Shoveling Snow on Shabbos?

00:00 Speaker 1 Welcome to the Halacha Podcast, L'maan Yishmeu, with Harav Yosef Yishaya Brown, Maharida 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 L'maan Yilmedu, the premier institute for practical Halacha learning.

00:20 Speaker 2 Okay, the question was asked, someone has a baby that has a particular condition and the bris had to be done by a firm surgeon in a hospital. After the bris, there's an option to name the baby. The parents can name the baby. But there's nobody there, just the parents. Or they could wait till they get home from the hospital, which would be a few hours, and then they could do it with a minyan and a cup of wine. Which one is preferred? So now, in the hospital, if they could get chamar medina, a local beverage such as coffee, then of course that would be best. Otherwise, they should really do it, name the baby right away, right after the bris, even if it's without a kois. And that's because we're not supposed to push off the bracha of Asher kiddish, he did me beten. The bracha which goes together with the baby naming to a later stage. So there's the bracha that's made on the bris itself, Asher kishanu mitzvot sevitzevanu lach nise bevrisse shel Avraham Avinu, and the bracha of Al Amilah. But the bracha of Asher kiddish, which is really technically a birchas hashvach, praising Hashem for the mitzvah, seemingly is an independent thing, but that really should not be pushed off. We find that when it comes to a fast day, there's a whole discussion how to deal with drinking the cup of wine, and the pesachim go through different opinions how to manage with the wine, who do we give the

01:43 Speaker 2 wine to drink to, etc. But we don't push off, do the bris by day, and we'll push off the bracha of Berpia Gaf and Asher kiddish, he did me beten to after the fast day. Some people hold that you make a bracha on the wine now, and you only drink it by night. There's such an opinion too. But either way, the bottom line is we make the bracha of the bris right after the bris. So, and there's some strong evidence in a lot of places that we're not supposed to push off. There's any birchas hashvach. We have birchas hagomel, we have asher yotzer, a bracha on lightning. There are all different types of birchas hashvach, and we do it together right after the thing that we're praising Hashem for. So this should be done right after the bris. The same thing happens when people have, when there's two babies to give them a bris mila. So there's a discussion in the pesachim how to do that, but nobody suggests we should make the bracha of Asher kiddish, he did me beten, make that bracha later. Obviously, that's supposed to be right then and there, together with the child that had a bris. The idea of the bracha is to show that we're making a bris for them. We're not making a bris for medical reasons or other reasons. So we say this bracha right following the bris, and indeed that's what quite a few pesachim mention. There is a discussion of somebody who was born

03:05 Speaker 2 and buried with a bris, where they do only ha'tafes dam bris. Should they make the bracha of Asher kiddish? Should they not make the bracha of Asher kiddish? But either way, it's made during, those who say you do make a bracha, make it during the ha'tafes dam bris when blood is removed. So bottom line, the bracha should be said Asher kiddish, he did me beten, which our minhag is we say this together. The common minhag is to say that together with giving the name. That's said right after the bris. It shouldn't be pushed off. There's no official amount that's given how much is considered a hefsek. In other words, if it wasn't done during the surgery, how much later could it be said? Seemingly, if a person removed their mind completely, it's a whole new occasion and a new time, they probably should not make the bracha anymore. Talking about brachas of praising Hashem, there's a bracha that's said when a person has a new baby. For a boy, there's a bracha of HaTov HaMeitav when hearing the news that a baby was born. In fact, the Sefer Hasidim says that before you even thank the midwife for reporting to you the news, first thing is turn to Hashem, make a bracha Tov HaMeitav. That's a fedish of Mishnah and Gemara in Brachas. And for a girl, just like when you see a new person, when you see a person you haven't seen in 30 days, you make Shechiyono. Well, this girl you haven't seen

04:32 Speaker 2 yet. So the Alter Rebbe paskens, that's a chidush of the Alter Rebbe, and it's quoted in many pesachim of the name of the Alter Rebbe that for a girl we make a bracha Shechiyono. Now, some people say that it was a minhag by Hasidim not to make such a bracha. The problem is pesachim clearly mentioned this bracha. It's mentioned in Halachas. It's mentioned in all pesachim. The Alter Rebbe mentions it as well. And as mentioned specifically, there's a chidush of the Alter Rebbe that he mentions the bracha of Shechiyono for a girl. We don't have anything from the Rabbaim that say otherwise. Whenever there's a rumor that our minhag is not like that, we need to know where that comes from. Is it an official tradition which has been passed down from generation to generation? Is it something we heard from the Rabbaim? There are maybe communities that have such a minhag, but for us, as Chabad Chassidim, we have the Alter Rebbe's psak. And unless we have an official source from the Rabbaim or official tradition, yeah, there's different rumors that different Rabbanim say such a thing. Most Rabbani Anash pasken this bracha should still be said. The tradition that people don't make such a bracha could be people never knew of such a thing. They weren't there during the birth. They were on the other side of the world. They were not, the wife gave birth in the hospital. All that kind of stuff. The Alter Rebbe actually writes in Luach B'rich Sanen,

05:46 Speaker 2 and it's actually before that, it's already found in, the idea is found in the Rama. The Alter Rebbe wrote Hilchos B'rich Sanen in three stages. He wrote it in Shulchan Aruch. Then he wrote a Luach. And there's a discussion why it's actually called Luach, and he updated quite a few of our halachas, and then he put into the Sidra as part of Seder Birchas Hanoten. In the Luach Birchas Hanoten he brings a minhag that many people make a mistake, and they don't make these brachos. Talk about a lot of these brachos, birchas, birias, brachos that we see things, different types of birchas hashavach. So there is such a minhag, but the Alter Rebbe says this minhag is a mistake. The Rebbe also mentions in the famous sicha about birthdays, making Shehecheyanu on the birthday. The Rebbe connects it with the chiyuv of father and mother making a bracha for having a new baby, for seeing a, a girl Shehecheyanu, for a boy HaTov V'haMeitiv. And indeed, as mentioned many rabbonim ash rule so. Which brings me to talk about another minhag versus halacha, so to speak. There's a machloket of poskim when you make a Shehecheyanu, we just had Chamishas HaEitzim BeShevat, where people eat new fruit. One of the minhag of Chamishas HaEitzim BeShevat is to eat fruit that Eretz Yisrael has been praised with, but part of the minhag is also specifically fruit that Shehecheyanu is made on it. So there's a machloket of poskim when you make a Shehecheyanu and you make

07:16 Speaker 2 a eight, which one comes first? There's different opinions about it. Many poskim, the Alter Rebbe included, say that first comes the bracha Shehecheyanu, and one of the reasons for that is Shehecheyanu is a bracha that we make on seeing the fruit, where the minhag is to say it only when we eat it, but the, the actual bracha's for the seeing of the fruit. There's a reason why the minhag became to do it only when we see the f-- when we eat the fruit, as mentioned in poskim. HaEitz is on the actual eating, so the Shehecheyanu takes precedence. It actually comes naturally, it's supposed to come before. Now, some people say that our minhag is not like that, and again, this is an interesting thing. We have a psak of the Alter Rebbe, not Shulchan Aruch or in the Luach. They say they're the final version that Alter Rebbe wrote, and we don't have anything from any of our Rebbeim to suggest otherwise. The Rebbe was in charge of a magazine, Shmusen, Talks and Tales, and the Rebbe edited it heavily, and it very clearly says the halacha, as it says in Alter Rebbe siddur, that Shehecheyanu comes before HaEitz. Some people maintain that we have a tradition otherwise. There is indeed such a view, but I'm not aware of such a tradition. There's no official source. There's a video, an unclear video, which you see where the Rebbe made a Shehecheyanu by the Hachnasat Sefer Torah, the-- Sefer Torah, the conclu-- Sorry, the Siyum Sefer

08:41 Speaker 2 Torah, the Kabbalas Pnei Moshiach, that "Keina U'reshitas Hilamed". It's very hard to bring proof from that for the, the simple reason is that's a whole different situation. The Shehecheyanu was for the Sefer Torah, and it was also associated with a fruit, so... A-and many other reasons why we can't bring proof from that. So again, if we want-- if we, we talk about the general minhag, we follow the normal minhag, and people suggesting that we have a different minhag need to bring a source for that. I will mention that some people have confused the topic of what our minhag is, what not our minhag is, with a story about woman benching Gomel. So there is something that it's not the minhag that woman bench Gomel. That is clearly recorded. But that some people have mentioned that story in relation to making the bracha Tov V'haMeitiv for having a boy, for hearing about the news of a boy, Shehecheyanu for seeing a, a new daughter that they had. But the story is actually about benching Gomel, a woman who gives birth. So the halacha is that when a person comes out of their-- one of the four people that have to praise Hashem is a choleh sh'nisrah, someone that was not well that was cured. And therefore, a yoldes, a woman that gives birth, technically, after she's back to herself, she should bench Gomel. And it actually is, is mentioned in the Alter Rebbe siddur, and many other poskim mention this too, but the minhag clearly is

10:10 Speaker 2 not like that. Every-- This is, this is a well-known minhag, and poskim mention this minhag. This is not a minhag that we just heard about, that someone decided the minhag is not like that. It actually is mentioned in many, many poskim. This is a letter of the Rebbe, where the Rebbe talks about this minhag of woman benching Gomel. He makes reference to certain chassidim which have different ways of doing this minhag. Does, does the woman come into the shul? Does she stay in the ladies' shul when she bench? How does she bench Gomel with men there? Some poskim mention various reasons why the minhag became not like that, including the fact that birth was no longer the same the way it used to be, lack of tznius, whatever the reason is. So the story is reported that someone once asked-- reported to the Rebbe that a lady benched Gomel, and the Rebbe asked the bachurim which were there when the lady benched Gomel, did they bench Shehecheyanu? Um, in other words, they would say Shehecheyanu 'cause this was said in jest. This is an unusual thing to hear a woman benching Gomel. Someone once asked the Rebbe about woman benching Gomel. The Rebbe said, "Wo iste gerens af ershtel bench Gomel?" Where did he hear such a thing? In other words, that's not a done thing. But that's an example of a minhag that actually is brought in chassidim. Chassidim struggle with this minhag to try to understand why there's such a minhag. How does

11:25 Speaker 2 this minhag fit in with halacha? But it is a min-- mentioned in chassidim, and various proposals were given to justify the minhag. Otherwise, it's very hard to say about a halacha that it's not our minhag unless we have clear proof. I wanna talk about a different topic right now, and that is when we are davening, one of the laws that we need to know is the dinim of Hefsek Betfilah. In middle of davening and we hear a bracha, when are we supposed to answer amen? When are we supposed to answer "Amen, yehe shmecha mevorach l'olam u'leolmei"? When are we supposed to answer kedusha? So there's a lot of halachas about that topic, and we're not gonna go through all of them in this podcast. But there's a specific thing that I wanna pay-- uh, give attention to, and that is during Pesukei D'Zimra, which means from when we say "" until after Yishtabach, that stage is called Pesukei D'Zimra. Which the halacha is you're not allowed to make a hefsek, interrupt with something which is not a chiyuv. What are you allowed to answer then? What are you not allowed to answer then? So clearly, the Shulchan Aruch says that if there's a beracha being recited then while you're in the middle of Pesukei D'Zimra, you're allowed to answer Amen. So that we know. There's a letter of the Rebbe where the Rebbe writes that although logic would dictate that we should not answer the entire Kedusha, only the words Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, Barch

12:48 Speaker 2 keil Hashem, Yimloch, none of the rest of the stuff of Kedusha. But the minhag is that we say the whole Kedusha, including Nagid Shach. And on Shabbos, we would say the extra parts over there of, uh, Kavodim Alei Olam, Azbecho, all that, all of that. With Moydim, again, the Rebbe writes that logic would dictate it has the same halacha of Birchas Keriat Shema, and we should only say Moydim Anachnu Loch. But practically, the minhag is we, we don't do that, and, uh, this is our instruction that we heard from the Friediger Rebbe, we say the entire Moydim during Pesukei D'Zimra. What about answering to Kadesh? Which Amens are we allowed to answer in Kadesh? So the Rebbe writes that we do not answer any Amens from after Tiskabel. Tiskabel, Yehay Shlama, Oseh Shalom, those Ka- those Amens are purely a minhag. In fact, you don't even have to say the section of Tiskabel. Those Amens are not required Amens. We don't answer those Amens. But that doesn't tell us clearly which Amens we do answer. So it's been always assumed that we should answer all the first five Amens of Kadesh. Yiskabel, Yiskadesh shmei raba, Bikarav Mashiachai, Bagol, Ma kalvim, Amen. Amen yeish mei raba, Amen b'richu, which we answer Amen, and then Dameer balvi, Amen. Five Amens. But there's a, a, um, a contemporary book written by a Chabad Hasid called Hetzig Betfila, who challenged that assumption, and he received a lot of approval from a lot of Rabanim that the original charts, and

14:28 Speaker 2 for some reason, those charts have been printed in some Se- some Sidurim, which was made by, uh, uh, uh, Chash-Chashmi Yitz, Alav HaShalom. But there's some inaccuracies in that chart, and he updated, wrote a whole entire book. He gave it a second edition of his book, where he argues strongly, he wrote a whole kuntres on this topic, that no, in Pesukei D'Zimra, we should only answer Amen yeish mei raba and Amen of Dameer balvi, Amen, and not the other Amens. And what it says in the charts and many Sidurim are not actually accurate. Some people have difficulty with this psak, but as I mentioned, many Rabanim would agree with it, and this is indeed correct. The halacha is that if there's a question of a hefsek, you shouldn't answer something. Even though if you don't answer Amen, it says the person gets excommunicated if they don't answer Amen, that doesn't apply to an Amen which is only a minhag. The Amens in Kadesh, only Yehay shmei raba Amen and the Amen after Dameer balvi are the re- absolutely required Amens. So there's no nidui for that, no excommunication for that. And even if it would be an Amen which is required, if a person's concerned that it might be a hefsek, obviously, he wouldn't be excommunicated for that. If there's a question al pi halacha if you should answer Amen, you shouldn't answer these Amens. So we know if you talk about how serious it is not to answer Amens, it's even more serious. It

15:43 Speaker 2 says how terrible it is to make a hefsek during Pesukei D'Zimra. So whenever there's a question about something like this, we have a general rule, sheva al tais od. It's always best not to answer than to answer. Although Amen is a praise to Hashem, which is why we're allowed to answer Amen for all berachos, that doesn't mean you're allowed to answer everything during Pesukei D'Zimra. Baruch Hu, Baruch Shme, you can't answer because it's only a minhag. We don't say VeZos HaTorah when we see the Sefer Torah being lifted up. Borich shme, take out the Sefer Torah. These are all praises to Hashem. We don't say Tehillim during Pesukei D'Zimra according to many opinions. We don't praise Hashem in Yiddish accord-- again, according to many opinions. With the Alter Rebbe holds you're not supposed to make a beracha on tzitzit. You don't answer Amen on Mi Sheberach and Amen on when the chazan says Birchas Kohanim. And a- as mentioned, Tiskabel, we don't answer. We only answer things that are really davar shebekedusha that are required. So in, in fact, actually, when we answer Amen, there's a question, why should we answer Amen in general from the middle of doing one mitzvah? Why should we stop for another mitzvah? The tenet is, one of the answers, 'cause I'm praising Hashem and I'm not sep- stopping from the mitzvah. It's all part of the praise of Hashem. So that's only something which we're required to do. If you're answering Amen when you're mechuyav to, it's, it's considered

17:01 Speaker 2 inappropriate that you didn't answer Amen. But an Amen which is not an obligatory Amen, that wouldn't really make sense to answer. Pesukei D'Zimra generally follows the same halachas of Birchas Keriat Shema, except for with, with this exception. As mentioned earlier, the Rebbe in that letter writes that clearly, Pesukei D'Zimra and Kir- Birchas Keriat Shema follow the same rules, but there's an exception to the rule 'cause there was a special hora'ah about instruction of the Friediger Rebbe that we should say the whole Kedusha and we should answer the whole Moydim. But he says there that not Amen after Tiskabel. The Rebbe doesn't specify which Amens earlier 'cause the Rebbe's not going into all the Amens of Kadesh, what to answer, what not to answer. Because in the siddur says, the si-- Now, if Rebbe in the siddur talks about Birchas Keriat Shema, it talks about Kadesh, Kedusha, and Moydim. So the Rebbe says that the r- instruction that the Friediger Rebbe gave was particularly about Kedusha and Moydim, that Pesukei D'Zimra are different about that. But Kadesh re- retains the same halachas as Birchas Keriat Shema, and therefore, we should only answer the Amen of Amen yeish mei raba and the Amen of Dameer balvi. Although the Ari Z"L says that all five Amens are required That's indeed true. That's Kabbalistically they, they are required, but we don't-- They're not as much required, and because of that we should make an interruption during Birkat Krishna, and therefore they're equally not required that we should make an

18:25 Speaker 2 interruption during Psukot Jazera. The kavanas of that reason are not there to tell us that we should make a hefsek where we're not gonna make a hefsek. So when you could say it, then there's these Kabbalistic things. The-- Just like some Kabbalah say you're supposed to say, "Yisbarech, Yishtabach, Yisbarech," you're supposed to say all twenty-eight words all together, min haba'alav, but you don't say that in the place when you-- now that we mafsek. The Alter Rebbe only says you're allowed to say Amen and Brachos. He doesn't say that you're allowed to say Amen. Amen and Brachos. So Omnei Esh MeRab is a darash of a d'dusha. Amen, uh, just, um, min haba'alav is a darash of a d'dusha. But otherwise, except in a place where that's part of the Seder. So for example, when we say Kadesh between Yishtabach and Yoetzar Or, that Kadesh we add to all of it 'cause that Kadesh belongs there. Kadesh before Shepat Nachalas Avot, etc. When something belongs there, it's not really considered a hefsek. There was a minhag in Poland, in Poland, in Tehelet Zevim in Poland, that they had a different minhagim. The Rebbe writes in that letter about this topic, and maybe they had-- Well, I don't know what their minhag was, was about Kadesh, but, um, this is the psak, like I was mentioned many-- Rabben Elazar maintains so as well. Another topic altogether, recently there's been a lot of snow in New York, and on Shabbos comes a question about removing snow. So snow

19:47 Speaker 2 could be a serious sakana. People could get injured, people get harmed, and this is a general comment about the people that have not shoveled the snow. Quite a few people have actually hurt themselves over the snow. Some people walk into the street and they got-- they could get hit by a car, Chas veShalom. And some people have slipped on the ice and on the snow, and it's important that people should shovel the snow. The question is, in a place where there's an eirev, a kosher eirev with hasgama delok v'rabanim, and it's not a question of carrying, but the question is, are you allowed to otherwise remove snow? So the halacha is, if there's snow on the pr- the property in front of your house on Shabbos, and there's a concern that people will get hurt, if there's an eirev, you're allowed to remove it somewhere else, and you're allowed to even take a shovel with a shovel, you're allowed to even spread salt and let it melt. If there's no eirev, then you can ask a goy to move it somewhere else or spread salt. The reason why spreading salt is allowed, it actually is halacha. You're allowed to put snow near a fire if there's a necessity, and it dissolves on its own. So same thing with spreading salt. It's the same idea. It actually gets absorbed. The salt gets absorbed into the snow, and it's even better than putting it near a flame. It's like putting it into a koz. I don't wanna

20:59 Speaker 2 go into all those halachas right now. I've seen my grandfather, alav hashalom, in his shul. He passed, and they should remove the snow on Shabbos in front of his shul, um, put out salt and all of that. Snow is not muktze according to most poskim, even if you wanna argue it is muktze. So there is a interesting machloket when you move muktze through another item. We have a general rule called tiltul m'dechatza. You're allowed to move muktze indirectly. But the Alter Rebbe writes in a few places that when you're taking a stick, that's not called tiltul m'dechatza. That's a regular, normal way of moving. So arguably, if he's shoveling the snow, if we would hold the snow as muktze, that's the position of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, for example, especially snow that falls on Shabbos. Most poskim do not accept that. Somebody wants to be machum that snow is muktze, now he's worried, I'm, I'm not touching the snow, I'm moving it with a shovel. But even if you wanna argue that, the Alter Rebbe also saying that-- The Alter Rebbe that writes that moving with a stick is considered moving directly, says, however, when it comes to moving chametz, and you need a place where the chametz is on Pesach, and it's muktze, you're allowed to move it with a stick. So if you're allowed to move chametz with a stick, you're certainly allowed to move snow which could hurt someone. The halacha is the Rishonim say you're allowed to sweep your house on Shabbos.

22:18 Speaker 2 Why are you allowed to sweep your house? There's different explanations. Either the way the Alter Rebbe says because it's graf sh'orayis. There's a certain level of muktze where it's disgusting and ugly, and you're living there, so you're allowed to move it. Or because you're moving-- when you're sweeping, you're moving indirectly, and it's l'kavod Shabbos. So if you're allowed to make your house look nice l'kavod Shabbos and sweep with a stick, or because it's not nice, graf sh'orayis, whatever the reason is, certainly would be allowed when it comes to snow, which is dangerous, and we have a special halacha, uh, allowing us to move muktze in a place of hezek reah where people could get hurt. There was a question that I received this week, and it comes up a lot. Different scenarios would give different piskei dinim, but I just wanna give the general rule. Someone was not well, and they added a name. Adding a name is not something that we do lightly, but when necessary, with a psak of a rav, a couple of rabanim, a name is added. I often tell people a name-- changing a name is changing a person's shayresh haneshama, and we don't just change a shayresh haneshama lightly just because a person doesn't like their name. They wanna add a new name that they like. They wanna get new mazal. When it's a real absolute critical need, then we have to seriously think. We-- It's basically almost, uh, a person's in critical condition, so we might as well

23:36 Speaker 2 try the last thing we can try, which is to, to add a name. So when a person's name, a new name is added today, the meaning is that we don't change the name. We just add a name, and the new name comes first. So let's say the name was Chaim, um, Yosef. We'll add a name Chaim, and now he becomes Chaim Yosef. Now, if the person becomes better afterwards, then that name becomes their name. And we have a lot of people that received the extra name Chaim or an extra name Bracha or extra name Ben Zion, which all these names of a Sugol, Farich, Asim, and Alter, and they got it when they were not well, when they were younger, and then they became better. But if the person passes away from the sickness, then the halacha is they lose the name. And the reason is, in other words, if they were not well, a name was added, and then they passed away while they were still not well. They didn't become better and then pass away. The name is no longer considered their name. Their relevance is for a matzeivah. Their relevance is for the children in a get, people naming after them. Those are the places where these kind of things are relevant. Why is that name no longer theirs? The simple reason is because the name was given in order that their mazal should change. If the mazal wasn't changed, there was no reason to give them that name. The Tzemach Tzedek

24:47 Speaker 2 was added a name Meir right before his hairstyle, because nobody knows that the Tzemach Tzedek's name is Meir, and people who give name after the Tzemach Tzedek give only Menachem Mendel, not Meir. In Eretz Yisrael, interestingly, there were two rabbonim at the same time. There was Rav Yosef Chaim Zonenfeld and Rav Kook. Rav Kook's name is Avraham Yitzchak, and Rav Yosef Chaim, Rav Yosef Chaim Zonenfeld's name was Rav Yosef Chaim. But history us that Rav Kook had a name added to him, Chizkiyahu, when he was not well. Nobody knows about that name. That name is gone, disappeared. Rav Yosef Chaim Zonenfeld original name was Chaim, but the name Yosef was added. Yosef Chaim, life should be added. But the-- and the name Yosef stuck to him, and the reason was very simple. Rav Kook passed away after they added the name, so that name didn't take root. Rav Yosef Chaim Zonenfeld became better, that became his name. That is generally the rule. There's-- could, could be different distinctions if the new name was used for thirty days, if it-- if a person got an Aliyah L'Torah with that name, um, if the person became slightly better. There, there could be a bunch of different rules and different cases, and this, this should be checked with a Rav each, each, in each case individually. A person asked a question. They make a beracha on-- Tallis Katten, we make a beracha on Mitzvas Tzitzis. A number of reasons are provided for that. On Tallis Gadol, we make

26:16 Speaker 2 a beracha Lehisatef b'Tzitzis. A person by mistake said on Tallis Gadol Al Mitzvas Tzitzis. What is the Halacha? So this is discussed in Poskim. Al Mitzvas Tzitzis is a new later invented beracha because there was a question of Mechalal of people who are yoetz the mitzvah with the Tallis Katten. And therefore, they-- this beracha was-- came up later on Mitzvas Tzitzis, as the Rama explains in Darkei Moshe, 'cause of the concern we're not doing the mitzvah properly. So to make such a beracha on Tallis Gadol, certainly when we're coming into a Tallis Gadol, seems like we're changing the beracha. And some people have raised the issue of Mishanam Madbei She Tov Chacham. Chazal made a rule, they said a beracha, you're changing the beracha. But it's clear in Poskim that most Poskim maintain that the person is yoetz with Al Mitzvas Tzitzis even on a Tallis Gadol. And indeed, this is the accepted Halacha of the Pri Megadim, the Chayadim, Mishneh Berurah, and Mandebais Ovid, and many, many, many other Poskim. And the argument of Mishanam Madbei does not apply because Mishanam Madbei She Tov Chacham means when you're changing a fundamental aspect of the beracha, missing a psicha, missing a kasima, a beginning or end. Changing a word or two, so it doesn't have the word Lehisatef, it has the word Al Mitzvas Tzitzis, the theme is still there. It's a beracha on the Mitzvah of Tzitzis. Now, interesting, the Tashbetz, one of the earlier Poskim Rishonim wrote, Kadmonim wrote that against those who

27:40 Speaker 2 make on Tallis Gadol Al Mitzvas Tzitzis, and he writes there that they're Mishanam Madbei She Tov Chacham. They're changing the structure of what Chazal said. Chazal gave a beracha Lehisatef. Why are they making Al Mitzvas Tzitzis? But we don't hold like that. We make Al Mitzvas on a Tallis Katten, so that wouldn't be proof for us. And even when he wrote that, I don't know if he meant that you're not yoetz if you do that. In fact, this question was already raised by the Michthan Gadol. Does he mean you're not yoetz? The term Mishanam Madbei She Tov Chacham can mean you made a change which you weren't supposed to make, and then there's a Mishanam Madbei She Tov Chacham that you changed the structure where you're not even yoetz. The subtle change between Lehisatef b'Tzitzis, Al Mitzvas Tzitzis is not a reason to say that it's not yoetz. So someone by mistake, this could happen-- this generally could happen to a Chassan who's used to making Al Mitzvas Tzitzis on his Tallis Katten, and now finally he got a Tallis Gadol, and he can make this-- by mistake say Al Mitzvas Tzitzis. The Halacha is that he, he, he is yoetz. Last podcast, we spoke about the Halachas of Shinui Makom. When a person changes their place in the middle of eating, they make a new beracha. And we mentioned that if a person makes a Mezonos and he walks out of the room and he comes back, he does not have to make a

28:55 Speaker 2 new beracha because Mezonos ties you back to your original place 'cause you're supposed to go back to your original place to make Ha'adam Echad. Barech nafash is not something that you have to make in the original place. So the fact that you drank a coffee over here and you walked out, there's nothing that ties you to the original place. And if when you left, it means you left. If you left, it means the meal is over. If the meal is over, you make a new beracha. The question is what happens if a person had a Mezonos, say, and a shakel. He had cake and coffee, and he left his room and he came back. So on the Mezonos for sure he doesn't have to make a new beracha 'cause he's never left because Halachically he has to come back for the Ha'adam Echad. Do we say that because he has to come back for the Ha'adam Echad, therefore that means he didn't really leave for the coffee also, and he doesn't have to make a new beracha on the coffee? This is a very, very interesting question, and there's a Machloket Zakharim about this. And strictly speaking, he should make a beracha on the coffee, but it's best to try to avoid this suffering, not to go into the Shailah. Although you could argue that because he has to come back for the Mezonos, therefore that means he never left. But we have a similar con- conversation-- uh, discussion in the Alter Rebbe in Sefer

30:03 Speaker 2 HaChaim and the Shulchan Aruch. In the Alter Rebbe talks about a meal of bread, where a person ate bread and he left, but he also ate something which you make a beracha among the meal. He ate fruit. The Alter Rebbe says that because fruit, you don't make a beracha acharonah on the fruit 'cause bentching will cover the fruit you ate in the meal. You make a beracha rishonah of fruit on the meal, but not a beracha acharonah. Because it's all covered by bentching, it's-- therefore it's included in the bentching. And because you don't have to make a beracha, a new beracha on any bread, you therefore you also don't have to make a beracha on the fruit. Clearly, from the, the words of the Alter Rebbe, it's clear that it's only because it's tafal, the beracha is secondary because you make one bentching of both. When a person's eating cake and coffee, he needs to make an Ha'adam Echad on the cake, but a Barech nafash on the coffee. There's no relation between the two. So therefore, it would seem pretty clear from the Alter Rebbe, and also proven from the words of Tosfos. Tosfos writes the Lashon, "Ki ven shuhu b'toch hasuda." So when you're in a meal, then you haven't really left. But when a person had cake and coffee, cake does not create a meal. A meal is a meal of HaMotzi. Then the argument would be that you really should have to make a beracha. Now, Rab Chaim Noach, one of

31:26 Speaker 2 the Chabad major-- our major Poskim, questions that maybe you could learn a different pshat in the Alter Rebbe. It seems like the Al-- he, he's mesupik about this. He wants to make a distinction if you're going to drink in a new place or if you're gonna go back to your first place. It's hard to understand that distinction. So as mentioned, it's very hard to, to accept the argument that when you made a-- when you had coffee and cake, that the cake make-- creates a kli also for the coffee, and you shouldn't have to make a beracha. There's, there's a discussion about this. As mentioned, some Poskim say one way, some Poskim say the other way. Um, Halacha L'Maase, it's of course best to avoid this entire Shailah, but strictly speaking, he would have to make a new beracha on the coffee when he comes back. Kol tov.

32:20 Speaker 3 Join the global Halacha 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.