When Zaidy Asks for a Promise - What Does Halacha Say?

00:00 Speaker 1 Welcome to the Halacha Podcast, Laman Yishma, with Harav Yosef Yeshaya Brown, Marah D'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 Laman Yilmedu, the premier institute for practical Halacha learning.

00:24 Speaker 2 Okay, so one of the questions that we've received, which was extremely relevant to people that go out Miftzoim and Mezake Yidden with putting on tefillin and saying Shema with him. And the problem is that people do not necessarily understand the language nor do they understand the meaning of Shema. The Halacha in Shulchan Aruch is when it comes to Shema, one has to have Kavanas Halev. He has to understand what he's saying. And the Halacha is if you don't have Kavanah during Shema, you need to repeat Shema. There's also a Halacha that in-- if a person davens in another language, he has to understand the language. There's a question when it comes to Hebrew, if you need to understand, if you don't need to understand. But in Kriyas Shema, the Alter Rebbe paskens clearly that if a person doesn't understand, even in Hebrew, he's not yoitzer. He needs to understand, have Kavanah with the very first pasuk of Shema. And even if he knows that this is a mitzvah of Shema and, and he knows that he's-- this is talking to Hashem, but if he doesn't understand the meaning of the words, then he's not yoitzer Shema. So how-- when we do Miftzoim, how do they yoitzer the mitzvah of Shema? Now, the truth is, when people go to Miftz tefillin, they're not trying to get them to do the mitzvah of Shema. They're trying to get them to do the mitzvah of tefillin. Normally, the Shema they're saying is way after Zman Kriyas Shema. They

01:38 Speaker 2 cannot be yoitzer Shema. It's past the time. It's the, the mitzvah is es min hatorah of Shema unfortunately is already over. It's a me'uvas lo yuchel liskon. It's a mistake that cannot be fixed. Once you miss the time, you can't fix that mitzvah. But we're trying to get them to do the mitzvah of tefillin. The real question is not so much about Miftzoim. The question is when you're talking about Mekaravim, Baalei Teshuva, they're starting to daven, and they don't necessarily understand the meaning of the words. So we rely in that case in understanding the basic content, even if they don't understand the language. The Mishnah Berurah writes that it's not common that there should be a Jewish person that doesn't know the meaning of the very first pasuk of Shema. And he writes that it seems to him that otherwise he's not yoitzer. The reason he writes it seems to him, lefi ani is dahi nire, implying that he's not clear about this. This is not a clear Halacha. You have to understand the meaning of Shema. So perhaps the reason he's not clear about it, 'cause there is a Rabbi Yehuda that says that you don't have to understand the words. You need to understand the basic idea that you're accepting upon yourself, ol malchus shamayim. So if that's the case, then the Mishnah Berurah is perhaps is going along with this savara, unless the Mishnah Berurah is talking about the rest of Shema because he himself writes that the first pasuk almost everybody

02:56 Speaker 2 understands. There's also a Sefer Chassidim that writes that when it comes to Shema, it's better to say it in the language you understand. The expression, it's better to say it in the language you understand implies that you don't have to understand it. Again, the only explanation we can have is, of course, it's required to understand Shema, but it's the basic idea you mekabel ol malchus shamayim. The Alter Rebbe writes you need to understand Kavanas Ha'inyan sheyekabel malchus shamayim behasgama sehalev. So we do have other places where it implies that it's important to understand the meaning of the actual words. It's not clear what level that is. What's this obligation to understand the meaning of the words? In Kriyas Shema, when we talk about the mitzvah of Kriyas Shema, it's the mitzvah of Kriya. The actual Kriya reading, you don't have to understand. It's just the issue of Kavanah. When you talk about Kavanah, it's likely that according to the Alter Rebbe, this would be enough just to be mekabel ol malchus shamayim, and it's not negaah to understand the meaning of every single word. There are poskim in the Shulchan Aruch that imply it is important to understand the meaning of every single word, but obviously, we're talking about the people who don't know that I'm relying on this. Going back to the Miftzoim case, so over there, we're not trying to get them to do the mitzvah of Shema. We're just g-- trying to get them to do the mitzvah of tefillin. Why are

04:13 Speaker 2 we saying Shema altogether Miftzoim? If a person misses the time of Shema, it's k'koreh b'Torah, just reading Torah. So this has nothing to do with Miftz tefillin. Why are we getting them to do that? The answer is for that very reason, because if a person missed out of Zman Kriyas Shema, he should say the rest of the day k'koreh b'Torah, and he's mekayem the mitzvah of talmud Torah. When a person says even one chapter of Shema-- of, of Torah in the morning and one chapter at night, just says the pasuk of Shema, he fulfills the mitzvah of talmud Torah. We do it at the time when he puts on tefillin, so it shouldn't be made eide shekeh saying Shema without tefillin. So he does the Shema, does the tefillin, fulfilling the mitzvah of tefillin, fulfilling the mitzvah of talmud Torah, but not fulfilling the mitzvah of Shema. Talking about Miftzoim and how this associates with Shema, we sometimes say Shema with people on Miftzoim, and they make a mistake. Now, the Halacha is that if a person makes a mistake, the Alter Rebbe writes that you have to go back to the beginning of the pasuk, whether if you made a mistake in a word-- if, if you missed a pasuk, you missed a word, or you missed a letter. So if you missed a letter or you said it in a way that changes the meaning of the words, then it has to be corrected. Now imagine you would do this on Miftzoim and

05:30 Speaker 2 you tell them they made a mistake. You have to go back to the beginning of the pasuk. This could be pretty, pretty frustrating. So first of all, as we already established, usually during Miftzoim, we're not trying to get them to do the mitzvah of Shema. It's past Zman Kriyas Shema usually, and therefore, this whole Halacha is not relevant. This is a Halacha when it comes to the mitzvah of Shema. Here, they're not doing the mitzvah of Shema. They're doing the mitzvah of tefillin, and we're just saying Shema together with the tefillin k'koreh b'Torah. But even arguably, if we would be saying with them Shema for the mitzvah of Shema- For that matter, skip mitzvot, a person is saying Shema himself, and he makes a mistake. And this could be a problem if somebody is ext-- has, uh, some aspect of OCD because he obsesses about these things. Shema, there's a mitzvah to be medakdek be-osiyoseha. This could be pretty frustrating for someone who's never sure if he made a mistake, and it changes the meaning, doesn't change the meaning. He's always gonna go back to the beginning of the pasuk. That could be pretty extreme. So the answer to all of this is, it is very clear that when the Shulchan Aruch talks about if a person made a mistake and they skipped a word or they skipped a letter, they'd have to go back to the meaning of the pasuk. It means they skipped and continued to the next item. When we talk about

06:48 Speaker 2 skipping a pasuk, it's very clear skipping a pasuk means they said pasuk A, pasuk one, skipped two, and they start at three. Now, once you start three, you need to go all the way back, and you can't now make up two. You have to go back to two and then three because it has to be in order. Shema has to be said in order. You cannot say Shema . So just like when I talk about skipping a pasuk, it means he went on to the next pasuk. When we talk about skipping a word, skipping a letter, it means that he moves further. But if you're still on the same word and you made a mistake, you could correct it immediately on the spot. What we read on Par-- Shabbos Parshat Zachor, the Torah says, . There's two ways how to read that word, Zecher or Zeicher. So our custom is we just repeat the word. We say it one way, and then we say it another way. We don't go back to the beginning of the process to fix it. We just say it one after another. Now, truth to be told, that's not such a good example because there's n-no significant change in the meaning whether the word is Zecher or Zeicher. There are those that wanna explain that this might have a difference in meaning. Is it a word which is a nismach word, a word which goes together with another word, or it's a word that stands alone? There are other explanations

08:02 Speaker 2 about the differences, explanations of Peirushim, but according to the simple pshat, Zecher, Zeicher mean the same exact thing. That's not such a good example, but we do have it in the Megillah. In the Megillah, we say, and has a different meaning altogether. Certainly, and . And we don't repeat the entire pasuk. Some people even have a minhag, they just repeat the word like we do in Parshat Zachor. Why is that? Because as long as you didn't move on to the next word, to the next item, there's really no reason you have to go back to the beginning of the pasuk. Some people have-- make a mistake about this, and they have all kind of theories why we don't go back to the beginning of the pasuk. But in truth, even assuming that Kriyat Shema, Kriyat Shema Megillah follows the same rules of Shema in this context, Hallel might follow those rules also. It's only when you moved on to the next link, but if you just said the word, you could just go back and repeat that word again. On top of all of that, there's a special chidush of the Sefer Tehillat Ledavid, who argues strongly in two places in the Sefer that when the Alter Rebbe writes and other poskim write to go back to the beginning of the pasuk, the beginning of the pasuk is lav davka. It's the beginning of the subject matter. So you can have a pasuk that has two subjects in the same pasuk. And if you made

09:28 Speaker 2 a mistake, you have to go back to the beginning of the theme, so the words should flow properly. And this is implied in Alter Rebbe elsewhere in Hilchot Kryshat in the Samech Vav. It's-- This is debatable, but certainly that's another argument for leniency. And finally, an additional argument, this whole entire din, that if a person makes a mistake in a word, if you skip a pasuk, that's a very clear halacha. You have to go back to the pasuk that you skipped to say it in order. But when you skip a word, that you have to go back to the beginning of the pasuk. The Alter Rebbe puts this in parentheses, and this is indeed a machloket-- it seems to be a machloket Rishonim. And if it's a parenthesis, then we know that means that Alter Rebbe had a doubt about it, or it's a chidush of Alter Rebbe, but it seems like it's a safek, it's a doubt because it is a machloket. There is a machloket after all on this. And if we're-- according to the primary opinion, the only part of Kryshat which is min haTorah is the very first pasuk. And once you're after the first pasuk, it's already a question about a d-Derabanan. And arguably, you could say therefore there's room for leniency, safek derabanan l'kulah. There's a question if you have to go back to the beginning of the pasuk. So there's certainly room for leniency in difficult cases. Normally, when it comes to Kryshat, there's an argument that says

10:40 Speaker 2 that even the parts of Kryshat that is Rabanan, we follow the rule of safek l'chumra, but there's good reason over here to be lenient. So to summarize, in mitzvot, you certainly shouldn't worry about it. That's not-- You're not trying to do the mitzvah of Kryshat. When it happens to yourself, that's only when you moved on to the next pasuk or to the-- And even so, you could-- if it's two subjects in a pasuk, you don't have to go back to the beginning of the pasuk. And in extreme cases, there's room for leniency. I got a very interesting question this week. There was a grandfather that asked his grandchildren before he passed away, he doesn't want them ever to go back to Poland. I'm assuming the reason is because everything that happened during the Holocaust are terrible things. It's a terrible, cursed country in his mind, and he asked his grandchildren they should never return to Poland. And they have respect for their grandfather, and for many, many years, they've honored this request. But they really wanna go back now. Recently, they started thinking maybe they wanna travel. They don't wanna go to the concentration camps. They wanna go to other historic sites and check out the family's history and the family's past. But then on the other hand, there's a directive that the grandfather gave them. They're very sensitive to what the grandfather told them. They don't wanna go against what he said. So I know we can-- They, they, they asked the question with

11:56 Speaker 2 sensitivity. They could be told that maybe they don't have to listen, but they're not looking for that kind of answer. They wanna know if there's a way, according to halakha, that they can make this trip and still be considered listening to the grandfather. That, that it's consistent with what he said And the example I gave, you know, there's certain cases where we're going to go into a cemetery in a very certain way. Is there a way we could get to them and go back to Poland? It's a very, very interesting question. So the first thing that occurred to me when I got this question was, we're talking over here about respecting a grandfather's wishes, which would go under the rule of Kibud Av v'Em. Kibud Av v'Em, Kibud Aviv, a grandfather. Now, when it comes to Kibud Av v'Em, there's a very strong argument, and Alter Rebbe argues this very strongly, and this is the position of the Maharik, and many poskim say this, that Kibud Av v'Em, honoring a father, is only something which directly benefits the father. The father asks the child, "Do not-- I don't want you to daven Nusach Ari, I want you to daven Nusach Ashkenaz," says the Alter Rebbe, you don't have to listen to him. There's nothing-- that-- not-- Honoring him means giving him food, giving him drink, showing him respect, things that are directly relevant to him. So if a grandfather's asking his grandchildren that they shouldn't go to Poland, that has nothing to do with him.

13:09 Speaker 2 So there wouldn't be a chiyuv Kibud Av v'Em. It's the right thing to do, and certainly in a case where this could cause them a bizayon, there could be an issue also that this loophole that, uh, Kibud Av v'Em is not if it's directly negel ha'na'asui shouldn't always be used because that could create a machloket, and sometimes it could be violating the issur of the halacha of moreh av. But they're being extremely sensitive, and they wanna do it in a way that does respect the grandfather. And they're not asking for an answer that says, "No, you don't have to listen." So before we get to that, there's also a Sefer Chassidim that writes against the idea of making a cherem that people shouldn't go to a certain country. He says that could create a michshol, a stumbling block. Poskim talk about a p-- a cherem that possibly there exists some type of cherem of never going back to Spain. There's a big argument amongst historians that's addressed also in poskim. Is there such a cherem? Is there evidence of such a cherem? There's proof one way, proof another way, and I'm not gonna go into the history debate right now whether such a cherem was ever enacted, but this is seriously addressed in many poskim. And some of them bring in relation to the possibly a cherem about not going back to Spain, the Sefer Chassidim that writes you shouldn't make such a rule. They shouldn't, they shouldn't-- Rabbanim shouldn't come out with such a

14:30 Speaker 2 decree because it could cause a stumbling block. They talk about whether there was-- they were talking about it after the World War II to make such a rule about Germany. There's a s-- a rumor there was such a rule about York, not to go back to York because many Yidden were killed over there. But again, th-this Sefer Chassidim suggests you shouldn't make such rules. Now, whether such a cherem happened or not, again, this is a history question. But the poskim talk about is there some type of heter. And part of the idea they talk about is, first of all, we don't know if there was such a cherem. It's a safek in a cherem, and might-- that itself might be room for leniency. How much is this cherem binding on the children and the grandchildren and descendants and many generations afterwards? But all of those arguments are all taken to the idea that maybe you don't have to listen to the cherem. And again, these grandchildren were looking for an approach that says, "No, we don't wanna say we don't have to listen." We're looking for a loophole, or maybe they don't wanna use the word loophole. We're looking for a way that implies that we actually are doing something consistent with his will. So we have the Minchas Elazar has a teshuva. This was-- this teshuva of Minchas Elazar was lost. But the Darkei Chaim V'Shalom brings down from a kav yad of Sha'agas Aryeh Minchas Elazar chelek vav. The later print was printed

15:45 Speaker 2 in chelek he because a lot of his manuscripts were lost. He writes exactly this was in chelek vav siman lamed daled, but again, we don't have that. Um, we don't even have the whole chelek he. It's just a collection of things that were received. And he talks about this cherem at length, and he writes that he, he provides various different conditions. Among them, he writes that if the government in Spain will give freedom that people should act in a Torah and mitzvahs way publicly, they could act and they don't have to hide their Yiddishkeit. They will designate a special beit hakeveros for Yidden. Yidden could be buried in separate places, et cetera. Then he allows people to go back. And there was a Rav called the Rav Yitzchak Stern who brings this Minchas Elazar and modifies some of what he said but comes with a similar idea. My grandfather in the Sefer Chassidim, Yitzchak Me'ir balacha, addresses this also, and he brings from the Minchas Elazar. And it seems to me that these conditions that the Minchas Elazar writes were not because, yes, if you wanna go to a country, you need to know this is a general rule, nothing to do with the cherem. The Ram says in those days you have to live only in a country where there's religious Jews and there's a way to act religiously. That's not what they were talking about over there. They were talking about specifically in relation to the cherem that in such a case where

16:58 Speaker 2 now there's an opportunity to live there in a kosher Jewish way, then there's room for leniency whether for people that are descendants of those who lived originally in Spain, those who were exiled from Spain, or whether those who are not sure if they're their descendants. That's the gist of the heter. If circumstances in Poland have changed significantly from when that instruction was given and now it's a place where Yidden live freely, it's not the same Poland anymore, it's only a temporary visit, so we can argue this would not be considered an absolute violation of the original instruction. Moving on to another question. Often there are two Sifrei Torah taken out. We just had two Sifrei Torah for Parshas Ki Tavo. We're gonna have again for Parshas Nitzavim. We're gonna have a Parshas Pinchas, Parshas Matos. I know every Yom Tov we have two Sifrei Torah. Now, one particular halacha that's found in the Rishonim and brought also in Shulchan Aruch, it originates from the Maharam mi-Rothenburg, that whenever there's two Sifrei Torah taken out, when you pick up the first Sefer Torah and you do Hagbah on the first Sefer Torah, do not undress the second Sefer Torah and remove its mantle, its co-- its mantle, its cover, and undo the gartel until you do Gelilah on the first Sefer Torah. We see this often in shul. The-- Somebody picks up the first Sefer Torah, does Hagbah, and then right away the balkono or the gab wants to start getting the show on the road

18:22 Speaker 2 And he starts taking apart and removing the cover of the second Sefer Torah. So in Shulchan Aruch it says, Halacha in Shulchan Aruch, you're not supposed to do that. So the question is, when we say that you're not supposed to do or take apart a second Sefer until-- open it until Galilah was done, what stage in Galilah are we talking about? Does it mean it was you rolled up the Sefer Torah, you put on the gartel? Well, in the Ashkenazi Sefer Torah, you roll it first, then you put on a gartel, and then you put a cover, a mantle on top of it, and then we often put on a crown on top of that. There's crowns on the Sefer Torah. Is the crown also included? So there's a Sha'alas of T'shuvah Sefer from the Knesset HaGedolah of the early Poskim brought regularly in the Magen Avram, continuously quotes from the Knesset HaGedolah. He wrote a T'shuvah Sefer known sometimes as Sha'alas of T'shuvah's Knesset HaGedolah, and other times it's referred to as Sha'alas of T'shuvah's Bo Yichai. And he writes, right in the beginning of the Sefer, he has, I believe, two T'shuvahs on this topic, and he talks about a different related topic, and that is the din that you're not supposed to start the Haftarah until Galilah was done. And he writes over there that you have to wait until the Sefer-- a full entire Galilah was done completely mikol v'chol, a cover was put on it, v'rimonim, rimonim are those beautifications

19:47 Speaker 2 that are put on the Sefer Torah, and the Sefer Torah has to be put in its place. Niglal mikol v'chol. There's another Sha'alas of T'shuvah Sefer way later. This is, I'm talking about an earlier Poskim, not a much later Poskim, HaGudis Erez Midvari. And he writes in those places or those times where people put ksavim v'atradim on the Sefer Torah, they need to wait until all the crowns are put on top of the Sefer Torah. Now they're addressing a different topic. They're addressing starting the Haftarah before Galilah was done. And that actually there's a machloket. There are Poskim in the Rishonim already that debate whether you need to wait till the entire Galilah only start Galilah. We follow the position that the pashut, that's the-- seems like what Ra-Rashi's opinion, and that's the pashut of Pshat in the Shulchan Aruch and in the Altar Rebbe Shulchan Aruch, that you need to wait until Galilah has finished. And there's a letter of the Rebbe about this why we are not lenient and we don't wanna start Haftarah until Galilah was finished. The Altar Rebbe explains this halakhah as one word, a strong word, that the reason we don't wanna start the Haftarah, it's very important for everybody to listen to Haftarah 'cause if you're busy with Galilah, you can't pay attention 'cause you need to hear lishmah ulehavin. Ulehavin, you need to actually understand the Haftarah, which is a shtikel chidush. So we're very particular even when it comes to Haftarah to wait until the entire

21:07 Speaker 2 Galilah. Now with Haftarah, there are different opinions. When it comes to opening the second Sefer Torah, the lashon in Poskim in the original Rishonim is you have to wait sheyuglal bemapah. Not just you rolled it up, you put the map in it, you put the cover, whether mapah means the gartel or the mapah means the cover, whatever mapah means. The Orach Chayim, one of the Rishonim, when it comes to Haftarah, he brings two opinions at what stage you can start the Haftarah. But when it comes to opening the second Sefer when there's two Sifrei Torah, he clearly writes bemapah, and many other Poskim write the word bemapah. Interesting in the Mishnah Berurah when it comes to Haftarah brings two opinions, and right afterwards when it comes to opening a second Sefer, he writes sheyuglal bemapah. Clearly, we need to wait for the mapah. Now what's the reason you can't start the Haftarah before Galilah? The pashut reason is because the person doing-- we mentioned doing Galilah will be busy, and he won't be able to focus on the Haftarah. There are other reasons though, and those other reasons might imply that you don't have to wait for the full Galilah. But when it comes to two Sifrei Torah, clearly the reason, the simple reason brought in the Livush in the Knesset HaGedolah is in order to be able to hear the Krias HaTorah. Now there is also another aspect because if it's about being able to hear Krias HaTorah, so we'll open the second Sefer

22:21 Speaker 2 and we'll wait. We won't start Kriya until they finish Galilah. But that's also a problem, as the Knesset HaGedolah explains, because that's disrespectful. You're opening a Sefer Torah and leaving it like that and not even starting Kriya. So it's a combination of both, both of those answers. That both of those ideas, the fact that you want the person doing Galilah to be able to pay attention to Krias HaTorah, and you don't wanna start and open up the Sefer Torah when you're not fully ready yet. And in the case of two Sifrei Torah, it actually seems like it's a much bigger bizayon to open a Sefer Torah before you finish Galilah than in the case of saying the Haftarah. In Haftarah, there are also other reasons for leniency the Rebbe brings from the Sha'ar Efrayim that in places where everybody says the Haftarah themselves, so there isn't this concern of people missing out the-- on hearing the Haftarah, that wouldn't apply when it comes to two Sifrei Torah, when it comes to Krias HaTorah. So clearly, without going into the entire Arukh, although there, there's one or two Poskim that bring the heter even with two Sifrei Torah that you don't have to wait for the full Galilah, but from the Rishonim it seems pretty clear that when it comes to two Sifrei Torah also need to have a full proper Galilah because it's a much more serious issue than Haftarah. And if with Haftarah we need to have-- wait for the full Galilah, certainly when

23:37 Speaker 2 it comes to two Sifrei Torah and opening the second, we should wait until the entire Galilah has concluded. People sometimes ask this question. It's a halakha of Shulchan Aruch, but not a very well-known halakha. The halakha says that a baal teshuva is now gonna become a shliach tzibur. Someone that did once an aveira, even if he did teshuva, someone that was-- did aveiras in the past, so a person's a baal teshuva, did aveiras in the past, now he can become a baal-- a shliach tzibur. So we d- we don't seem to know about this, that we disqualify a baal teshuva from being a shliach tzibur. So the emes is, the truth is that in Poskim there's some strong arguments that these-- all these rules for shliach tzibur that are found in Shulchan Aruch Siman Nun Gimel, Altar Rebbe brings it also, although it's found in Shulchan Aruch in middle of Hilchos Birchas Hashachar, right before Hilchos Krisma, but it's not a halakha for the whole year. It's a halakha for Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, for a ta'inis tzibur. Some people wanna argue that. Or maybe it's a halakha for a shatz kevua, for a fixed shliach tzibur, not a, a ad hoc shliach tzibur every day someone else goes to the Amud. Even according to the opinions, which seems to be much more mainstream, these opinions, that this applies to the whole year and applies even for a temporary shliach tzibur, there's still the argument that when it says that even if he did teshuva

25:01 Speaker 2 it is because we don't know if he did, but if we know for a fact he did teshuva, then there wouldn't be any, any problem having him become-- be a shliach tzibur. Now on all these arguments, there are disagreements. There are, there are Poskim but the, the strongest argument is that all of these halachas do not apply to what we call a tinok Shenishba. This applies to someone who was a Rasha in the past and then he did teshuva. Someone who didn't have a proper upbringing, they're greater than anybody else. If you're looking really for a shliach tzibbur, don't get a tzadik gomer. Get a baal teshuva who is greater than a tzadik, who never really did the wrong thing 'cause it was not his fault he didn't have a proper education. All contemporary poskim agree that there's nothing holding back such a person from being a shliach tzibbur. Indeed, this is the minhag that baal teshuva who are capable of being a shliach tzibbur, they have a good voice, they have proper kavana, they know to carry a tune, they're shl-shlichi tzibbur all the time. We were discussing in the past the halachas of changing places while eating, and this keeps on bringing in more and more questions that are coming up based on that. I wanna clarify those halachas very, very clearly. And perhaps in the previous episodes, maybe some of this was not so clear. If a person is eating a food and the beracha achronah for that food is Borei nefashot,

26:22 Speaker 2 and he goes from one room to the next, according to the strict halacha, he's supposed to make a new beracha before you're going to eat in the next room. Unless you had da'as, unless you had in mind when you said your beracha rishonah that you're going to go to the other room. The-- You're supposed to have in mind beshaas habracha. Beshaas habracha, you make a beracha not planning to go somewhere else. Now, the problem is that today's day and age, it's a very difficult halacha for people to accept. It's very common that people move around while eating. The best solution is they should always bear in mind whenever you make a beracha before eating that you might go into another room, and therefore you'll avoid the issue of whether you have to make another beracha or you don't have to make another beracha. Important clarification over here, when going mibayis l'chatzer, when going from a house into a yard, then you need to make a new beracha even if you can-- intended to continue and go out and continue to eat there. The same thing is mibayis l'bayis. You're going from one house to another house. You have to make a new beracha even if da'as. Da'as only helps going michader l'chader. So the simple solution, if a person is in doubt whether he needs to make a new beracha or not, the simple solution is better to make a beracha achronah first, and then you'll make a new beracha. Now, we don't just make

27:37 Speaker 2 a beracha achronah. This is called a beracha sheeino tsricha, an unnecessary blessing. But if you wanna avoid a she'ela, if you have to make a new beracha or not, so when you're making a beracha, in order to avoid a she'ela, it's not called a beracha sheeino tsricha as mentioned in many places. It is a lot of dif-differences of opinion what means mibayis l'chatzer. It seems like from the strict halacha that if as soon as you're not under, under cover, you're going out of the house, and now you're not covered by the ceiling, and you're open to the sky, that's already called mibayis l'chatzer. If you're going mibayis l'bayis, that means going from one house to another house, and there's this whole discussion when it comes to sukkas, when you're going from your house to the sukkah. If you have to-- Between your house and the sukkah, there's a space that might be considered mibayis l'chatzer. There's a special halacha if a person sees their original area, that's a whole other halacha. If you could see the other original area, the, the second area, then you wouldn't have to make a new beracha. The Kitzur Shulchan says you don't have to see the whole area from the second place, the first area where you ate, even if you see part of the area of chidal dam is around. So I'm just mentioning that just to make sure that people are aware of this. Some people suggest to make such a stipulation once for a person's entire

28:51 Speaker 2 lifetime, but it's not clear that such a thing would work. Some, some people suggest that maybe every year make a stipulation again. So make a stipulation that when every time you're making a beracha, you're planning to move to another room. But it's best to do it every single time without going into any she'elas. I'll just wrap up with one very interesting thing. In Rambam, in one of the recent days of Rambam, we learned a halacha that if a man was told by doctors that his only cure is to be with another woman or even just to see another woman undressed, et cetera, et cetera, then it's one of those things that a person has to be moser nefesh, yechid, val, yaver. There's three aveiras. There's persons-- person's supposed to give their life up, and one of the aveiras is aveiras zarah, shichas dam. One of the aveiras is gili arayes. And even though we're not talking over here directly about gili arayes, and it says in the halacha, it says that even if we're just telling him, "Let the woman just stand mechayeir hageder," let her just stand behind a fence, even that is a reason that he should not-- That should also not be done, and he should give his life up for that. That's, that's the lashon in this halacha. Even if we know that because of that he's gonna die, 'cause the doctors say there's no, there's, there's no cure for him. He'll just talk to her mech-- All they want is

30:12 Speaker 2 to talk to her mechayeir hageder. Now, I discovered a very interesting thing about this halacha, and I asked around a few people, and then I just realized this, this is a heavy debate. What is the definition of the words mechayeir hageder mean? Mechayeir hageder means that he's on one side of the fence, and she's on the other side of the fence. That's how most people when they learn in Rambam, and that's how a lot of the modern-day Rambams interpret that, that she-- he doesn't see her. She's behind a fence. What could be wrong with talking to a woman that's behind a fence? The very fact that she's not dressed makes him-- his mind be involved in a ta'avah. That's one pshat. Another pshat mechayeir hageder is they're both behind a fence. So what's the pshat behind a fence? The word mechayeir hageder in halacha, in Chazal mean in a hidden spot. So he wants to talk to her in a place which is a hidden spot where nobody's around, which is a issu-issue of yichud. So we're saying that he has to be moser nefesh not to talk to her mechayeir hageder. So I looked into this, which one is really the real meaning of mechayeir hageder. So it's interesting. In the Acharonim, they interpret mechayeir hageder that he's on one side of the fence, and she's on the other side of the fence. But in earlier poskim up to the Rishonim, Rabbeinu Omer that he writes this, mechayeir hageder means no, in a hidden

31:29 Speaker 2 spot. The issue is the kind of-- Look in a different place because they use different expressions. Is the issue 'cause he's gonna hear her voice? Is that the problem? W-we need to understand what the actual problem is. It's just an example of a term that could be used. I found that absolutely fascinating. The same term could be used, and everybody's convinced. One-- I'm talking to people, one of them is convinced it means this, another one's convinced it means that. The Torah is aruch hamareh et smida. There's so many ways to interpret the Torah. Shuvam panim laTorah. And, uh, that's just one example of, of, of those things besudas dinis.

32:04 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.