is usually stationary, the Gemara in Bava Kama says that if someone owns a dead tree that falls down and causes damage as it falls, the owner is liable if he was properly warned. Tosafos say that he is liable because his tree is considered a bor. We see that even a moving obstacle in a public place is considered a bor. Accordingly, the Roomba can also be considered a bor. However, we know that a bor is not liable for damages caused to keilim, which would mean that we cannot obligate the owner to pay for the earring. The parakeet, however, is a living animal, and we could obligate the owner to pay for its injuries.
Chullin Shiur #92 Daf 18b- Rishonim in Pesachim 41a
Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org Rav Aryeh FinkelQuestion: Reuven is driving around at 4 am. He comes to a red light and stops. He doesn't see anyone around, so he goes through the red. Unfortunately, a kid on a scooter comes flying out of nowhere and is struck by Reuven's car. Boruch Hashem, the boy is unhurt. The scooter, however, is destroyed. Is Reuven liable to pay for the scooter?Answer: This case has to be broken down into two aspects. Firstly, a kid riding around on a scooter in the middle of the night is an unexpected occurrence; consequently, we have to determine whether this qualifies as an “oness”. Secondly, we have to determine whether the fact that Reuven ran a red light can be held against him.Had it been the middle of the day, perhaps it would be Reuven's responsibility to reasonably ensure that no pedestrians are approaching the intersection. At 4am, however, there is no reason to expect that a kid would be riding around on a scooter. Accordingly, if the light had been green Reuven would definitely be patur. While it is true that there is a general rule of “odom mu'ad l'olam” (a person is always held accountable for damages he causes through his actions), Tosafos and other Rishonim clarify that one is exempt in cases of “oness gamur”, when it was clearly unavoidable. Furthermore, the Rambam states that the rule of odom mu'ad l'olam only applies if the incident occurred on the property of the victim. If it happened on the property of the damager, or even on public property, this rule does not apply. Accordingly, if the light was green, the roadway is considered to be “the property of the damager” because he has the right of way, while the one who was damaged does not. It should be noted that the Chazon Ish says that the Rambam is only referring to cases where the damager was doing a normal action, such as walking or driving, and he hits someone on his property or on public property. Otherwise, for example, if a person were to trip and fall and break something on his way down, that would not be considered a normal course of action and the rule of odom mu'ad l'olam would apply even according to the Rambam.
The Laws of Torts Week 1Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org Rav Aryeh FinkelTEXT VERSION:Question: Reuven's neighbor went away for Shabbos. Before he left, he forgot to shut the hose that was running in his backyard. Over Shabbos, the water flowed into Reuven's property and flooded his basement. Is the neighbor liable as an odom hamazik? Answer: He definitely could be chayav because of the rule of garmi, which is a form of direct causation of damage; however, there are some limitations to the halachos of garmi. For example, there is the opinion of the Shach who says that garmi is only a chiyuv d'rabanan, which allows for leniency in some cases.Odom hamazik, however, is a chiyuv d'oharaysa. A person is biblically liable for damages that he does through his actions. In this case, the neighbor just turned on the water. He did not actually cause the flooding by pouring water into Reuven's basement. Is what he did enough of an action to hold him liable as an odom hamazik?The Gemara in Bava Kama speaks about a case where someone releases water out of a pipe, which flows out and causes damage. It says that if the water strikes something in the first burst as it is running out of the pipe, it is called “kocho” – a damaging force caused by the person. Although he didn't touch the water and merely allowed it to come out of the pipe, it is considered as if he did the damage and he is liable as an odom hamazik. The Gemara in Sanhedrin discusses a similar case where someone opened a dam and cause the water to be diverted in a certain direction, thereby killing a person. The Rishonim use this Gemara to discern the halacha regarding damages. There, the Gemara says that only the initial spurt of water, known as “koach rishon”, is considered odom hamazik. The subsequent flow of water is called “koach sheni”, and is not considered odom hamazik.In the case in question, the flow from the hose would be considered koach sheni since it takes time for it to cause damage; therefore, it is not odom hamazik. Furthermore, even if a person would actually spray the hose directly into the basement, it might only be odom hamazik if he sprayed things like books, which get ruined right away. Whereas, if it hit hardwood furniture, which only gets damaged after it is saturated with water, it may not be considered active damage. Since such furniture is not damaged on contact, it is only destroyed by the koach shnei and, thus, is not odom hamazik.The Gemara discusses another case where a trespassing cow falls into a pit of water and ruins the water by dirtying it. It says that if the cow was dirty and ruined the water on contact, the owner has to pay for the damage. If, however, the cow was clean and only ruined the water by staying in it for an extended period of time, the damage is not considered to be a result of the cow's action; rather, it was damaged while the cow was stationary. Damage by a stationary object falls under the category of “bor”, which is only liable for damaging people or animals and not for damages to keilim (inanimate objects). Similarly, perhaps when one damages furniture by spraying it with water, the damage occurs while the water is stationary in the furniture. Thus, the water is akin to a bor and the owner would not be liable to pay for keilim – meaning he is exempt from paying for the furniture as an odom hamazik.According to all of this, the neighbor would not be liable in this story as an odom hamazik; however, as we started off by saying, he may be chayav becau
Sponsored By: Yehuda WinzelbergSefer Orchos Chaim L'HaRosh is a timeless Mussar classic, enhanced with hundreds of stories and insights. The Sefer Orchos Chaim L'HaRosh has been treasured as a guide to living with yiras Shamayim, refined middos, and true Torah values. Written by Rabbeinu Asher ben Yechiel, the Rosh, who was one of the great Rishonim. This work has been learned in the great yeshivos of the past and present, and it is used as a roadmap for avodas Hashem and personal growth. This new edition, by Rabbi Yehuda Winzelberg, has opened up this work and geared it to our generation. It is filled with uplifting insights, practical guidance, and great stories, that bring the Rosh's teachings into sharp focus for our lives today. The Sefer Orchos Chaim L'haRosh will elevate the way you think, speak, and live. Available at Seforim stores and at the Judaica Press website. https://judaicapress.com/collections/new-releases/products/orchos-chaim-lharosh
In this uplifting episode of Inside ArtScroll, Rabbi Shlomo Landau sits down with Rabbi David Sutton to explore The Bitachon Haggadah – With a Daily Dose of Preparation, a sefer that transforms the way we approach Pesach. At its heart is a powerful yet simple idea: true freedom doesn't begin on the night of the Seder — it begins thirty days earlier. Rabbi Sutton shares how this unique “two-in-one” work serves both as a 30-day daily reader and a complete Haggadah with commentary, gently guiding readers through a month-long journey of emunah, bitachon, and inner growth so they can arrive at Pesach calm, centered, and spiritually ready. Drawing on the wisdom of Chazal, Rishonim, and later Torah giants, Rabbi Sutton explains how Yetzias Mitzrayim is not merely a story of the past, but a living, personal experience meant to renew our faith each year. Interwoven with meaningful insights and heart-stirring stories, the Haggadah brings warmth and depth to the Seder table while strengthening one's connection to Hashem long after Pesach has passed. This conversation offers a refreshing perspective on preparation, showing how anticipation itself can become a pathway to serenity, clarity, and true cheirus.
In this week's double portion, Vayakhel-Pekude, Rabbi Joseph Dweck explores the profound concept of Nedib Leb—the "willing heart". As the Israelites begin the physical construction of the Mishkan (Tabernacle), we learn that the most essential building material isn't gold or silver, but the voluntary spirit of the people.Rabbi Dweck delves into the spiritual anatomy of the heart, contrasting the open, faithful heart of Sinai with the "sealed" heart that emerged during the crisis of the Golden Calf. By examining the teachings of the Rishonim and a powerful Midrash about the destruction of the Temple, he reveals how the "core self" of the Jewish person remains fundamentally connected to a desire for relationship with God, even in times of fear and uncertainty.Rabbi Dweck has held rabbinic leadership roles in the US and the UK. He is the Rosh Bet Midrash of TheHabura.com and the Rabbi Levy Chair of Jewish Wisdom at the London School of Jewish Studies.For more, check out rabbijosephdweck.com.Instagram: https://instagram.com/rabbidweckTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@rabbidweckYoutube: https://www.youtube.com/c/RabbiJosephDweck
Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org Rav Baruch FriedQuestion: One of the people who is considered by halacha to be unable to participate in commerce is a “cheresh”. I have a business partner who is deaf and hears through a cochlear implant. Does he have the status of a cheresh?Answer: Generally, this question is not so relevant because just like there is a takanah of Chazal that a child who understands commerce can engage in business transactions, so too, Chazal enacted that a cheresh who understands commerce can be involved in business. The one exception, however, is real estate. A true cheresh cannot engage in property transactions.If someone with a cochlear implant is involved with real estate, we would have to determine if he is considered a cheresh.Acharonim have long dealt with the question of someone who is technically a cheresh yet is obviously smart and acclimated. As a rule, they are hesitant to say definitively that such a person can ever have the status of a pikeach.In other areas of halacha, if someone cannot hear but he can speak, many Rishonim say that he is considered a pikeach according to halacha. Again, however, they say that real estate is an exception and he cannot engage in transactions involving property.Rav Moshe Feinstein has a teshuva about a person who can speak but cannot hear at all without the aid of a machine (similar to a cochlear implant). He says that such a person is in the category of a medaber v'aino shomea, he can speak but cannot hear, which renders him a regular bar daas for all matters with the exception of doing commerce with real estate.This means that even if the person understands real estate very well, he technically still has the status of a cheresh and he cannot sell or buy properties. Essentially, an apotropus would have to be appointed to manage his transactions on his behalf. The laws of who can and cannot be an apotropus are complex but if he has a business partner, that partner might become his de-facto executor and make deals for him.Even without an apotropus, if a cheresh does sell karkah, the deal is valid as long as no one protests. If the parties are worried that someone may protest at some point in the future and negate the deal, they should technically have an apotropus appointed to mitigate this concern.
Can a Camp Withhold Payment from a Worker If His Father Owes Them Money?Rav Baruch FriedQuestion: A bochur spent a summer working in a camp. At the end of the summer, he goes over to the director and asks for his pay. The director informs the boy that his father still owes the camp money, so he is withholding his paycheck to cover the balance, and he should feel free to ask his father to pay him directly. Can the camp do that?Answer: First of all, it is definitely not a good way to be mechanech.The camp's justification may be based on Shibudah d'Rebbi Nosson. The director could be saying we owe you money and your father owes us money, so you can get your payment from him. That is clearly wrong. Shibudah d'Rebbi Nosson means that if someone owes you money and that person doesn't have money to pay, the creditor can go to a person who owes the debtor money to collect from him instead. It does not mean that a debtor who does have money to pay can tell his creditor that he isn't going to pay him because someone else owes him money and he should go collect from that person instead. If the camp's argument is that the son's wages actually belong to his father, that might be a better claim. There is a big machlokes amongst the Rishonim regarding whether a father has the right to the wages of his adult child who are being supported by him. The Rema rules that he does. Accordingly, the camp may claim that since the son's wages really belong to his father, and his father owes the camp money, they are keeping those wages as payment for the money they are owed. The counterclaim to that would be that the father's right to the son's wages is not a din d'ohraysa. Rather, it is a takanas chochomim that was put in place to prevent eivah, i.e. if the father is supporting his son, and the son is making money and keeping it for himself, this could lead to enmity from the father towards the son. Therefore, the chochomim decreed that the son's earnings can be claimed by the father. Since this is a takanas chochomim for the father's benefit, so long as he is not interested in taking possession of the son's wages, they rightfully belong to the son. Thus, it would seem that the boy would have the right to take the camp to a din Torah to demand his paycheck. Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org
Tracing the journey of Wine, from Roman times and the laws of Yayin Nesech, to Lead Poisoning, wine dilution and Rashi's momentous ruling. Spanning medieval France, Italy's Rishonim, Provencal responsa and Egyptian challenges, the podcast reveals the halachic debate in times of evolving technology, commerce and travel. As well as instructions for a Seder night without wine. Timestamps: - 00:00:33 — Podcast intro - 00:01:09 — Sponsor dedication (Five Towns Central) and contact info. - 00:01:50 — Series announcement: new multi-part “wine” series; guests planned for week two. - 00:03:34 — Origins: Georgia and ancient Egyptian wine (Tutankhamun jars). - 00:05:33 — Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans: amphorae, dilution, and wine practices. - 00:08:44 — Roman recipes/additives, Posca/Eora, and medicinal uses; Gemara liability notes. - 00:16:00 — Lead/metal use in wine, health risks, and later glass bottles enabling long aging. - 00:17:30 — Halachic introduction: yayin nesech and stam yeinam explained. - 00:20:00 — Ashkenaz/France: cash shortages, wine-as-debt, Rashi's leniencies and barrel-sealing debate. - 00:30:00 — Provence/Languedoc: stringencies, piquet (second-press), and transport sealing practices. - 00:32:47 — England: wine shortages and instructions for Kiddush/Seder without wine. - 00:36:04 — Muslim/Ottoman lands: limited production, taxes/bans, and examples of covert trade. - 00:42:09 — Italy: Teshuvot hesitancy, later Padua rulings, and varied local customs. - 00:46:32 — Closing: recap of wine's household role, upcoming guests (Nathan “Yochi” Herzog + halachic expert), and call for listener questions.
Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour
There are several different kinds of Kaddish, the first of which is commonly known as "Hasi Kaddish" – "half-Kaddish." The term "Hasi Kaddish" is actually a misnomer, as the text of this Kaddish is in fact the complete original text, composed either by the Ansheh Kenesset Ha'gedola (Men of the Great Assembly) at the beginning of the Second Commonwealth, or several generations later, by the Tanna'im. The prayers added to the other Kaddish texts were introduced later, during the period of the Geonim or the period of the Rishonim. These other texts are known to us as "Kaddish Titkabal," "Kaddish Yeheh Shelama," and "Kaddish Al Yisrael" (which is also referred to as "Kaddish De'Rabbanan"). "Kaddish Titkabal" includes a request that our prayers be answered, and it is recited after the Amida prayer, and after Shelihot. "Kaddish Yeheh Shelama" is said after the recitation of a text of Torah She'bi'chtab (Tanach), such as following an Arayat. Finally, "Kaddish Al Yisrael" is recited after a session of studying Torah She'be'al Peh (the oral Torah), such as Mishna or Gemara. This text contains a prayer for the wellbeing of the Torah scholars and their students (which is why this Kaddish is also known as "Kaddish De'Rabbanan" – the Rabbis' Kaddish). We recite this Kaddish in the morning after the Korbanot section, which includes the Mishnayot of "Ezehu Mekoman" and the Berayta of Rabbi Yishmael. It is recited again at the end of the prayer service, following the recitation of the Ketoret text which includes passages from the Gemara. This final "Kaddish Al Yisrael" after the Ketoret is known as "Kaddish Yatom" – the mourner's Kaddish, as it is recited by those in mourning for a parent. The Arizal taught that the recitation of this Kaddish by a mourner has the ability to extricate the parent from Gehinnom and bring him or her to Gan Eden. These final three Kaddish texts conclude with a prayer for peace and material blessings. The Rabbis explain that we first pray that "Yitgadal Ve'yitkadash Shemeh Rabba" – that G-d's Name should be glorified and become known throughout the world, before proceeding to ask for our personal needs. This is based on the concept that we must first pray for G-d's sake, so-to-speak, for the glory of His Name, and in this merit our personal requests will be granted. The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 1269-1343) brings a teaching of the Midrash that if a person includes in his prayers the plea that Hashem should act for the sake of His Name ("Aseh Lema'an Shemecha, Aseh Lema'an Yeminecha…"), then he will be given the merit to greet the Shechina. We should pray not only for our own benefit, but also for the sake of the glorification of G-d's Name. This notion is alluded to in the first four words of Kaddish – "Yitgadal Ve'yitkadash Shemeh Rabba." These words begin with the letters Yod, Vav, Shin and Resh, which have the combined numerical value of 516. The Sages teach that Moshe Rabbenu prayed 515 times for the privilege of entering the Land of Israel, whereupon G-d commanded him to stop praying. Some commentators explain that Moshe was told to stop because if he had recited a 516 th prayer, then his prayer would have been accepted (and it was decreed that Moshe must not go into the land). Moshe prayed solely for the purpose of "Yitgadal Ve'yitkadash Shemeh Rabba," for the sake of the glorification of the divine Name, and not for his personal benefit, and his prayer therefore would have deserved to be accepted. When our intentions are sincere, when we pray for our needs so we can succeed in our mission in the world, the mission of bringing honor to the Almighty, then we are worthy of having our prayers answered.
Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour
Numerous different theories have been advanced to explain why the Kaddish prayer was written in Aramaic, and not in Hebrew. One reason given is based on the tradition that angels do not understand Aramaic. Kaddish is such a precious and valuable prayer that the angels would feel envious if they heard us recite it and they understood its meaning. This prayer was therefore composed in a language which the angels cannot understand. The Mahzor Vitri (Rabbenu Simha of Vitri, France, d. 1105) questioned this explanation, noting that there are many other beautiful and precious prayers which we recite that were written in Hebrew, without any concern that the angels might become envious. (We might also question how angels, which are perfect beings, can experience jealousy, a human flaw. Perhaps, envy over spiritual achievements is a laudable quality, and this feeling can be experienced by angels.) A second theory is that Kaddish is written in Aramaic as a reminder of the Babylonian exile. We emphasize to Hashem that He destroyed the Bet Ha'mikdash and drove us into a foreign land, where we spoke a foreign language, and we hope that this will lead Hashem to regret His decision and bring us back. If the angels understood this prayer, they would respond by pointing out our misdeeds, arguing that we are unworthy of redemption, and so we recite Kaddish in a language which the angels do not understand. Another reason given is that many of the people who would attend Torah classes were simple laymen who did not understand Hebrew. Therefore, the Kaddish recited after Torah classes was written in Aramaic for their benefit, so they would understand this prayer. It seems that according to this reason, the other Kaddish recitations were modeled after the Kaddish recited after Torah classes. The Maharam Me'Rotenberg (c. 1215-1293) suggested that we recite Kaddish in Aramaic to express our grief over the destruction of the Bet Ha'mikdash. Just as a mourner changes out of his fine garments and wears simple clothing as an expression of mourning, we, too, change the language from Hebrew, the sacred tongue, to the inferior Aramaic, as an expression of anguish. (Incidentally, some sources explain similarly why we begin the Haggadah at the Seder in Aramaic, reciting "Ha Lahma Anya." As we sit down to the Seder, we are cognizant of the fact that we are meant to celebrate this occasion in Jerusalem, with the Korban Pesach. We therefore begin the Seder in a foreign language, expressing our grief that we observe Pesach in exile.) Rabbi Binyamin Ben Abraham (Italy, 13 th century), as cited by his brother, the Shiboleh Ha'leket (Rabbi Sidkiya Ha'rofeh), suggested that the gentile authorities at a certain point forbade the Jews from reciting Kaddish. The Jews therefore began reciting it in Aramaic, so the authorities would not realize that they were reciting this prayer. The Kolbo (anonymous work from the period of the Rishonim) offered two explanations, one assuming that Aramaic was widely known at the time of Kaddish's composition, and one assuming that it was not. If it was widely known, he writes, then Kaddish may have been written in this language specifically for the purpose of spreading its message far and wide, to demonstrate to the entire world, including the gentiles, our belief in our ultimate redemption, when Hashem's Name will be glorified throughout the world. Conversely, if Aramaic was not widely known, then perhaps it is recited in Aramaic because the angels might otherwise understand the prayer and thus prosecute against us. The Kaddish speaks of the time of the future redemption, and at that time, the righteous will be granted a greater position of stature than the angels. Since we human beings must struggle against our evil inclination to faithfully observe G-d, those who succeed and serve G-d properly deserve far more reward than the angels, who are created perfect, without sinful impulses. If the angels would understand the Kaddish, which speaks of the time of the final redemption, they might proceed to prosecute against us to ensure that the righteous would not be given a more distinguished position in the future. Kaddish is therefore recited in Aramaic, a language which the angels do not understand.
Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour
If nine men are assembled in a room, and a tenth men is outside by the window, can this tenth men be counted so a Minyan can be formed? It is clear that the fellow outside cannot be counted if the window is closed. Even if the window is open but there are security bars running across the area of the window, the man cannot count toward the Minyan. Regarding the case of an open window, different views exist among the Poskim. The Bet Yosef cites Rabbenu Yeruham (1290-1350) as ruling that the fellow outside does not count toward the Minyan, unless he brings his head and the main part of the body through the window. This is the view accepted by the Hayeh Adam (Rav Abraham Danzig, Vilna, 1748-1820). The Bet Yosef then cites the more lenient ruling of Rav Yishak Abuhab (Spain, 14 th century) that it suffices for the person to put his head inside through the window for him to be counted toward the Minyan. Thirdly, the Bet Yosef cites the position of Rav Hai Gaon (Babylonia, 939-1038), brought by the Orhot Haim, that if the man outside "shows them his face" then he may be counted toward the Minyan. The Bet Yosef posits that these final two views actually are the same opinion, expressed in different words, though he is uncertain what this opinion is. It is possible, he writes, that Rav Hai Gaon agreed that the fellow outside must bring his head into the room through the window, but his position was not made clear in the citation in the Orhot Haim. Conversely, it is possible that Rav Yishak Abuhab agreed that it suffices for the person to merely show his face to the people inside, and does not actually have to bring his head through the window. A number of other Rishonim (the Radbaz and Rav Moshe Ibn Habib) ruled clearly that the individual must bring his head inside the room through the window in order to count toward the Minyan, perhaps giving us reason to assume that this was the view also of Rav Yishak Abuhab and Rav Hai Gaon. This question is debated by later Poskim. The Magen Abraham (Rav Abraham Gombiner, Poland, 1635-1682) and the Peri Hadash (Rav Hizkiya Da Silva, 1659-1698) ruled leniently, that nine men in a room can form a Minyan with a tenth man outside a window if he faces them through the window. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806), in Mahazik Beracha, cites those who require the person to bring his head through the window, and then brings those who rule leniently, that it suffices for the tenth men outside to face the nine men inside. As for the final Halacha, although the Mishna Berura follows the lenient view, the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakov Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939) ruled stringently, that the person outside must bring his head inside the room to be counted. This is the position followed by Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, and this is the Halacha according to Sephardic practice. Summary: If nine men are in a room, and a tenth man is outside a window that is completely open, they can form a Minyan if the man outside brings his head inside through the window.
Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour
Ten men combine to form a Minyan only if they are together in the same room. The Rishonim debate the question of whether a person can count toward a Minyan if he is standing in the doorway. If nine men are inside the room, and the tenth is in the doorway, do they form a Minyan, or must the tenth man come out of the doorway inside the room? The Bet Yosef brings the view of Rashi, that the area underneath the lintel is considered part of the room, such that a person standing there counts toward the Minyan formed inside the room. By contrast, Rabbenu Yeruham (1290-1350) maintained that the area of the doorway is considered outside the room. The Bet Yosef shows that the Rambam follows Rabbenu Yeruham's view, noting the Rambam's ruling that if someone brought the meat of the Pesach sacrifice to the doorway of the home on the night of Pesach, he transgresses the Torah prohibition against bringing the meat of the sacrifice outside the home. The Rambam clearly considered the area of the doorway outside the home, and this would, presumably, apply also to the formation of a Minyan. The Shulhan Aruch accepts this view, and writes that the area of the doorway is not considered part of the room, and thus a person who stands there cannot be counted toward the Minyan. By contrast, the Magen Abraham (Rav Avraham Gombiner, Poland, 1635-1682) cites the work Tanya Rabbati as ruling leniently, that a person in the doorway may, in fact, be counted. This is the view also of the Mishna Berura, citing the Eben Ha'ozer. In light of these different opinions, several Poskim, including the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939), maintained that we must be stringent in both directions. This means that a person standing in the doorway of a room cannot combine with nine men in the room to form a Minyan, and also cannot combine with nine men assembled outside in the hallway, as it is uncertain whether he is considered inside the room or in the hallway. Rav Meir Mazuz (1945-2025), in Ish Masliah, writes that although it is proper to be stringent in both directions, the Halacha follows the Shulhan Aruch's ruling, and so, strictly speaking, a person standing in the doorway may combine with nine men in the hallway to form a Minyan. Within the Shulhan Aruch's view, there is a difference of opinion regarding the status of a person standing in the area of the doorway closer to the room, such that he would be inside if the door closed. The Mishna Berura writes that according to some understandings of the Shulhan Aruch, even a person standing in this spot is considered outside, and cannot be counted toward a Minyan. This was the position also of the Kaf Ha'haim. Rav Mazuz, however, disagreed, and maintained that the person may be counted in such a case. The Mishna Berura, too, concluded that one may be lenient in this situation, even according to the Shulhan Aruch, given that many Poskim do not accept Rabbenu Yeruham's stringent view to begin with. Rav David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, likewise rules leniently, and this is the Halacha. The Poskim debate the status of a doorway that has no door. Some argue that the only reason why the doorway would not be considered part of the room is that part of the doorway is left outside when the door is closed; therefore, if there is no door, the area of the doorway is viewed as part of the room. Others contend that to the contrary, the possibility of viewing the doorway as part of the room is based on the fact that part of the doorway is inside when the door closes. In practice, then, if there is no door, we must be stringent, and a person standing in the doorway cannot combine with people inside the room or outside the room, regardless of where in the doorway he stands. Summary: If a person is standing in the doorway of a room, then he cannot combine with nine men inside the room to form a Minyan. Strictly speaking, he can join with nine men in the hallway outside the room to form a Minyan, though he should preferably move outside the doorway into the hallway. If he stands in the inner portion of the doorway, such that he would be inside the room if the door would close, then he can combine with nine men standing inside the room, unless there is no door, in which case he cannot combine with either those inside the room or those outside in the hall.
Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour
Ten men combine to form a Minyan only if they are together in the same room. The Rishonim debate the question of whether a person can count toward a Minyan if he is standing in the doorway. If nine men are inside the room, and the tenth is in the doorway, do they form a Minyan, or must the tenth man come out of the doorway inside the room? The Bet Yosef brings the view of Rashi, that the area underneath the lintel is considered part of the room, such that a person standing there counts toward the Minyan formed inside the room. By contrast, Rabbenu Yeruham (1290-1350) maintained that the area of the doorway is considered outside the room. The Bet Yosef shows that the Rambam follows Rabbenu Yeruham's view, noting the Rambam's ruling that if someone brought the meat of the Pesach sacrifice to the doorway of the home on the night of Pesach, he transgresses the Torah prohibition against bringing the meat of the sacrifice outside the home. The Rambam clearly considered the area of the doorway outside the home, and this would, presumably, apply also to the formation of a Minyan. The Shulhan Aruch accepts this view, and writes that the area of the doorway is not considered part of the room, and thus a person who stands there cannot be counted toward the Minyan. By contrast, the Magen Abraham (Rav Avraham Gombiner, Poland, 1635-1682) cites the work Tanya Rabbati as ruling leniently, that a person in the doorway may, in fact, be counted. This is the view also of the Mishna Berura, citing the Eben Ha'ozer. In light of these different opinions, several Poskim, including the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939), maintained that we must be stringent in both directions. This means that a person standing in the doorway of a room cannot combine with nine men in the room to form a Minyan, and also cannot combine with nine men assembled outside in the hallway, as it is uncertain whether he is considered inside the room or in the hallway. Rav Meir Mazuz (1945-2025), in Ish Masliah, writes that although it is proper to be stringent in both directions, the Halacha follows the Shulhan Aruch's ruling, and so, strictly speaking, a person standing in the doorway may combine with nine men in the hallway to form a Minyan. Within the Shulhan Aruch's view, there is a difference of opinion regarding the status of a person standing in the area of the doorway closer to the room, such that he would be inside if the door closed. The Mishna Berura writes that according to some understandings of the Shulhan Aruch, even a person standing in this spot is considered outside, and cannot be counted toward a Minyan. This was the position also of the Kaf Ha'haim. Rav Mazuz, however, disagreed, and maintained that the person may be counted in such a case. The Mishna Berura, too, concluded that one may be lenient in this situation, even according to the Shulhan Aruch, given that many Poskim do not accept Rabbenu Yeruham's stringent view to begin with. Rav David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, likewise rules leniently, and this is the Halacha. The Poskim debate the status of a doorway that has no door. Some argue that the only reason why the doorway would not be considered part of the room is that part of the doorway is left outside when the door is closed; therefore, if there is no door, the area of the doorway is viewed as part of the room. Others contend that to the contrary, the possibility of viewing the doorway as part of the room is based on the fact that part of the doorway is inside when the door closes. In practice, then, if there is no door, we must be stringent, and a person standing in the doorway cannot combine with people inside the room or outside the room, regardless of where in the doorway he stands. Summary: If a person is standing in the doorway of a room, then he cannot combine with nine men inside the room to form a Minyan. Strictly speaking, he can join with nine men in the hallway outside the room to form a Minyan, though he should preferably move outside the doorway into the hallway. If he stands in the inner portion of the doorway, such that he would be inside the room if the door would close, then he can combine with nine men standing inside the room, unless there is no door, in which case he cannot combine with either those inside the room or those outside in the hall.
Rabbi Shalom Rosner delivers part two of a shiur on Hotza'ah from Volume 22 of the Tzurba M'Rabanan series.Get all Tzurba volumes free when you join our email list and begin your own path of serious Torah learning.
Rabbi Shalom Rosner delivers a shiur on Tchumin from Volume 22 of the Tzurba M'Rabanan series.Get all Tzurba volumes free when you join our email list and begin your own path of serious Torah learning.
Rabbi Shalom Rosner delivers part one of a shiur on Eruvin from Volume 22 of the Tzurba M'Rabanan series.Get all Tzurba volumes free when you join our email list and begin your own path of serious Torah learning.
Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour
The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 55:13), based on the ruling of numerous Rishonim, writes that ten men cannot combine to form a Minyan if they are not together in the same room. For ten men to comprise a Minyan, they must be in one room. If ten or more people are together in the same room, then men in an adjoining room, or outside in the hallway, can pray with them and thereby be considered as praying with a Minyan. A number of Rishonim maintained that people in different rooms can combine to form a Minyan if they can see each other. Thus, according to this opinion, if five men are in one room and five other men are in an adjoining room with an open door, or with just an arch without a door, they can form a Minyan since they can all see one another. This is the view taken by the Abi Ezri (Rav Eliezer Ben Yoel Ha'levi, Germany, 12 th century) and the Rashba (Rav Shlomo Ben Aderet of Barcelona, Spain, 1235-1310). These Rishonim compare the laws regarding a Minyan to those that apply to a Zimun for Birkat Ha'mazon. Just as people seated in different room can nevertheless combine to form a Zimun if they can see each other, the same is true of ten men who wish to form a Minyan. By contrast, the Or Zarua (Rav Yishak of Vienna, 13 th century), based on the ruling of the Rashbash (Rav Shlomo Duran, Algiers, 1400-1467), maintained that visibility does not affect the status of men situated in different rooms. Even if they can see each other, they cannot form a Minyan if they are not together in the same room. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) understood the Bet Yosef as siding with this stringent view, and, indeed, this is the opinion accepted as Halacha. Therefore, ten men in two separate rooms cannot form a Minyan even if they can see each other. This Halacha becomes very relevant at Shiba homes, Heaven forbid. Sometimes, if the living room is small, some of the men stand in other rooms, such as the kitchen, or in the hallway. Minyanim held in offices, too, often lack space, and the participants thus do not always stand in the same room. It must be assured that at least ten men are situated in the same room, and then the others can spread out into the hall or into other rooms. If ten men are in the same room, then they form a Minyan even if they do not all see each other. If there are pillars or pieces of furniture that obstruct their view, they still form a Minyan, since they are all situated in the same room. The Minhat Yishak (Rav Yishak Weiss, 1902-1989) addresses the case of a synagogue that expanded its sanctuary by removing a wall, combining it with the room next to it, but support pillars needed to be left in place, and they form what resembles a doorway. He ruled that since the pillars were not intended to form a separation, the resulting large room may be considered a single room with respect to the formation of a Minyan. Hence, a Minyan can be formed by ten men in the large room even if they are interspersed throughout the area that appears as two separate rooms. The Minhat Yishak also addressed the common situation of a synagogue that was planned from the outset to have a portable divider that is sometimes put in place to separate the sanctuary into two separate areas. Since the initial plan was for the area to be occasionally separated, the Minhat Yishak writes, the two sections are treated as separate rooms. Therefore, when a Minyan is formed there, at least ten men must gather in one section, and then the others can position themselves in the other section. Summary: For a Minyan to be formed, ten men must be situated together in the same room. If they are in separate rooms, they do not form a Minyan even if they can see each other. Once ten men are together in one room, others who are in the hallway or in a different room can join them and thus be considered as praying in a Minyan.
Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour
The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 55:13), based on the ruling of numerous Rishonim, writes that ten men cannot combine to form a Minyan if they are not together in the same room. For ten men to comprise a Minyan, they must be in one room. If ten or more people are together in the same room, then men in an adjoining room, or outside in the hallway, can pray with them and thereby be considered as praying with a Minyan. A number of Rishonim maintained that people in different rooms can combine to form a Minyan if they can see each other. Thus, according to this opinion, if five men are in one room and five other men are in an adjoining room with an open door, or with just an arch without a door, they can form a Minyan since they can all see one another. This is the view taken by the Abi Ezri (Rav Eliezer Ben Yoel Ha'levi, Germany, 12 th century) and the Rashba (Rav Shlomo Ben Aderet of Barcelona, Spain, 1235-1310). These Rishonim compare the laws regarding a Minyan to those that apply to a Zimun for Birkat Ha'mazon. Just as people seated in different room can nevertheless combine to form a Zimun if they can see each other, the same is true of ten men who wish to form a Minyan. By contrast, the Or Zarua (Rav Yishak of Vienna, 13 th century), based on the ruling of the Rashbash (Rav Shlomo Duran, Algiers, 1400-1467), maintained that visibility does not affect the status of men situated in different rooms. Even if they can see each other, they cannot form a Minyan if they are not together in the same room. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) understood the Bet Yosef as siding with this stringent view, and, indeed, this is the opinion accepted as Halacha. Therefore, ten men in two separate rooms cannot form a Minyan even if they can see each other. This Halacha becomes very relevant at Shiba homes, Heaven forbid. Sometimes, if the living room is small, some of the men stand in other rooms, such as the kitchen, or in the hallway. Minyanim held in offices, too, often lack space, and the participants thus do not always stand in the same room. It must be assured that at least ten men are situated in the same room, and then the others can spread out into the hall or into other rooms. If ten men are in the same room, then they form a Minyan even if they do not all see each other. If there are pillars or pieces of furniture that obstruct their view, they still form a Minyan, since they are all situated in the same room. The Minhat Yishak (Rav Yishak Weiss, 1902-1989) addresses the case of a synagogue that expanded its sanctuary by removing a wall, combining it with the room next to it, but support pillars needed to be left in place, and they form what resembles a doorway. He ruled that since the pillars were not intended to form a separation, the resulting large room may be considered a single room with respect to the formation of a Minyan. Hence, a Minyan can be formed by ten men in the large room even if they are interspersed throughout the area that appears as two separate rooms. The Minhat Yishak also addressed the common situation of a synagogue that was planned from the outset to have a portable divider that is sometimes put in place to separate the sanctuary into two separate areas. Since the initial plan was for the area to be occasionally separated, the Minhat Yishak writes, the two sections are treated as separate rooms. Therefore, when a Minyan is formed there, at least ten men must gather in one section, and then the others can position themselves in the other section. Summary: For a Minyan to be formed, ten men must be situated together in the same room. If they are in separate rooms, they do not form a Minyan even if they can see each other. Once ten men are together in one room, others who are in the hallway or in a different room can join them and thus be considered as praying in a Minyan.
#426The Early Jewish Printed Book: Episode 4> This episode of Seforim Chatter is sponsored by Sefaria, the free digital library of Jewish texts. With Sefaria, you can access thousands of sefarim — including Gemara, Rishonim, Acharonim, halacha, and Chassidus — all fully linked and searchable. Use it to prepare a shiur, learn with a chavrusa, or explore new ideas on your own — anytime, anywhere. Visit www.sefaria.org (http://www.sefaria.org/) to explore the world of Torah online, for free.> For more on Jewish Printing and Book Culture: https://www.posenlibrary.com/guide/jewish-printing-and-book-culture> For further research see Michelle's research guide: https://guides.library.columbia.edu/c.php?g=869414&p=6240198> To purchase David W. Amram's “The Makers of Hebrew Books in Italy: Being Chapters in the History of the Hebrew Printing Press”: https://amzn.to/4peGSwN> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp community: https://chat.whatsapp.com/DZ3C2CjUeD9AGJvXeEODtK> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp status: https://wa.me/message/TI343XQHHMHPN1> To support the podcast or to sponsor an episode follow this link: https://seforimchatter.com/support-seforimchatter/or email seforimchatter@gmail.com (Zelle/QP this email address)Support the show
#425The Early Jewish Printed Book: Episode 3 (with Michelle Margolis)> This episode of Seforim Chatter is sponsored by Sefaria, the free digital library of Jewish texts. With Sefaria, you can access thousands of sefarim — including Gemara, Rishonim, Acharonim, halacha, and Chassidus — all fully linked and searchable. Use it to prepare a shiur, learn with a chavrusa, or explore new ideas on your own — anytime, anywhere. Visit www.sefaria.org (http://www.sefaria.org/) to explore the world of Torah online, for free.> For more on Jewish Printing and Book Culture: https://www.posenlibrary.com/guide/jewish-printing-and-book-culture> For further research see Michelle's research guide: https://guides.library.columbia.edu/c.php?g=869414&p=6240198> To purchase David W. Amram's “The Makers of Hebrew Books in Italy: Being Chapters in the History of the Hebrew Printing Press”: https://amzn.to/4peGSwN> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp community: https://chat.whatsapp.com/DZ3C2CjUeD9AGJvXeEODtK> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp status: https://wa.me/message/TI343XQHHMHPN1> To support the podcast or to sponsor an episode follow this link: https://seforimchatter.com/support-seforimchatter/or email seforimchatter@gmail.com (Zelle/QP this email address)Support the show
#424The Early Jewish Printed Book: Episode 2 (with Michelle Margolis)> This episode of Seforim Chatter is sponsored by Sefaria, the free digital library of Jewish texts. With Sefaria, you can access thousands of sefarim — including Gemara, Rishonim, Acharonim, halacha, and Chassidus — all fully linked and searchable. Use it to prepare a shiur, learn with a chavrusa, or explore new ideas on your own — anytime, anywhere. Visit www.sefaria.org (http://www.sefaria.org/) to explore the world of Torah online, for free.> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp community: https://chat.whatsapp.com/DZ3C2CjUeD9AGJvXeEODtK> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp status: https://wa.me/message/TI343XQHHMHPN1> To support the podcast or to sponsor an episode follow this link: https://seforimchatter.com/support-seforimchatter/or email seforimchatter@gmail.com (Zelle/QP this email address)Support the show
Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour
The Gemara (Berachot 48a) brings the view of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi that an Ebed – a non-Jewish servant, who is obligated in some Misvot – may be counted as the tenth men for a Minyan. The Mordechi (Rav Mordechai Ben Hillel, Germany, 13 th century) cites Rabbenu Simha as concluding on the basis of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling that a woman may be counted toward a Minyan. Since non-Jewish servants are obligated in the same Misvot that women are, it follows that if a servant can be counted, then a woman may be counted, as well. The Bet Yosef observes that this also seems to have been the position of Rabbenu Tam (France, 1100-1171). However, Rabbenu Tam did not act upon this position, and this practice never became accepted. At first glance, we might have assumed that this position would affect the status of an Androginus (hermaphrodite, somebody with both male and female biological features) with respect to a Minyan. In general, the Halachic status of such a person is a Safek – one of uncertainty, and it is unknown whether to treat this individual as a male or female. Seemingly, when an Androginus is needed for a Minyan, we should apply the rule of "Sefek Sefeka," which allows acting leniently when two uncertainties are at stake. There is one question whether this person should be treated as a man or a woman, and even if an Androginus is regarded as a woman, perhaps Halacha follows the view of Rabbenu Tam that a woman may be counted as a Minyan. However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that Rabbenu Tam's position does not even come under consideration, and therefore we cannot apply the rule of "Sefek Sefeka" in this case. Hence, an Androginus is not counted toward a Minyan. Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi is cited also as allowing counting a minor – a boy under the age of Bar-Misva – toward a Minyan. The Gemara (Berachot 47b) brings Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling that an infant cannot be counted as the third person for a Zimun, but he can be counted as the tenth person for a Minyan. Tosafot cite Rabbenu Tam as accepting this position, and ruling that a child – even an infant – can count as the tenth person for a Minyan. (This is the basis for the Bet Yosef's aforementioned theory that Rabbenu Tam likely allowed counting a woman for a Minyan, as well, as he accepted Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling.) Later Rishonim explain Rabbenu Tam's surprising ruling based on the verse from which the Sages derived the concept of a Minyan: "Ve'nikdashti Be'toch Beneh Yisrael" – "I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel" (Vayikra 22:32). Even infants are considered part of Beneh Yisrael, and thus they qualify to create the conditions in which these special portions of the Tefila may be recited. The Sefer Ha'manhig (Rabbi Abraham Ben Natan, d. 1215) brings Rabbenu Tam's ruling without making any further comments, strongly implying that he accepted this lenient position. By contrast, numerous Rishonim write that Rabbenu Tam never apply this ruling as a practical matter, and never actually permitted counting minors toward a Minyan. (This is why the Bet Yosef, as cited earlier, writes that Rabbenu Tam did not allow counting a woman toward a Minyan.) Nevertheless, there were those who maintained that when necessary, a congregation may rely on Rabbenu Tam's opinion and count a child toward a Minyan. The Orhot Haim tells that Rabbenu Shimshon decreed excommunication upon a village that, in defiance of his strict ruling, counted minors toward a Minyan, but the Orhot Haim adds that this may be done when absolutely necessary, if the town is very small and otherwise will not have a Minyan. In fact, the Orhot Haim writes, the Ra'abad wrote that this was the custom in many communities. By contrast, the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, 1250-1327) cites Rabbenu Yishak as disputing Rabbenu Tam's position, noting that the Gemara brings Mor Zutra as disagreeing with Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi, and asserting that Halacha follows the view of Mor Zutra. The Bet Yosef lists numerous Rishonim who concurred with this stringent ruling of Rabbenu Yishak, and indeed, in the Shulhan Aruch, he writes that a minor may not be counted toward a Minyan under any circumstances, even if otherwise there will not be a Minyan. This is the Halacha for Sepharadim. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, d. 1572) ruled that since some Rishonim allowed counting minors toward a Minyan, this can be done when necessary. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986) accepted this ruling as normative Ashkenazic practice, and thus writes that if a congregation has no other option for praying with a Minyan, they may count a boy who has yet to reach the age of Bar-Misva. Other Ashkenazic Poskim, however, disagreed. The Mishna Berura brings several Poskim who concurred with the Shulhan Aruch's stringent ruling, and disputed the Rama's leniency. Likewise, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) ruled that a child may not be counted toward a Minyan under any circumstances, even if this means that the nine adults will stop coming to synagogue because they will assume there will not be a Minyan. The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 1269-1343) brings those who claimed that if a child holds a Humash in his hands, then he may be counted toward a Minyan. The Bet Yosef cites Rabbenu Tam as ridiculing this view, noting that holding a Humash makes no difference and has no impact upon a child's status. In any event, Halacha does not follow this opinion. If a Sepharadi finds himself together with eight other Sepharadim who want to include a minor as the tenth person for the Minyan, he should leave in order to prevent them from doing so. Since this is not allowed according to accepted Sephardic custom, it is proper to walk away so that the others do not make this mistake which will result in the recitation of Berachot in vain. If a Sepharadi is with eight other Ashkenazim who, in accordance with the Rama's ruling, wish to count a minor as the tenth person in a Minyan, it is questionable whether he should answer "Amen" to the Berachot. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that one may not answer "Amen" to a Beracha which, according to his custom, is recited in vain, even if the person recites it legitimately, following his community's custom. A common example is a Sepharadi praying in an Ashkenazi Minyan on Rosh Hodesh, when Ashkenazim recite a Beracha over the recitation of Hallel but Sepharadim do not. According to Hacham Ovadia, the Sepharadi may not answer "Amen" to this Beracha. Another example is the Ashkenazic custom to recite a Beracha before placing the Tefillin Shel Rosh ("Al Misvat Tefillin"). Hacham Ovadia ruled that a Sepharadi who hears an Ashkenazi recite this blessing should not answer "Amen." According to this opinion, a Sepharadi praying with Ashkenazim who count a child toward the Minyan may not answer "Amen" to the Berachot of the Hazara (repetition of the Amida). By contrast, Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) maintained that if an Ashkenazi recites a Beracha legitimately, following Ashkenazic practice, then a Sepharadi may answer "Amen," even though this Beracha is not recited according to Sephardic custom. The Hacham Sevi (Rav Tzvi Ashkenazi, 1656-1718) addresses the question as to the status of a human being created with the Sefer Ha'yesira – a mystical book written by Abraham Abinu. This book contains secrets including the way one can create living creatures using certain Names of G-d. (Some explain on this basis how Abraham served his guests meat and butter – suggesting that the animal was created with the Sefer Ha'yesira, such that it wasn't actually an animal, and thus its meat was not Halachically-defined "Basar.") The Hacham Sevi writes that such a creature does not possess a human soul, and thus is not defined by Halacha as a Jewish person who can count toward a Minyan.
Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour
The Gemara (Berachot 48a) brings the view of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi that an Ebed – a non-Jewish servant, who is obligated in some Misvot – may be counted as the tenth men for a Minyan. The Mordechi (Rav Mordechai Ben Hillel, Germany, 13 th century) cites Rabbenu Simha as concluding on the basis of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling that a woman may be counted toward a Minyan. Since non-Jewish servants are obligated in the same Misvot that women are, it follows that if a servant can be counted, then a woman may be counted, as well. The Bet Yosef observes that this also seems to have been the position of Rabbenu Tam (France, 1100-1171). However, Rabbenu Tam did not act upon this position, and this practice never became accepted. At first glance, we might have assumed that this position would affect the status of an Androginus (hermaphrodite, somebody with both male and female biological features) with respect to a Minyan. In general, the Halachic status of such a person is a Safek – one of uncertainty, and it is unknown whether to treat this individual as a male or female. Seemingly, when an Androginus is needed for a Minyan, we should apply the rule of "Sefek Sefeka," which allows acting leniently when two uncertainties are at stake. There is one question whether this person should be treated as a man or a woman, and even if an Androginus is regarded as a woman, perhaps Halacha follows the view of Rabbenu Tam that a woman may be counted as a Minyan. However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that Rabbenu Tam's position does not even come under consideration, and therefore we cannot apply the rule of "Sefek Sefeka" in this case. Hence, an Androginus is not counted toward a Minyan. Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi is cited also as allowing counting a minor – a boy under the age of Bar-Misva – toward a Minyan. The Gemara (Berachot 47b) brings Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling that an infant cannot be counted as the third person for a Zimun, but he can be counted as the tenth person for a Minyan. Tosafot cite Rabbenu Tam as accepting this position, and ruling that a child – even an infant – can count as the tenth person for a Minyan. (This is the basis for the Bet Yosef's aforementioned theory that Rabbenu Tam likely allowed counting a woman for a Minyan, as well, as he accepted Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling.) Later Rishonim explain Rabbenu Tam's surprising ruling based on the verse from which the Sages derived the concept of a Minyan: "Ve'nikdashti Be'toch Beneh Yisrael" – "I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel" (Vayikra 22:32). Even infants are considered part of Beneh Yisrael, and thus they qualify to create the conditions in which these special portions of the Tefila may be recited. The Sefer Ha'manhig (Rabbi Abraham Ben Natan, d. 1215) brings Rabbenu Tam's ruling without making any further comments, strongly implying that he accepted this lenient position. By contrast, numerous Rishonim write that Rabbenu Tam never apply this ruling as a practical matter, and never actually permitted counting minors toward a Minyan. (This is why the Bet Yosef, as cited earlier, writes that Rabbenu Tam did not allow counting a woman toward a Minyan.) Nevertheless, there were those who maintained that when necessary, a congregation may rely on Rabbenu Tam's opinion and count a child toward a Minyan. The Orhot Haim tells that Rabbenu Shimshon decreed excommunication upon a village that, in defiance of his strict ruling, counted minors toward a Minyan, but the Orhot Haim adds that this may be done when absolutely necessary, if the town is very small and otherwise will not have a Minyan. In fact, the Orhot Haim writes, the Ra'abad wrote that this was the custom in many communities. By contrast, the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, 1250-1327) cites Rabbenu Yishak as disputing Rabbenu Tam's position, noting that the Gemara brings Mor Zutra as disagreeing with Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi, and asserting that Halacha follows the view of Mor Zutra. The Bet Yosef lists numerous Rishonim who concurred with this stringent ruling of Rabbenu Yishak, and indeed, in the Shulhan Aruch, he writes that a minor may not be counted toward a Minyan under any circumstances, even if otherwise there will not be a Minyan. This is the Halacha for Sepharadim. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, d. 1572) ruled that since some Rishonim allowed counting minors toward a Minyan, this can be done when necessary. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986) accepted this ruling as normative Ashkenazic practice, and thus writes that if a congregation has no other option for praying with a Minyan, they may count a boy who has yet to reach the age of Bar-Misva. Other Ashkenazic Poskim, however, disagreed. The Mishna Berura brings several Poskim who concurred with the Shulhan Aruch's stringent ruling, and disputed the Rama's leniency. Likewise, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) ruled that a child may not be counted toward a Minyan under any circumstances, even if this means that the nine adults will stop coming to synagogue because they will assume there will not be a Minyan. The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 1269-1343) brings those who claimed that if a child holds a Humash in his hands, then he may be counted toward a Minyan. The Bet Yosef cites Rabbenu Tam as ridiculing this view, noting that holding a Humash makes no difference and has no impact upon a child's status. In any event, Halacha does not follow this opinion. If a Sepharadi finds himself together with eight other Sepharadim who want to include a minor as the tenth person for the Minyan, he should leave in order to prevent them from doing so. Since this is not allowed according to accepted Sephardic custom, it is proper to walk away so that the others do not make this mistake which will result in the recitation of Berachot in vain. If a Sepharadi is with eight other Ashkenazim who, in accordance with the Rama's ruling, wish to count a minor as the tenth person in a Minyan, it is questionable whether he should answer "Amen" to the Berachot. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that one may not answer "Amen" to a Beracha which, according to his custom, is recited in vain, even if the person recites it legitimately, following his community's custom. A common example is a Sepharadi praying in an Ashkenazi Minyan on Rosh Hodesh, when Ashkenazim recite a Beracha over the recitation of Hallel but Sepharadim do not. According to Hacham Ovadia, the Sepharadi may not answer "Amen" to this Beracha. Another example is the Ashkenazic custom to recite a Beracha before placing the Tefillin Shel Rosh ("Al Misvat Tefillin"). Hacham Ovadia ruled that a Sepharadi who hears an Ashkenazi recite this blessing should not answer "Amen." According to this opinion, a Sepharadi praying with Ashkenazim who count a child toward the Minyan may not answer "Amen" to the Berachot of the Hazara (repetition of the Amida). By contrast, Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) maintained that if an Ashkenazi recites a Beracha legitimately, following Ashkenazic practice, then a Sepharadi may answer "Amen," even though this Beracha is not recited according to Sephardic custom. Given the different views on this subject, Rav Bitan suggested that a Sepharadi who finds himself in this situation should answer by reciting the verse, "Baruch Hashem Le'olam Amen Ve'amen" (Tehillim 89:53), attempting to conclude the verse just when the others respond "Amen." This way, the Sefaradi answers "Amen" but says this word as part of a verse, which is always acceptable, thus satisfying all opinions. The Hacham Sevi (Rav Tzvi Ashkenazi, 1656-1718) addresses the question as to the status of a human being created with the Sefer Ha'yesira – a mystical book written by Abraham Abinu. This book contains secrets including the way one can create living creatures using certain Names of G-d. (Some explain on this basis how Abraham served his guests meat and butter – suggesting that the animal was created with the Sefer Ha'yesira, such that it wasn't actually an animal, and thus its meat was not Halachically-defined "Basar.") The Hacham Sevi writes that such a creature does not possess a human soul, and thus is not defined by Halacha as a Jewish person who can count toward a Minyan.
Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour
The Gemara (Berachot 48a) brings the view of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi that an Ebed – a non-Jewish servant, who is obligated in some Misvot – may be counted as the tenth men for a Minyan. The Mordechi (Rav Mordechai Ben Hillel, Germany, 13 th century) cites Rabbenu Simha as concluding on the basis of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling that a woman may be counted toward a Minyan. Since non-Jewish servants are obligated in the same Misvot that women are, it follows that if a servant can be counted, then a woman may be counted, as well. The Bet Yosef observes that this also seems to have been the position of Rabbenu Tam (France, 1100-1171). However, Rabbenu Tam did not act upon this position, and this practice never became accepted. At first glance, we might have assumed that this position would affect the status of an Androginus (hermaphrodite, somebody with both male and female biological features) with respect to a Minyan. In general, the Halachic status of such a person is a Safek – one of uncertainty, and it is unknown whether to treat this individual as a male or female. Seemingly, when an Androginus is needed for a Minyan, we should apply the rule of "Sefek Sefeka," which allows acting leniently when two uncertainties are at stake. There is one question whether this person should be treated as a man or a woman, and even if an Androginus is regarded as a woman, perhaps Halacha follows the view of Rabbenu Tam that a woman may be counted as a Minyan. However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that Rabbenu Tam's position does not even come under consideration, and therefore we cannot apply the rule of "Sefek Sefeka" in this case. Hence, an Androginus is not counted toward a Minyan. Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi is cited also as allowing counting a minor – a boy under the age of Bar-Misva – toward a Minyan. The Gemara (Berachot 47b) brings Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling that an infant cannot be counted as the third person for a Zimun, but he can be counted as the tenth person for a Minyan. Tosafot cite Rabbenu Tam as accepting this position, and ruling that a child – even an infant – can count as the tenth person for a Minyan. (This is the basis for the Bet Yosef's aforementioned theory that Rabbenu Tam likely allowed counting a woman for a Minyan, as well, as he accepted Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling.) Later Rishonim explain Rabbenu Tam's surprising ruling based on the verse from which the Sages derived the concept of a Minyan: "Ve'nikdashti Be'toch Beneh Yisrael" – "I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel" (Vayikra 22:32). Even infants are considered part of Beneh Yisrael, and thus they qualify to create the conditions in which these special portions of the Tefila may be recited. The Sefer Ha'manhig (Rabbi Abraham Ben Natan, d. 1215) brings Rabbenu Tam's ruling without making any further comments, strongly implying that he accepted this lenient position. By contrast, numerous Rishonim write that Rabbenu Tam never apply this ruling as a practical matter, and never actually permitted counting minors toward a Minyan. (This is why the Bet Yosef, as cited earlier, writes that Rabbenu Tam did not allow counting a woman toward a Minyan.) Nevertheless, there were those who maintained that when necessary, a congregation may rely on Rabbenu Tam's opinion and count a child toward a Minyan. The Orhot Haim tells that Rabbenu Shimshon decreed excommunication upon a village that, in defiance of his strict ruling, counted minors toward a Minyan, but the Orhot Haim adds that this may be done when absolutely necessary, if the town is very small and otherwise will not have a Minyan. In fact, the Orhot Haim writes, the Ra'abad wrote that this was the custom in many communities. By contrast, the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, 1250-1327) cites Rabbenu Yishak as disputing Rabbenu Tam's position, noting that the Gemara brings Mor Zutra as disagreeing with Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi, and asserting that Halacha follows the view of Mor Zutra. The Bet Yosef lists numerous Rishonim who concurred with this stringent ruling of Rabbenu Yishak, and indeed, in the Shulhan Aruch, he writes that a minor may not be counted toward a Minyan under any circumstances, even if otherwise there will not be a Minyan. This is the Halacha for Sepharadim. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, d. 1572) ruled that since some Rishonim allowed counting minors toward a Minyan, this can be done when necessary. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986) accepted this ruling as normative Ashkenazic practice, and thus writes that if a congregation has no other option for praying with a Minyan, they may count a boy who has yet to reach the age of Bar-Misva. Other Ashkenazic Poskim, however, disagreed. The Mishna Berura brings several Poskim who concurred with the Shulhan Aruch's stringent ruling, and disputed the Rama's leniency. Likewise, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) ruled that a child may not be counted toward a Minyan under any circumstances, even if this means that the nine adults will stop coming to synagogue because they will assume there will not be a Minyan. The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 1269-1343) brings those who claimed that if a child holds a Humash in his hands, then he may be counted toward a Minyan. The Bet Yosef cites Rabbenu Tam as ridiculing this view, noting that holding a Humash makes no difference and has no impact upon a child's status. In any event, Halacha does not follow this opinion. If a Sepharadi finds himself together with eight other Sepharadim who want to include a minor as the tenth person for the Minyan, he should leave in order to prevent them from doing so. Since this is not allowed according to accepted Sephardic custom, it is proper to walk away so that the others do not make this mistake which will result in the recitation of Berachot in vain. If a Sepharadi is with eight other Ashkenazim who, in accordance with the Rama's ruling, wish to count a minor as the tenth person in a Minyan, it is questionable whether he should answer "Amen" to the Berachot. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that one may not answer "Amen" to a Beracha which, according to his custom, is recited in vain, even if the person recites it legitimately, following his community's custom. A common example is a Sepharadi praying in an Ashkenazi Minyan on Rosh Hodesh, when Ashkenazim recite a Beracha over the recitation of Hallel but Sepharadim do not. According to Hacham Ovadia, the Sepharadi may not answer "Amen" to this Beracha. Another example is the Ashkenazic custom to recite a Beracha before placing the Tefillin Shel Rosh ("Al Misvat Tefillin"). Hacham Ovadia ruled that a Sepharadi who hears an Ashkenazi recite this blessing should not answer "Amen." According to this opinion, a Sepharadi praying with Ashkenazim who count a child toward the Minyan may not answer "Amen" to the Berachot of the Hazara (repetition of the Amida). By contrast, Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) maintained that if an Ashkenazi recites a Beracha legitimately, following Ashkenazic practice, then a Sepharadi may answer "Amen," even though this Beracha is not recited according to Sephardic custom. Given the different views on this subject, Rav Bitan suggested that a Sepharadi who finds himself in this situation should answer by reciting the verse, "Baruch Hashem Le'olam Amen Ve'amen" (Tehillim 89:53), attempting to conclude the verse just when the others respond "Amen." This way, the Sefaradi answers "Amen" but says this word as part of a verse, which is always acceptable, thus satisfying all opinions. The Hacham Sevi (Rav Tzvi Ashkenazi, 1656-1718) addresses the question as to the status of a human being created with the Sefer Ha'yesira – a mystical book written by Abraham Abinu. This book contains secrets including the way one can create living creatures using certain Names of G-d. (Some explain on this basis how Abraham served his guests meat and butter – suggesting that the animal was created with the Sefer Ha'yesira, such that it wasn't actually an animal, and thus its meat was not Halachically-defined "Basar.") The Hacham Sevi writes that such a creature does not possess a human soul, and thus is not defined by Halacha as a Jewish person who can count toward a Minyan.
#423> The Early Jewish Printed Book Mini-Series: Episode 1> This episode of Seforim Chatter is sponsored by Sefaria, the free digital library of Jewish texts. With Sefaria, you can access thousands of sefarim — including Gemara, Rishonim, Acharonim, halacha, and Chassidus — all fully linked and searchable. Use it to prepare a shiur, learn with a chavrusa, or explore new ideas on your own — anytime, anywhere. Visit www.sefaria.org (http://www.sefaria.org/) to explore the world of Torah online, for free.> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp community: https://chat.whatsapp.com/DZ3C2CjUeD9AGJvXeEODtK> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp status: https://wa.me/message/TI343XQHHMHPN1> To support the podcast or to sponsor an episode follow this link: https://seforimchatter.com/support-seforimchatter/or email seforimchatter@gmail.com (Zelle/QP this email address)Support the show
Vayigash | "And Yosef Could No Longer Restrain Himself", by Rav Yitzchak Etshalom Why does the text add the phrase לכל הנצבים עליו when defining Yosef's inability to restrain his outburst? When Yosef is finally ready to reveal his identity to his brothers, the text uses a rare word - להתאפק - and tells us that ולא יכל יוסף להתאפק לכל הנצבים עליו. This latter phrase is enigmatic and the Rishonim take a number of varied approaches to explain the role of the bystanders in his decision to empty the room before "the big reveal". We survey these approaches and suggest two more - one based on the well-known article by R. Yoel Bin-Nun about Yosef's thinking during this entire episode - and another, new approach to this specific phrase, which curiously leads us to the latter-day story which is heavily reliant on the Yosef-in-Egypt narrative - Megilat Esther, pitting Yosef's ויתאפק against that of Haman. Source sheet >>
In this powerful and eye-opening episode, we sit down with Rabbi Elchanan Shoff (Los Angeles, USA) and Rabbi Michal Weichbrod (Yehuda, Israel) for a rare, honest, and passionate conversation about one of the most charged topics in the Jewish world today: Do Jews belong in America—or is it time to move to Eretz Yisrael? Together, they dive into:
Rabbi Shalom Rosner delivers part two of a shiur on Maaseh Shabbat from Volume 22 of the Tzurba M'Rabanan series. Get all Tzurba volumes free when you join our email list and begin your own path of serious Torah learning.
Rabbi Shalom Rosner delivers part one of a shiur on Hotza'ah from Volume 22 of the Tzurba M'Rabanan series. Get all Tzurba volumes free when you join our email list and begin your own path of serious Torah learning.
Rabbi Shalom Rosner delivers part one of a shiur on Amira L'Akum on Shabbat from Volume 22 of the Tzurba M'Rabanan series. Get all Tzurba volumes free when you join our email list and begin your own path of serious Torah learning.
Rabbi Shalom Rosner delivers part 2 of a shiur on Amira L'Akum on Shabbat from Volume 22 of the Tzurba M'Rabanan series. Get all Tzurba volumes free when you join our email list and begin your own path of serious Torah learning.
Rabbi Shalom Rosner delivers part one of a shiur on Maaseh Shabbat from Volume 22 of the Tzurba M'Rabanan series. Get all Tzurba volumes free when you join our email list and begin your own path of serious Torah learning.
Rabbi Shalom Rosner delivers part 2 of a shiur on electricity on Shabbat from Volume 22 of the Tzurba M'Rabanan series. Get all Tzurba volumes free when you join our email list and begin your own path of serious Torah learning.
Rabbi Shalom Rosner delivers a shiur on electricity on Shabbat from Volume 22 of the Tzurba M'Rabanan series. Get all Tzurba volumes free when you join our email list and begin your own path of serious Torah learning.
Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour
The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that the section of Hodu should be recited in the morning immediately following the Korbanot section, which discusses the sacrifices offered each day in the Bet Ha'mikdash. King David established the reading of Hodu during the offering of the daily Tamid sacrifice, and so, in commemoration, we should recite Hodu immediately after we speak of this sacrifice. Furthermore, the Ben Ish Hai writes, the declaration of "Hashem Melech, Hashem Malach, Hashem Yimloch Le'olam Va'ed" should be made soon after the recitation of Hodu. Therefore, if somebody recited the sections of Korbanot and Hodu at home, and then comes to the synagogue, he should repeat Hodu so he can juxtapose this recitation to the pronouncement of "Hashem Melech…" Our custom is to recite Hodu before Baruch She'amar, but the custom among many Ashkenazim is to recite Baruch She'amar first, before Hodu. This sequence is indeed found in a number of ancient Ashkenazic texts of the Siddur. The Maharam Shick (Hungary, 1807-1879) went so far as to say that one who recites Hodu before Baruch She'amar does not fulfill the obligation of Pesukeh De'zimra. He explained that the verses of Hodu express praise for Hashem, which is the function of Pesukeh De'zimra, and so they must be included within the framework of Pesukeh De'zimra, which begins with Baruch She'amar. Later Rabbis disputed this strict position, noting that the Arizal taught that Hodu should be recited before Baruch She'amar. Moreover, even the Ashkenazim recite the chapter of "Aromimcha Hashem Ki Dilitani" before Baruch She'amar, even though that chapter, like Hodu, expresses praise to Hashem. And, several Rishonim wrote explicitly that one should proceed directly from Baruch She'amar to the series of "Haleluya" chapters of Tehillim, such that Hodu must be recited beforehand. Of course, every community should follow the custom that they've received from their forebears. The Arizal taught that every community has its own "gate" through which its prayers ascend to the heavens, and so each community should strictly adhere to its customs. Significantly, however, Hacham Ovadia Yosef cites the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) as stating that prayers that follow the Sephardic custom ascend through all the "gates," and thus an Ashkenazi who wishes to adopt the Sephardic prayer customs may do so. This is evidenced by none other than the Arizal himself, who was an Ashkenazi but decided to adopt the customs of prayer followed by the Sepharadim. Similarly, Rav Natan Adler (Germany, 1741-1800) brought a Rabbi from Turkey to teach him the Sephardic tradition of prayer because he wanted to adopt those customs. Therefore, Hacham Ovadia writes, an Ashkenazi may switch to the Sephardic prayer customs, but a Sephardi may not adopt the Ashkenazic prayer customs. Accordingly, Hacham Ovadia ruled that if a Sephardi prays in an Ashkenazic Minyan, he should not serve as Hazan, as this would require him to recite Baruch She'amar before Hodu. Hacham Ben Sion Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) maintained that a Sephardi may lead the services according to Ashkenazic custom, but Hacham Ovadia disagreed, and stated that a Sephardi must adhere to the Sephardic custom of reciting Baruch She'amar only after Hodu. If a Sepharadi mistakenly recited Baruch She'amar without first reciting Hodu, and he realized his mistake after completing Baruch She'amar, then he should recite Hodu at that point. This was the ruling of Hacham Ben Sion, and Hacham Ovadia would presumably agree that after the fact, if a person already recited Baruch She'amar, then he can and should still recite Hodu. Summary: Sephardic practice is to recite Hodu before Baruch She'amar, whereas many Ashkenazim have the custom to recite Hodu only after Baruch She'amar. A Sepharadi praying in an Ashkenazic Minyan must adhere to Sephardic practice, and so he should not serve as Hazan, as this would compel him to reverse the order in accordance with Ashkenazic practice. However, if a Sepharadi mistakenly recited Baruch She'amar first, he recites Hodu afterward.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
