Is it Ever Permitted to Put on Tefillin With a Non-Jew?

00:00 Speaker 1 Welcome to the Halacha Podcast, Lemaan Yishmeu, with Harav Yosef Yishaya Brown, Maharad da'Asra and a member of the Crown Heights based din. This podcast is brought to you by the Ask the Rav platform in partnership with Lemaan Yilmedu, the premier institute for practical Halacha learning.

00:19 Speaker 2 So the first shaila is very relevant in terms of Hilchas Birchas HaNehen of Brachos. People often eat or drink in one place, and they move on to another place. And the question is, when moving from one place to another, you change places in the middle of eating or drinking, do you make a new bracha or not? So the Halacha is that if a person changes places whenever they're eating or drinking any food or drink, except for something on which you make a Birchas Hamazon, or even something that you make a Me'ein Shalos, which means either Al HaMichya, Al Hagefen, or Al Ha'Etz, except for those items, anything else on which you make a Bareinu Fasus, even though your mind did-- was not distracted from the food, you did not have what we call in Halacha, Chesed Hadass, Halacha considers the fact that you changed places as though you finished eating and as though your mind was distracted. So therefore, if a person eats and drinks in one room and then he moves to another room and he wants to now in the new room continue to eat and drink, even if he's eating food of the same type which he started originally eating, he is, according to Halacha, supposed to repeat the Bracha, the Sheina, the preceding Bracha. The exception to this rule is if a person had Da'as, explicit intention, and he decided that he wants to continue eating and drinking in another room in the same house, or even if it's not Mechedel

01:46 Speaker 2 Leched from one room to another, but he's gonna go out of the house into the yard, but it's in the same yard that he had in mind, in this case, you don't make a new Bracha Rishona. The Bracha Achrona, however, for what he ate in the first room is not necessary 'cause the Bracha Achrona, the after Bracha, when he finishes the entire meal, works for everything, what he ate in the first room and what he, what he ate in the second room. So again, to repeat this point, and it's not a, not a known Halacha, a person takes a cup of coffee, starts it from one room, and continues in another room. If there was no original intention, according to the strict Halacha, he has to make new Bracha. The Mishnah Berurah maintains differently. Some Poskim wanna say that nowadays it's very common that people change their mind and people, sorry, change their location. It's almost as if everybody has a mind to move, but that's not necessarily the case. People could eat in one-- drink a cup of coffee in, in one room, and they won't necessarily move to another room. And we often find in Halacha these things that the Lashon of Poskim is Lo Sagi B'lavaki, that it's almost impossible without. It's very normal that a person would, in middle of eating, stop and do something else. And nonetheless, Poskim say he will have to make another Bracha. A classic example is going to the bathroom. It's a normal thing for people

03:05 Speaker 2 to go to the bathroom in the middle of eating. Fal tada, the Poskim said under ordinary circumstances, if it's a food on which you make a Bareinu Fasus and a person left the room, he has to make a new Bracha. So the strict Halacha is if a person goes from one room to another, if there was no Da'as, and it's not a food on which you make Birchas Hamazon or Me'ein Shalos, he has to make a new Bracha. Moving on, I wanna talk about another detail about this question. What does it mean when we say that the person had Da'as, he had in mind to change his place? Does that mean he had a mind to continue eating in the second room? Or the very fact that he had a mind to go to another room, but he wasn't planning on eating there. And if a person did have a mind just to go to another room, was that gonna work? Let's say a person had a mind to eat there, which is better than not just had a mind to go to another room, to actually eat in another room. Could he go there without eating in the other room? And if he went there and he didn't eat in the other room, and he came back, does he have to make a new Bracha? What is the Halacha about all these things? So in order to know the Halacha about this, we need to introduce what we said earlier, a basic distinction between

04:22 Speaker 2 things that require a Birchas Hamazon or Bracha Me'ein Shalos versus things that require a Bareinu Fasus. What's unique about Birchas Hamazon and Bracha Me'ein Shalos is those are things that you're supposed to Lechatichilah bench in the place you ate. You're not supposed to leave. You're not supposed to leave, not, not to eat somewhere else, not even to make a Bracha somewhere else. If you ate in a certain place, bench in Birchas Hamazon supposed to be in that place. Lechatichilah is supposed to even Bracha Me'ein Shalos, Al HaMichya, Al Hagefen, and Al Ha'Etz, you're supposed to make in the place you ate. Bareinu Fasus is not a requirement. It's a good habit to adopt, that is you should make a Bareinu Fasus right when you finish eating in the spot you ate 'cause you might forget to make a Bareinu Fasus. But strictly speaking, you can have your coffee in one room and go to another room and say the Bareinu Fasus there. Because Birchas Hamazon and Bracha Me'ein Shalos, you're supposed to go back to the ro-- you're supposed to make the Bracha Achrona in the room you ate. So whenever a person leaves, technically, arguably, you can say it's considered as if he didn't really leave. LeChive Kamahadar, he's returning to the original Kriyas. You can't leave because you're always forced back to your original place to come back to make a Bracha Achrona. And therefore, Halacha makes a distinction that the rules of Shinum Makam, while on the one hand, it's worse off,

05:42 Speaker 2 you're not supposed to leave in middle of a meal of HaMotzi. It's worse off 'cause you're supposed to come back to bench. But the very fact that you're supposed to come back to bench means that when you left, you didn't really leave. So having said that, let's go back to the, to the question that we asked. We asked, when a person has a mind to go eat somewhere else, what does that mean? He has a mind to change his place or go eat somewhere else? And here there's a distinction. When it comes to the "" foods that you don't have to come back to make a Beracha Achronah. Birkat Hashatz foods, Shehakol foods, Ha'adamah foods. In such foods, if you go from one room to another, we earlier said you have to make new-- a new Beracha unless you had da'as. Da'as does not nece-- da'as that you're gonna go from one room to another in the same house. We're talk-- We're all in the same house. Does not mean that you had a mind to eat there. It just means the fact that you had a mind you're gonna change your place. You had a mind you're gonna leave. The very fact you had a mind you're gonna leave means your Krias has been uprooted. If you had a mind to eat, even greater, even better. If you had a mind to eat, you could also only go there and not eat. That doesn't matter. The very fact you had a mind to go

06:57 Speaker 2 to another room or to eat in another room is fine. And if you had a mind to eat, you can just go and not eat. When we talk about "" so over there you're not allowed to leave. You're mechuyav to stay in your place until after you bench. The only way you're allowed to leave when you're washing for a meal, a Hamotzi meal, let's take the extreme example, on Al Hamichya Hamotzi meal. You're only allowed to leave if when you made Hamotzi you had a mind to finish the meal somewhere else. It's not just enough that you had a mind you're gonna go somewhere. You had to have a mind that you're gonna go finish the meal somewhere else. Just eating in one room with the intention to go to another and make a Beracha Achronah there is not enough. However, the Alter Rebbe paskins that in a case where the person you ate-- the place where you ate is not a clean place, and there's a problem making a Beracha Achronah there, you can rely even on the fact that you had a mind that you're gonna bench in another place, even though you didn't have a mind to finish eating in another place. So let's make this very, very clear. With the Etzem idea, the Et of Shni Makom, of that you had a mind, that you made a Beracha in one room, and you had a mind to go to another room in regular foods, it does-- you don't have to have

08:09 Speaker 2 a mind to eat in the other room. It makes no difference. You ate in the other room, you didn't eat in the other room, you had a mind to eat, you had a mind to go to the other room, it's all good enough. The fact that sometimes we use the term "" is a Chiddush that it-- The Chiddush is that-- That for sure it helps-- If it helps, even if you're planning to continue and finish your meal in the other place. But certainly, if you're planning just to go to another room and come back and eat over here, for sure that would work. So this is, this is proven in my-- Rabbi Meir Martka talks about this. Other Acharonim talk about it. They try to bring a Rai from the Talas one way or another. But this is all about the idea of Shni Makom by the "" when we're talking about something which does not requi-quire a Beracha Achronah in a spot, but the fact that you change places means you make a new Beracha. The Issur that you're not allowed to leave in a meal until you made a Birchas Hamazon or Al Hamichya or something like that, that Issur is not just enough that you have da'as, that you can be over this Issur. That doesn't help. The da'as is that you're gonna finish the meal somewhere else. If a person had da'as just to make a Beracha Achronah somewhere else, that's a Safek if that would work. And B'shas Atchac, in

09:24 Speaker 2 a place where a person is stuck because, like we said, the place where he wants to-- where he ate is not clean, over there we'll rely on the fact even if you had a mind, just I wanna bench over there-- Because Beracha B'mekomei means it has to be B'mekomei Mamash. It has to be Mamash that place. Gonna move on to another very interesting question, which is related to the Seem Ramam. We're finishing now Ramam. At the very end of the Ramam, the Ramam talks about-- We just finished, that if a Goy wants to do a Mitzvah and he wants to do a Mitzvah in order to get a Schar for it, he's allowed to do another Mitzvah. So is that the case that a Goy could do any Mitzvah he wants? So if we're doing Mivtzoyim and we're being Mezake even with hearing Shofar or with shaking Lulav, and a non-Jew comes and says, "I wanna also hear Shofar and I also wanna shake Lulav," should we help him and let him hear Shofar and shake Lulav? So first of all, let's talk about Shofar. There's actually an Issur. Shofar, you're not allowed to blow a Shofar Stama Zeman on Rosh Hashanah, only if you're doing a Mitzvah. And to blow Shofar for a non-Jew is a problem. And if the Shos-- Goy is listening to your Shofar and you're blowing for someone else, big deal. But to go blow Shofar on Rosh Hashanah for a non-Jew is actually an Issur. You can't just do

10:35 Speaker 2 this Stama Zeman. So the real question should be about other Mitzvahs. He wants to shake Lulav. So the Emes is that this Halakhah-- The Halakhah is indeed that a Goy gets reward for doing Mitzvahs that he's not Mitzvah LeOvo, so that he's not instructed to do so. But he's not allowed to do it with the argument that it's actually a Mitzvah for him. So there, there's a very subtle point over here. He could do it, not if he thinks that he's Mitzvah, that it's a Mitzvah for him. If he actually thinks it's a Mitzvah for him, he's not allowed to do it. There's an exception to that rule, that the Rav on this Ramam writes that Mitzvos SheTzrichin Kedushei V'tahara, Mitzvahs that require sanctity and purity to go into Tefillin, Sefer Torah, Mezuzah, really the-- the Rav says, "I'm, I, I'm thinking you should be Machmir. You shouldn't let a Goy do a, a Mitzvah like Tefillin." It's a Mitzvah that requires holiness. So there are certain Sefarim say Sukkah has a special Kedushah, you shouldn't let a Goy do. So those Mitzvahs have a special Kedushah we don't let him do. But otherwise, it seems like we would let him do every single Mitzvah. The problem, however, is that there's a Shtikl Stiras HaRamam over here. The Ramam in one Halakhah before says we don't let him do Mitzvahs, the next Halakhah says we don't stop him from doing Mitzvahs. And there's many ways to reconcile this Stiras HaRamam. According to Rabbi Moshe Feinstein

11:51 Speaker 2 in Igros Moshe, the fact that the Ramam says he gets Schar is only talking about Mitzvahs like Tzedakah or donating money for the Beis HaMikdash, not all other Mitzvahs. And a lot of people disagree with what Rabbi Moshe Feinstein says, and there's very strong Grais that prove the fact that a Goy gets Schar in any Mitzvah that he does However, the Rebbe and the Rebbe's Rashamis is medayik in the lashon of the Rambam. The Rambam says if a goy wants to do a mitzvah, ein moinim, we don't stop him. It doesn't say we l'chatchilah allow him to do a mitzvah. So there's a difference between ein manichim and ein moinim. We don't let him means we don't let him do a mitzvos. But if he does-- We're not letting him l'chatchilah, but if he does a mitzvah, we also don't stop him. The Rambam says if he gives tzedakah, mekabel him. We receive the tzedakah. We're not gonna go and encourage him to do tzedakah. So that chidush of the meira degechidush, the way the Rebbe learns in the Rambam, that it doesn't mean that we're going to help goyim, certainly not gonna help them. But not only do you not help them, we're l'chatchilah, we don't let them do this. But if they do it, we're not gonna stop them b'di'eved after the fact. What's difficult to understand over here is that the Rebbe's medayik about tzedakah, that tzedakah mekabel him b'di'eved. If he gives tzedakah, well, once he gave it already, we'll accept

13:09 Speaker 2 it. And he makes a distinction between tzedakah and kibbud av v'em. Dovid Ben Nesina, we know the famous story that he did kibbud av v'em and he was praised. So the Rebbe says that's something which is common sense. Sechel hanushi says he's supposed to honor your father and mother, and that's something we'll let a goy do. So-- But the Rebbe doesn't explain, isn't tzedakah also a logical thing? Shouldn't we let him do tzedakah? Tzedakah is also sechel hanushi, common sense says you should give charity. It seems like what the Rebbe is really trying to say over here is it's not a hilchot in kibbud av v'em versus tzedakah. The story of Dovid Ben Nesina was that he did kibbud av v'em based on logic. If a goy is gonna do tzedakah based on ethics, of course there wouldn't be a problem. Bnei Noach, actually many sikkhas the Rebbe talks about Bnei Noach have the mitzvah of tzedakah mispat. Anshez Dom were punished because yad ani v'evi lo chizika. They didn't support poor people. So it's actually part of the goyim's m-mitzvah is to support and give tzedakah. It could very well be that the Rebbe's talking over there not about tzedakah in general, talking about tzedakah to Yidden, 'cause that's the lashon, the Rambam seems to imply that. The goy wants to give tzedakah to Jewish people, which involves other issues, chesed l'umem chatas, p'vos tirat yishavarna, different places where we learn that it's not a positive thing for goyim to give tzedakah to the

14:24 Speaker 2 Jewish people. That may be something that the Rebbe says is only mekabel him b'di'eved. One more point on this matter is that the Rambam actually doesn't even talk about a goy. He talks about a Ben Noach. The Rambam is very, very precise in his language. Sometimes he uses the word Ben Noach, sometimes Ger Toshav, sometimes goy. In this halacha when he says that if a goy does a mitzvah, we don't stop him, he says Bnei Noach. And if it means Bnei Noach, that means someone that's accepting a part of-- Not a goy that does avodah zarah. No. Someone that's accepting all the sheva mitzvot b'nei Noach. He wants to take on other mitzvahs, but he knows that he's not metzvat ve'asa. We won't stop him. So never mind that there are certain mitzvahs we stop him. Number one, mitzvahs of kedushat ha'ara. Number two, we don't stop him is only b'di'eved, not l'chatchilah. Number three, it's only if he's a Ben Noach. To go and assist someone and give him a lulav in mitzvah, for sure would be a problem. There's also other issues altogether that people will see him doing it and might think he's Jewish. It creates nafik min ha'eiruv. It could create some negative concerns. But that's besides all of that. On that note, this brings us to the next question. A goy is in the process of converting, and he wants to put on tefillin. He has to-- wants to learn how to do tefillin. So is he allowed to put

15:40 Speaker 2 on tefillin, pasul ha'tefillin, maybe even kasher ha'tefillin? So earlier we said that mitzvahs, that on the one hand, even a Ben Noach is allowed to do mitzvahs, so we don't stop him from doing mitzvahs. This guy is more than a Ben Noach. He's actually on the process of becoming a Yid. But we also mentioned that the Radbaz says that a Ben Noach, when it comes to mitzvahs that require kedushat ha'ara, sanctity, purity, like tefillin, he gives an example as tefillin, ani chochech l'achmir, I'm inclined to be strict that we shouldn't let a goy put on tefillin. So can we let a s-- a goy who's becoming Jewish, but he wants to put on tefillin 'cause he wants to learn. How else is he gonna learn if we don't let him? So this Radbaz is a chumra. Ani chochech l'achmir. It's not a halacha. It's a chumra not to let goyim put on tefillin. There's-- It's not an issur min hadin that a goy is gonna put on tefillin. We know that an eved, a servant, a slave, if his master puts on tefillin, on the eved, he goes free. Not because it's asur for the slave to put on tefillin, because it's not the derech of slaves to put on tefillin, not, not asur. There are reshaim that seem to imply there's an issur for an eved to put on tefillin. It's a zilzul in the kedushat tefillin, but the word asur, by the way, you find many times, the word asur does not mean

16:57 Speaker 2 it's asur min hadin. It could be asur mimidas chasidus. It's not a pious thing for-- It's a pashtus a goy should go put on tefillin. So now if we're talking about a chasidish guy and a non-pious thing, we have to weigh one thing against another when we're talking about a guy that's one on the path of becoming a Yid. There's a thing about not bringing tefillin to the house of a goy, but at the same time there's a halacha they allow to daven in a goy's house, and it's clearly talking about with tefillin. And the halacha they can't bring tefillin to a goy's house is a goy that's worshiping avodah zarah, not a Ben Noach and certainly not someone who's about to convert. A katon, right? We allow a katon to go through chinuch, and part of his chinuch is to train him also on tefillin. So we have a goy that's also in his training, and his training is also on tefillin. We let a goy learn Torah when he's going to convert. A goy is not allowed to learn Torah. But if he's about to convert, almost all the mefarshim say that's how we, we teach him Torah. That's the Gemara. They all came to convert, and they want to learn the whole Torah on one foot. Some reshaim hold they're allowed even keep Shabbos. Okay, that's a massive chiddush. Sefer Chasidim says he's not allowed to eat nevelat chayei when he's about to convert. But Torah, let's-- But Torah for sure we

18:08 Speaker 2 teach him Torah Torah is also ‹min hadin› for a goy. A goy is ‹chayav misa› if he learns Torah. And we're allowing a person that wants to convert to learn Torah. The ‹Rambam› writes that Torah was given to ‹Yidden› and ‹lechol harei telei izgir›, and anybody who wants to convert. You could twist the ‹Rambam› that he means anybody who wants to convert after he converts, but implication is if he wants to convert, he's already allowed to learn Torah. The ‹Rambam› does write elsewhere in his ‹Shalshe Tuvos› that a goy has to stop. He's not allowed to learn Torah actually as goy. But actually as goy doesn't necessarily mean until he converts, until he's ready to convert, 'cause the ‹Rambam› had a ‹shitah› that they allowed he-- Torah even to Christians. Only Arabs are not allowed to learn Torah because they're-- he's afraid they're gonna teach the Torah i-in a criminal way. ‹Lefi hagdem haisam hamsades› in a, in a-- not in a normal way. A person about to convert, he's learning Torah ‹lshe mitzvah› 'cause he wants to convert, there wouldn't be a problem for him to learn Torah. So if he's learning Torah in order to know how to keep Torah, he's learning to-- putting on tefillin, so he should be ‹baki veragel› and learn how to put on tefillin. We know how long it takes for a bar mitzvah boy till he knows that he puts on tefillin properly. One of the explanations why we allow of someone who's converting to learn Torah,

19:22 Speaker 2 because once he's about to convert, he's already partially considered ‹legat be yisrael Torah l'chiid›. It's not that we allow him 'cause we have no other choice. He's already on his way to become a Jew, so he already has some ‹halachas› of a Jew. So certainly when it comes to something which is not an ‹isser›, learn Torah is an ‹isser›. Putting on tefillin is a ‹chumra›, is a ‹chasidus›. So why should we be ‹machmir› on him? Now, the ‹issur of kiveiga›, he actually holds he's not allowed to teach a goy Torah, even if he's about to convert. Nobody follows that. And a lot of people say even if ‹kiveiga› meant only things that are not relevant for him for his conversion. The basic ‹halachas› of Torah, you have to teach him. The ‹Marsha Farshan› goes further and he said that ‹kiveiga› was talking about a goy which wants to convert, that the government is not allowing him yet to convert. So he, he's not in the process of conversion at this stage. Therefore, ‹kiveiga› didn't allow to learn Torah. But tefillin for sure wouldn't be a problem. Some people are worried that maybe he's gonna put on tefillin, he's gonna marry a Jewish girl. But from all the sources we brought till now that imply we don't have that problem. Even the ‹Rav Vass› said a goy shouldn't put on tefillin. He said, ‹machmas kedusho v'tara›, not because we're worried he's gonna marry a Jewish girl. If we know he's about to convert, it is not

20:33 Speaker 2 ‹shailat chatechilah›. There is a ‹halacha› you're not allowed to give a tallit to a goyish or lo-laundromat. Now, by the-- first of all, the ‹halacha› is you're allowed to. The ‹Rambam› brings a ‹chumra›, but it's only a ‹chumra› as a ‹bizayon›. The ‹bizayon› of giving a tallit to a Jewish laundromat is a ‹chumra›. And some people, by the way, suggest that part of the ‹chumra› is because they rule the ‹tzitzyot›, so that wouldn't apply if they're all together. M-most importantly, in this case, the, the guy wants to put on tefillin. We're not talking about someone who's going to sell him, lend him. He on his own wants to put on tefillin. He's asking if it's the right thing to do. We should give to a goy tefillin, I can hear the argument. He was asking on his own. So there are some contemporary ‹svarim› that write to be ‹machmir›. They made a ‹halacha› that a goy is not allowed to put on tefillin. He's ‹chayav misa›. Chazal never said that. Chazal only said he's not allowed to keep Shabbos or learn Torah. And indeed, I found the ‹Ya'al Sho›, which is an early person, he writes clearly that he's allowed to learn Torah, and that's indeed-- Sorry, not learn Torah and even, even put on tefillin. So a goy is allowed to put on ‹pasul› tefillin if he's about to convert and even ‹kasher› tefillin. Moving on to the next question. There's a ‹halacha› you're not allowed to make a shul ‹kapandaria›, a shortcut. You're

21:43 Speaker 2 not allowed to use a shul as a shortcut. It's a ‹bizayon› for the shul. Often we have a shul that has two rooms that are adjacent to one another. Both are rooms that are used for davening. You need to go through the first room to get to the second room, and you want to go to the second room to daven and learn there. Are you allowed to use the first ‹beit hamedrash› as a shortcut to get to the second room? So certainly if there's no other way, you can't get to the second room only through the first room, that would be permitted. But in this case, yeah, you could go around, go upstairs and through the steps, and go through-- There's a ‹snushma›, go all around and go through the back door and through outside. So if there is another way, it's-- the right thing is to use the other way. It is a ‹bizayon› for a shul. There's room for leniency. You can argue it's ‹letzorech mitzvah›. It's one considered almost like one-- There's two rooms in one shul, so maybe it's not even considered a thruway. It's like in the same shul itself. There's no ‹isser› of going from one part of the shul to get to the second part of the shul. Interesting, the ‹Makar Ha'ain›, the ‹Chav Yissahar› writes that you shouldn't use the bimah as a thruway. You shouldn't-- In the shul itself, you shouldn't go on one side of the bimah, over the bimah to be able to get

22:50 Speaker 2 through. A lot of times kids and even adults sometimes we see are not particular about it. The ‹Makar Ha'ain›, which was the ‹Chav Yissahar›, whose ‹svarim›, his ‹ktav yad›, was only printed a couple of years ago, writes that that, that's an issue. But that's a separate issue about the bimah, the kedusha of the bimah. In the shul itself, there's no problem going from one side to another. You can argue that the two rooms are considered like one shul. It is ‹letzorech mitzvah›. There is some room for leniency, but if you could go another way, you certainly should go another way. Moving on to the next ‹shailah›. Some people have heard about a rumor, a tradition, something. There's some ‹halacha› that you're not supposed to use broken dishes. And is this a myth? Is this real? What does this mean? Does it mean if it's broken completely? Does it mean if there's a chip? So first of all, there is no such ‹halacha›. Some people are concerned that broken dishes have to do with ‹klipa›, and if it has to do with ‹klipa›, then it means you can forget your learning. But we don't know any official clear source that says that you're not allowed to do so. There's such a custom. But even those who have this custom, that applies to only if there's a break in the dish, not if there's a chip or a defect, number one. Number two, it doesn't mean you're not allowed to use such a dish. It means you

24:00 Speaker 2 shouldn't eat from such a dish. And even those that are particular, women don't have to be particular. The ‹issurim› of ‹kashrut shicha› do not apply to women, according to many opinions. Obviously, if the chip is dangerous, you gotta be careful. You shouldn't hurt yourself with a chip. The one place where there's a problem, where a ‹keili shaver› in ‹halacha› is that for ‹boruch›, for benching, for kiddush, you need to have a cup which doesn't have any cracks and chips in it. That's a special ‹halacha›, one of the ‹sodot› of ‹boruch›, which means that otherwise it's not a problem. Many, many ‹svarim› have tried to find a source for this ‹pide›. The only source I know is from the ‹Kaf HaChaim› who writes this on his own, that if you eat out of broken dish, it was his ‹kashrut shicha›. We do know sources that a broken dish is associated with ‹klipa›. It's actually found in the ‹Haggadah Shel Pesach›, found by us in the-- our Haggadah. It comes originally from the ‹Mishnah›, from other sources, that a ‹keili shaver› is associated with ‹klipa›, that it's ‹kashrut shicha›. You're not supposed to eat out of a ‹keili shaver›. Not in Chazal, not in ‹dadizel›. This is an extra ‹hider›. We have often a rule, ‹dayeha ma sheasah l'cha Torah›. We're not looking for extra ‹chumrot› and ‹iduro› if there's no source. But even according to that source, it's only in eating in a broken dish. It's not more than eating in a broken dish, not more

25:16 Speaker 2 than that. And that itself, like I said, we don't, we don't have a source. The very fact that Koshel Beracha needs to be complete implies that everything else doesn't have to complete. Some people say the problem is making a Beracha over food in a broken dish. Even that doesn't have a source. So a lot of contemporary Poskim talk about this. It, it-- I should point out that the Rebbe-- by the Rebbe's broken dish that the Rebbe had for the Seudah, there's a whole debate back and forth over they were able to see the defect, if they were not able to see the defect. Was it really defected or was it a type of dish that they don't normally use and if that's considered like a kli shover, and it could be there was changes over the years. The Rebbe spoke about this di- this thing of having a kli shover, that we don't wanna pour our wine, which is going to clip it into a kli shol. That's the main idea about that. The reason I said women don't have to be machmir because there's many Poskim that say even things that it says in Halakhah that if Kashas La'Shechi do not apply to women, they don't have the Isur of Yishmom-- Yishmom Et HaPen Tishkach. So certainly something which doesn't even say in Halakhah, we don't have to worry about it. Question. A person heard part of Krias HaTorah, didn't hear all of Krias HaTorah. How much of Krias HaTorah do I need to

26:24 Speaker 2 hear to be yoitze the mitzvah of Krias HaTorah? I don't have to hear again. And how much is it considered I already heard and I can't join into another minyan. They need me for a minyan for Krias HaTorah. So Krias Ha-- Do you have to hear altogether? There's a debate if Krias HaTorah is a Ƽhoveh that tzibbur or a Ƽhoveh on the yachid. Does each individual have to hear Krias HaTorah? Or if there's a community, there's a chiuv of Kria. You miss Kria, you missed it. Now, we obviously were very, very machmir. The Rebbe was particularly very, very machmir to make sure to hear every single letter, Misah Krias HaTorah. And there's also a special inning to finish every single Parsha. Moshe Rabbeinu was mesaken, and we have to go through the Parshios and hear them every Shabbos, the Parsha till Simchas Torah. So how much should you hear? So there's, there's a amount till Sheini that we hear Monday and Thursday and Shabbos Mincha. But the idea is not about till Sheini. Sheini is just a place that's convenient place to stop. The idea is to hear three aliyos. Each aliyah should have at least three psukim. Ideal should be a total of ten, not three times three, but ten. But if you heard only nine, it's also fine. Shabbos really should be listening to the whole entire Parsha. What is the-- What-- In what situation would you have to go-- Can you-- Now you-- can you join another minyan? Let me give you

27:39 Speaker 2 a scenario. You have ten people in the shul. Four of them didn't hear Krias HaTorah. Two of them heard only some of the aliyos. Can they do Krias HaTorah now? So the minag is generally that you need to have six people listening to Krias HaTorah, similar to Shishi Mesabalim. There's sources for that. There's a debate about it, but that is generally the minag. If some of those people didn't hear the whole Krias HaTorah, they didn't hear seven aliyos on Shabbos or three aliyos during the week, they can join in the minyan. But here's some which is not known. If they were part of that tzibbur that heard Krias HaTorah and they were there, even if this person personally didn't hear the whole thing, it's a Ƽhoveh tzibbur and he was part of that tzibbur. And like some BeYishmol Mitzrayim was a shul in Egypt, not everybody heard-- was able to hear. And Tosfos, the Orach and Tosfos and the Rabbi said they were all yoitze Krias HaTorah. They were there. They know what was said. They were there. They heard. They didn't-- They were all yoitze Krias Ha-- even if they didn't actually hear. So you could argue and say, "I was in the shul, but I didn't hear." That doesn't matter. You were there, so you're already part of it if you were part of that tzibbur. So that's an important thing to point out. The Chalah of the Tamach Tzedek writes that Krias HaTorah is not about hearing, is a-- it's about having

28:48 Speaker 2 aliyos. One of the reasons the Medrash says according to the opinions that I cut the Kagen Aliyah and the Olah 'cause it's not a regular mitzvah they could say you're mechuy-- You're not mechuy, they can't be motzi the mitzvos, then it should be read. So if you were there when it was read, you're already counted. I got a very, um, um, unpleasant question. Someone had a massive heart attack, lo yedenu. It was the middle of the day, and they tried to revive him, and until later when it was already night, and he was pronounced dead. What time is it considered he passed away? Which date? Is it the daytime or the nighttime? The answer to that is, from when his heart stopped beating and his breathing stopped, even though they continued to try to resuscitate him. So we have a Sefer called Mishnah Savra, which has a lot of Halakhah associated with medicine based on a lot of Pesakim of Reb Shlomo Zalman. And there they bring about a person that did not breathe and his heart was not beating before-- this was before Shkiah, and they tried continuously to resuscitate him without success, and they can declare him dead already after Shkiah. And they write that the Yartzeit is based on when they-- he wasn't conscious anymore because that's when we find out lamafre, he already died then. The same thing is written in the name of Reb Shlomo Zalman that retroactively from when the breathing and the heart stops, even though there was

30:04 Speaker 2 a c-- afterwards a resuscitation that was not successful. I'll finish with one more last question on a more, on a positive note. So the Rebbe's uncle, it is written about him that he had a minag that he read the Shema for tzviun the Rabbeinu Tam, he said Shema, and he used a mezuzah. The same thing is reported about Itche the Masmid, and it was Mashpia in Tchefer Tomim Reb Isaac Baruch. They also had this int- interesting minag. So someone asked me the question, is it something that a person should do? Is it something that's discouraged? Where's the source for this minag? I don't know the source for this minag. I looked high and low. If somebody knows the source, please let me know. I found that Rebbe Kierchen also had this minag. They probably wanted to bring upon us on the Kedushah reading a mezuzah. And some people have a minag, they write out the Pitom Ach Toitos on a parchment with some Mashurim because it's a school of all kind of things, and a lot of people question that's a good thing to write. You know, who's allowed to write Parshios on a klaf, even if it's actually a Shayla Al Pi Halakhah. But here, this is a mezuzah that was already written, not going and writing something in a klaf. So they wonder, instead of reading from a siddur, which is not even considered reading BeKsav, it's already-- it's actually considered reading it Be'al Peh. Hey, read it Matecha 'cause it's printed, so

31:12 Speaker 2 it's according to some opinions, that's not called Ksav. They're reading from original Sefer Torah. Why they did it only for Rabbeinu Tam, not for Rashi? Maybe 'cause it's hard in the middle of davening. It's already after davening. But I haven't seen this practice by Chassidim BeChlalah. We have a Klal that you're not supposed to take on Hidudim that's beyond your level. There's something called Mechzaki. You're already doing something that looks like it's arrogant. We talked about it here, great Chassidim, the greatest Baal HaMadrega. And generally, we have something called Nachmachen. The Rebbe spoke many times that how terrible it is Nachmachen, that when it comes to a Hidud that's beyond your level, you're not supposed to chap zecher and copy someone else. How did-- The famous story about the person that wanted to copy the Bilu Paracha, the Rosh Kol didn't want to do him the Esri because you're doing because kein osa hil, not that you're up to that. Because that's what Bilu Paracha said. Therefore, kein osa hil, you're copying him also. The Rebbe Rashab saw someone copying him the way he washed his hands, he was displeased. The Rebbe spoke about this a number of times that even the Anhag is that he saw that Refreeding Rebbe is Nischkan Inyan Stam Nachmachen unless it's something that you see this Halakhah, it's a Zehirut of Halakhah, and there's an in- Inyan in it. But you saw a certain Chassidim doing something, so if a person is on their level, it's Bashte. If it's

32:22 Speaker 2 not Nachal Fachlal, and you're not of these Chassidim that everything they do is different than everybody else, you're part of the masses. To me, it seems like that wouldn't be the right thing. We'll finish over here. Kol Tuv.

32:33 Speaker 3 Join the global Halakhah learning revolution of the Lemaan Yilmedu Institute and bring increased Brachos into your home. For details about the various learning programs, visit our website, lemaanyilmedu.com. That's L-E-M-A-A-N-Y-I-L-M-E-D-U.com