May I have an AI agent or robot perform work for me on Shabbos?

00:00 Speaker 1 Welcome to the Halacha Podcast, Lemaan Yishmeu, with Harav Yosef Yishaya Brown, Maharad Aasra, 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 I got a very, very interesting question which is probably gonna be addressed over the next few years by many people, and that's in relation to artificial intelligence. Over the last year or two, AI coding tools, otherwise known as AI agents, have improved considerably. Now you can just give minimal instruction, and the AI agent can go and build entire features almost by itself. You might have to interrupt to make corrections or provide feedback and tell them to change things differently. Often you'll need a human being involved, but very often there doesn't need to be a human being. Now, the problem here is, imagine you have a robot that can create and maintain a machine on a factory line, and you give the robot the job before Shabbos to begin creating a machine. Or with an AI agent, you're asking the AI agent before Shabbos to build a feature. And it's being done on Shabbos. You don't necessarily want to ask it to want on Shabbos. You can ask a robot or an AI agent in this matter, configure the agent to respond to bugs in the machine and, and do the fixes on Shabbos. Are these-- Is this an issue of zilzil Shabbos, of degradation of the kedusha of Shabbos? Is there an issue of ovshemusa? The Halacha is that melachos that happen on Shabbos on their own, if it makes a lot of noise, if it's public, there can be an issue. It is an AI agent which has an-- a co-a coding tool, and

01:43 Speaker 2 this code is a public use and, and people know it, or it's linked to a particular user, would there be a problem? So let's go through this Halacha slowly. The Halacha is that you-- we don't task unlike Beit Shammai that says, sheisas kelim, that your dishes and utensils have to rest on Shabbos. You could light candles on Friday, it'll burn throughout Shabbos. Beit Shammai says you have to actually declare your Shabbos licht ownerless because you can't have your candles burning on Shabbos. We don't hold like Beit Shammai. The Halacha is like Beit Hillel. Your operations, your utensils, your items could work for you on Shabbos. So you can put things into s- a process before Shabbos, and the process continues on Shabbos. One of the examples is brought that you're allowed to put wheat into a millstone, and it will continue grinding it on Shabbos. Everybody knows the millstone is operating on its own now. It was set up before, now it's operating on its own. However, in Shulchan Aruch it's brought the shit that the Rama brings the opinion that no, grinding is different because ovshemusa makes a lot of noise. And the Halacha is if there's no minim, we should be machmir, certainly Ashkenazim in particular with things that make noise. And that's all those issues with n-n-noise-making machines that could be a problem on Shabbos, even if they were set up before Shabbos. We talk about white noise, what type of noise, another whole discussion. Even so, Shulchan Aruch says you're allowed

03:03 Speaker 2 to have your clock set. It's not talking about a regular Shabbos egg that we know to know-- we know today, but every hour with chime and make a noise, it's not a problem. Because ha- darko bekach, it's normal that we set it up the day before, and it's not a problem. So going back to the-- our AI topic, if it's not common that things happen via AI agents, that can make a problem. That could make a problem even if it is common. But if it's something that makes noise, that is a problem of ovshemusa, of making noise. So the definition of the isur of ovshemusa, of making noise, is that noise, or is that the fact that people are aware of it? It's happening in a public place. So in Pesachim we find, the Hilat Shabbos already addresses this. You're allowed to have water running into your garden. You open the water before Shabbos. And even if the water is passing through it, it's sh'zarabim, and that seems to be the simple, um, understanding in all the Pesachim. There's no restrictions made in this Halacha of having water going to the garden. People talk about the automated features where the water goes on a Shabbos, although some Pesachim machmir according to the strict Halacha, doesn't seem to be a problem. Certainly nowadays, where it's a normal thing, everything is automated, and nobody goes and waters their garden anymore. It's a set up system, and every morning it waters it. In previous years, it might have

04:24 Speaker 2 been more difficult. The problem, however, is, there is a Sefer called Menorat Ha'tehuda, a Talmud of the Mizrachi Maggid, and he talks about making bramfin vodka, making it on-- before Shabbos, and it happens on Shabbos. And he says that there's a lot of smoke. And if there's a lot of smoke, it could be like a millstone. He actually finishes off, and he says it doesn't seem-- He brings us another source that implies it doesn't, um, give us a conclusive answer that smoke outside is not called ovshemusa, making noise. One of the s-proofs which he doesn't bring is it says you're allowed to have mugmar. Mugmar is an-- where people used to go and clean out their clothing and give a beautiful smell. They would put clothing, and the clothing would be on, in a, in a place where they smoke, and it smoke up the house and give a nice, beautiful smell. Okay. It could be over there, the smoke doesn't go outward. Possibly that's a difference. But he, he-- like I said, he's not conclusive about it. We do have a Sefer, the Aruch Hashulchan, which says a massive Chiddush. Chlal, the whole way he discusses this Halacha is a Chiddush. Particularly when he talks about setting up nets to capture whatever it is you want to capture on Shabbos. He says, k'go-- Ab-- However provided, k'goen sh'lo yedah b'frat am shomea be public knowledge. So he actually talks about something which is not a noise-making thing, but it's public awareness. None of the

05:48 Speaker 2 other Rishonim bring this, and Shulchan Aruch gives a bunch of examples of things you're allowed to do before Shabbos without having a problem with the fact that people are aware. And indeed, the contemporary Poskim say the isur is only something that makes noise out- It's nishma, not nida. Shmirah are two different things. If you hear the noise, that's a problem. Why should there be a difference between seeing it on Shabbos, it being visible to the public or hearing it? It seems like noise is more a zilzal of Shabbos. Although they talk about the idea that there's a chashad that maybe he did it on Shabbos, so the chashad, the suspicion is the same whether you hear it or see it. The problem-- It's more than that. It's when there's noise, that creates the chashad. That's what it seems like. Indeed, we light a-- light candles on a Friday, and that's-- that doesn't say anywhere that a candle can't shine outward. Our electricity could be shining outward, and people indeed do this. They have lights in front of their house. They put it up on a Friday, and the lights shine in front of their house. Nobody seems to have a problem with that. Certainly something which is normal that you set up the day before, that wouldn't be a problem. I will have al-- however mention that there was a posek in the previous generation, the Chalcas Yankov in Zurich, and he said having an answering machine set up on Shabbos is a problem. Everything

07:03 Speaker 2 else is permitted, but this is a problem. It's a setting up a machine like that, the machine running for you on Shabbos, uh, and everybody know-- and you have to do something on Friday to make it work. But if you read his tshuva very carefully, you see his problem wasn't a Halachic problem. He just was worried this is how people are gonna run their business. Answering machines, you take messages, and you have a phone, and automatically you get-- you know what to do in your business. The Debretziner Rav writes on this psak. He says, "You can't make your own decrees on your own. If all the Rabannim will get together and make a decree, then we'll bow our heads down and accept the decree." But a private Rav wants to say, you're not allowed to do this, it's really no problem. Indeed, many, many posekim say it's not a problem, and we've never heard of people disconnecting their answering machine before Shabbos. But there's a very important message. The message is that the Beis Moshe writes, if all the Rabannim will make a decree, there's some reason to make a decree when things start becoming automated that might take away the whole entire yom of Shabbos. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein had a position about a Shabbos clock. He said it really should be a problem. If Chazal would-- This would be around the time of Chazal, they wouldn't let have a Shabbos clock turning things on on Shabbos. He says, granted people accept it if you're

08:10 Speaker 2 turning on lights, but not anything beyond that. Interestingly, the Rebbe gave money towards a Shabbos clock in an old age home, so people shouldn't turn on and off lights on Shabbos. But the Rebbe said he doesn't wanna personally officially give a heter on it. He's pull-- "I'm pulling my hands back because of those that are against it." But again, the accepted position is people allow Shabbos clocks all over, normally cease to have a problem. Furthermore, there was a discussion in the previous generation about a company that makes medicine and its automatic machines, and they can-- they allow the machines continue running on Shabbos, a whole entire Shabbos, as long the place is locked, no one goes in there on Shabbos. Clearly, they were talking about where there's a desperate situation. It's just they're gonna lose money. It's actually no good for the medicines. So strictly speaking, it's hard to say it would be asur, but if this becomes a problem of zilzal Shabbos, we need to really seriously consider if this is something that will take away from the kedusha of Shabbos. Moving on to a different topic altogether. In our siddur, it says that in the day that we say Tachnan, we say Al Naharot Bavel before benching, in the day that we say Tachnan. When we don't say Tachnan, we say Shir Hamalos. Many Yekke siddurim have a tradition to say Shir Hamalos almost every y- every day. However, let's be frank. This is what it says in our siddur. This says in

09:28 Speaker 2 all the Chabad siddurim which our Rebbe published or supervised the publishing. It's also written in the Hayom Yom in the Sefer Minhagim. We don't have from any of our Rebbeim to tell us otherwise. It's like brought down Halacha. It's based on a Zohar that you're supposed to mourn for the Churban Beis Hamikdash at your meal, and it's brought in all the siddurim, the Ari z"l and in posekim, and that's why we say Al Naharot Bavel. So there are a bunch of different rumors about different minhagim opposite of what it says in Shulchan Aruch and the Sefer Minhagim. It's hard to rely on these rumors, especially that there are other circles that have this minhaga. Maybe these rumors are coming from other circles that have influence on the Chabad circles. In fact, the Rebbe's father, Reb Levi Yitzchok, spoke about the hilich, and it's brought down in Toldos Levi Yitzchok about the Chabad minhag and the Polish minhag that they just allow themselves to say Shir Hamalos on any opportunity, when we know there's a lot of minhagim in other circles. But in the Chabad minhag, it's not the case. We do know that Reb Hilah Parker would look for excuses to say Shir Hamalos. But if you listen carefully to the story, he would find an excuse to say Shir. He wouldn't otherwise say Shir Hamalos. And one time, they didn't say Tachnan after many, many weeks. There's different versions of the story. And then he, he-- that day he said, "Oh, whenever there's a

10:41 Speaker 2 guest, I don't say Al Naharot Bavel. Today there's a guest, so today is the first time that we're saying Tachnan." However, there's a sicha of the Friediker Rebbe recently published in a tshuva. It was published many years before in a Kovetz Ha'aris, where over there it's brought... It's difficult to understand what it says there, a story that the Rashash said, and the Rebbe Rashab heard that story. And after he heard the story from the Rebbe-- from the Rashash, the Rebbe Rashab started saying Shir Hamalos on a regular basis. The-- In the published sicha of the Friediker Rebbe, the one, the one that our Rebbe published, it's not there. It's found in a private diary, what someone wrote. I'm assuming it pretty reliable, although it kind of... It's a hundred percent reliable. It's pretty reliable. The problem is that w-was written there in brackets, I'm not sure if he wrote his own in some brackets. Presumably, it's not what the Friediker Rebbe said, that because he heard a story that gave him, gave him taynog. And if you look at the story, it's a story that's the opposite. It doesn't give pleasure. It's a story that the Rebbe Rashab started crying. That's a bit challenging there. We also heard in the name of Rav Landau, alav ha-shalom said that the Rebbe Rashab would say every day Shir Hamalos except Erev Tisha B'Av, Suda and Av Sekhas, which creates another discussion. Erev Tisha B'Av after Mincha, we don't say Tachnan, so maybe we should say Shir Hamalos,

11:54 Speaker 2 unless we'll say that Erev Tisha B'Av, it's so close to Tisha B'Av, even if we don't say Tachnan, we still should say Al Naharot Bavel. But be that as it may, this is not a heral LeRabbon. We know that the great neshamas Alter Rebbe told us-- tells us they never had a churban Beis Hamikdash. The whole reason we say "Al Naharos Bavel" is for the churban. Why don't we say on Shabbos and Yom Tov whenever there's a simcha? Because at the time of simcha, we don't mention the churban. Alter Rebbe writes that great neshamas, in one place it says great neshamas like Rashbi, Tana'im, tzaddikim, different meshualim, some pelach rimon, Echod HaAriel, they don't have this concept of churban. These are minhag some people have in Eretz Yisrael, they say Shehecheyanu because it's a special kedusha, a special simcha. And it's very likely that the reason why the Rebbe brought the minhag in HaYom Yom, why is the Rebbe quoting in HaYom Yom what it says already in the siddur? Because of all these rumors about different behaviors, there's also the Chassidus. Rabbi Sholom Klimovitch would always say Shehecheyanu, he didn't want to give an answer. So the Rebbe writes in HaYom Yom that our official minhag is otherwise. Th-there's a rumor in the name of the Rebbe that the Rebbe told someone something. I don't know anything about that. Again, that could have been a personal hora'ah. Moving on to another topic altogether. Many times that Rebbe's Purim farbrengen, which was always on Motzei

13:05 Speaker 2 Purim, the Rebbe suggested, the Rebbe instructed that one person should reach a state of ad lyada and drink, and he'll be motzi everyone. So about the fact of be-being motzi everyone, what's the source that one person could do it for everyone? The Rebbe addressed that once in an answer and it's printed in Likutey Sichos. That's not the question we're talking about right now. We're talk-- The question is, how do you do ad lyada when it's already no longer Purim? The Rebbe's farbrengen was after bentching, after Ma'ariv. So how you can be yotzei the mitz-mitzvah of mishneh veisimcha on Motzei Purim. So frankly, there's no such thing al pi halacha of the mitzvah of mishneh veisimcha of ad lyada. Pshutim, the pashtus does not apply on Motzei Purim. Why the Rebbe did this, the Rebbe spoke about this in farbrengen in five hundred and seventy-four and five hundred and seventy-five. These higher levels of ad lyada. There's the inyan of ad lyada, we're not talking about it being the halacha of ad lyada. The same way the Rebbe answered similarly about one person being motzi other people, that we're not talking about bechir of ad lyada, which is not something that you could have one person exempting other people. There is a discussion of famous Londoner shechakira if ad lyada is about that this is the shir hamishuch you're supposed to drink or no, you're supposed to keep on drinking even afterwards, but once you reach ad lyada, you're patur. The nafka mina is a person

14:19 Speaker 2 was shichri, reached ad lyada, then he became sober again. So shikarim are busy with the shechakira, even though it has some Torah sources as well. There's-- But another way to ask this question, is it ad lyada what you're supposed to be-- Is it a shir? The result-- Is it the result of the action of drinking? So there could be a discussion on this. This is addressed about where somebody drinks on Purim, and he only reaches the ad lyada stage on Motzei Purim, but that's very, very different. Here we're talking about Purim is over, and we're only starting to drink now by the Rebbe's farbrengen. There's, there is however something about mishneh veisimcha on Shushan Purim. The Rama says that it should be motzei a bit of simcha. One of the reasons we continue our Purim meal into the night to be mekayem the idea that Shushan Purim on Teves tav. Poskim talk about it, there's a chiyuv of seudah ad lyada, but the inyan obviously is there. And I'll mention just something interesting that the Levush writes about a person who made a shvuah to fast on Purim. He gives an option if he can't eat on Purim because he made such a shvuah, let him have the seudah on Motzei Purim. So there is some room for that, but again, the Rebbe wasn't talking about the strict halacha he came in. Moving from simcha to the opposite of simcha, there's a halacha which is very, very, very unknown. The halacha is kol hamisabel, kol

15:29 Speaker 2 hamisabelim v'hu. If somebody's sitting shiva, anybody that would have sat shiva on the person that's sitting shiva joins him in the shiva. So if someone passed away, other relatives besides for those that are required to do shiva have shiva as well. W-how does this halacha work? The Rama brings this, and he writes, our minhag is not exactly the way it says in the Gemara. There's a lot of halachos of avelus that our minhag is different than what it says in the Gemara. He says that relatives of the one that passed away, they show some signs of avelus until the very first Shabbos of the shiva. After Shabbos is over, in the middle of the shiva, they don't have to keep this anymore. So first of all, there's a machloket if this means only in the place of the aveilim or outside the place of the aveilim. Not clear what the Rama means. The implication of the Rama would be seemingly that it's-- if he says the relatives of the person that passed away, not the relatives of the aval, and he says it's called kavod hamet, kavod haniftar, then it has nothing to do with the place where the people are mourning. It could be in a different city. But however, the fact that the Rama says it doesn't mean that our minhag like that is today. In the Gemara, it says that it's only in the presence of those that are mourning. So even though our minhag has slightly changed, we're not gonna make

16:36 Speaker 2 the minhag more than the Gemara. The Gemara was to go aga-- less than the Gemara. And even if the minhag in the Rama was even in another place, but who says our minhag today is like that? The Rama's time, the minhag changed from the Gemara, and our times have changed as well. Certainly, we're not stringent when it comes to avelus. Halacha kediva, hameikil ba'avel, the halacha is like those who are lenient when it comes to avelus. There's a discussion if this kal, that the halacha is like those who are lenient in avelus applies to Gemara, Tana'im, Amora'im, or even to poskim. As the famous joke, in this machloket whether you go according to those who are lenient in poskim, in that also halacha kediva, hameikil. That those that are lenient say that we could follow the lenient positions in poskim as well. The reality is that the minhag is only in the place of the aveilim, and this is-- many, many poskim say this as well. There are poskim that write that they never heard of such a minhag. Literally, a lot of places didn't hear about this. The Be'er Helek Hakhamah writes, was a Rav in a recent generation, he says, "I never saw people doing this. I, I was young, I was old, I looked around, I never saw people doing this." Some people explain why this minhag fell apart, but it is mentioned in the Rama, and officially we're supposed to be keeping this minhag. So let's talk the parameters of this

17:49 Speaker 2 minhag, and normally Rabbonim pass them to follow this minhag. So first of all, when it comes to showering, there's no reason nowadays to keep this halacha when it comes to showering. Nobody notices if you took a shower, you didn't take a shower. A molech would take a shower once in a blue moon. Nowadays, a shower is devarim shebezina. The halacha of avelus only applies that peop-people join along, the relatives join along in avelus for things that are public, but not for private matters, not Now there's anyhow people are so lenient with all the halachas of showers. And it could very well be that in those days you went to a bathhouse, it was a public thing, you're going to the bathhouse, you're taking a shower at home. That's mamash d'varim shebetzeref, there's really no reason to be machmir about taking showers. Haircuts, the Shulchan Aruch already writes against those that are machmir with haircuts. So if haircuts you're allowed to do, certainly you're allowed to cut your nails also because that's even less than taking haircuts. Almost all the poskim don't mention about wearing newly laundered clothing. The Shulchan Aruch actually is the one that does assur it. Again, it could be this is d'varim shebetzeref, nobody notices it. If it's covered, a mess, nobody notices it, so you can't tell he's wearing a old-- a new shirt, a old shirt, uh. We don't add things that are don't, don't say befeyish. So what does remain from this halacha is not joining simchas, and that

18:59 Speaker 2 people are machmir. Not listening to music, not dancing. Again, in that we have to know if somebody's a close relative, has to go to a simcha, the relatives will be upset. It's only a-- It's a minhag, so maybe this would override the minhag. You could ask mechilah from the aveilim. So that-- there could be room for leniency. But generally, this halacha is kept specifically, like I said, it, it is a halacha brought down in the Gemara. It's kept in the presence of the avel, in the same city at least, and only regard not joining simchas, not dancing, and not listening to music. Changing clothing and laundering, all of that is not a problem. And that was a shaila about aveilim, so let's go back to simcha, and let's-- we spoke about ad d'lo yada, let's talk about wine. People make kiddush on wine, and the wine pours into the cup underneath, into the bowl underneath. Is there a minhag not to drink from what's in the bowl? There's people that say have a tradition you don't drink from the bowl, you only drink from the cup. I don't know of such a minhag, and it's-- I'm almost sure this comes from foreign non-Jewish sources. In fact, we have a clear minhag otherwise that the Rebbe writes, and that's what the Rebbe did as well, that when it came to the charoses, we mixed the wine in the charoses. The Rebbe says we take the wine that's in the bowl, and we put the charoses there,

20:14 Speaker 2 and we mix. The charoses originally is dry without wine before. Motzer is when we mix it, motzer kodech, and we mix it with the wine in the bowl. That means we do use that wine. Many people actually have such a minhag that when it comes-- when they want to give to drink from kiddush or any kos shel bracha, instead of giving from the cup, they drank already from the cup, they want to give from something which is not pagum, so they give from the bowl. There's such a minhag. We find in the Gemara that it says that water in a bowl is not good for a person's eyes, and that-- but it only says water. It doesn't say wine, number one. Number two, poskim mention about this Gemara, the Alter Rebbe brings this Gemara as well, that therefore if you're having a tea and it goes into the bowl, the saucer underneath, pour what's in the saucer into a cup and then drink from it. So there is a problem drinking from a bowl, which we'll talk about that a different time, but there's no problem drinking what's in the bowl, and that's probably how this, this rumor came about. Because there's a problem with drinking from the bowl, people decide you can't drink, um, what was in the bowl. I-I've heard, I don't know if this is true, that the Rebbe did this as well after kos shel bracha would pour... My memory is not clear about this, would pour from the bowl back

21:18 Speaker 2 into the kos, so obviously it's not a problem. And we don't have to worry about the fact that, no, this is a minhag noshom skenas, people do this, but we have clear sources that say it's not a problem. I do have to mention there's a sefer called Sefer HaKavana, a kabbalistic sefer, and he says there's yayin she'bakos and yayin michutz lakos. And yayin in the kos is good, and yayin out of the kos is yayin nesach. But he doesn't explain what he means. This is not quoted anywhere else. We know that a mak said you can't rely on Sefer HaKavana. There's other things written about Sefer HaKavana. It is brought positively in Ari Z"L in some places. Chassidus brings the Sefer HaKavana. We're not sure if our Sefer HaKavana is the same Sefer HaKavana, the original Sefer HaKavana. It-- nog in the mitzvah of kisve Ari Z"L, it says it's very deep, we don't really necessarily understand it. And if you look in this quote of Sefer HaKavana, it doesn't seem like he actually means the literal meaning that we're not supposed to drink any wine that spills out of a cup. Nobody has such a minhag. Talking about wine, I'll mention another wine shailah. I got an interesting shailah. Someone brought a glass bottle he wants to store in it kos shel bracha, wine from a Rebbe. I think this is not a Chabad person, but I think he was referring to our Rebbe. To the-- He wants to store this wine. He's nev--

22:32 Speaker 2 He's not planning to drink this wine. He wants to have a segula, he wants to keep in his house wine of, wine of the Rebbe. Do you need to toivel this glass that he bought for this purpose? So if a person's not planning to drink the wine, then it's not called kli soda, it doesn't have to be toiveled. I-If one day he'll decide he wants to drink from it, so he'll have to toivel it. I-I don't know if he'll-- he might change his mind. We don't know. Okay, if he changes his mind, fine. Some people add other wine to the segula, holy wine. Okay, that's a-- and then they want to drink from it. That's a whole different story. A, a, a similar case would be kos shel Eliyahu. Kos shel Eliyahu, do you have to toivel the Becher and set aside for Eliyahu Hanavi? So if you're drinking from it, sure you have to toivel it. If you're pouring, if you're pouring it back into the bottle, which is what the Rabbeim used to do, then that's called using it for drinking. But imagine somebody doesn't drink and use the kos shel Eliyahu at all. There's no reason why you should have to toivel. I've seen contemporary poskim, some say you should, some say you shouldn't, some say with a bracha, without a bracha. It seems like it depends on what you actually do with the kos shel Eliyahu. There's really no reason to be concerned that you might forget and drink from it.

23:34 Speaker 2 You might find a nicer Becher and start using this for drinking. We don't have to make these new kind of gezeiras. If you're going to drink from it, then you will toivel the kos shel Eliyahu. If you're gonna set aside a Becher, if you-- the person sets aside a Becher, it's only for kos shel Eliyahu, and he does not plan to drink any of the wine of kos shel Eliyahu, and he pours it out. I'm not sure why someone should do that. It's about tashchis, I think, but if nobody's drinking it, there's no problem. There is something called a keli she'asa l'kiun, where you store things in it. But that keli she'asa l'kiun is made that eventually you're gonna drink that which you're storing. A keli which is not made for drinking is not a kli soda, doesn't need tevila. A person has a knife, and he decides he wants to use it to cut paper with it and not, and not, and not to cut fruits and vegetables, he doesn't have to toivel it. A person has a keli for beauty, not to eat from it. Talking about the saucer underneath the bowl, those who don't drink the wine that's in the saucer, then the saucer indeed wouldn't have to be toiveled. And last but not least, I'll finish with one other question. I got this question from a Rav that someone asked him, he makes a lot of signs to hang up in shuls, and this person was commissioned to make a sign

24:37 Speaker 2 that says, "Mutar le dabber b'beit haknesses rachmana chacham baruch hu." You only allowed to talk-- You're allowed to talk in shul, but only with Hashem. And a lot of people are ordering such kind of signs. So the sign maker questioned that Chazal, Shulchan Aruch, the poskim, they understood how people work, and they wrote, "Asur le dabber shazat v'lo." They never wrote, "You're allowed to talk, but only with Hashem." Maybe this is not a Torah approach to talk like that. So he wanted to know, the sign maker, should he produce such kind of signs? He asked a Rav that have sent me this question, and I really don't see any problem. It's actually a good thing. First of all, the fact they didn't write such kind in those days, who says that's how their mind operated, the way people work today? Today we do all kind of ads and all kind of things to catch people's attention. Every generation you have to talk to their language. Chazal said even about Nevuah, ein shnei neviim mesnabim mesig lenech et. Two neviim saying Hashem's words, but their style, how they say it is different because everybody talks their style. The Midrash Tan writes about giving techacha. That is, it could be a person that gives techacha in a certain generation. But in a new generation, people won't like what he says because what he says doesn't match up with a new generation. Whenever you speak, you need to know what's best for the people. Don't say everything that

25:49 Speaker 2 you know. Take off, add, subtract, change around the order. It should be suitable for the people of this generation. If anything that we could do to stop this horrible, terrible thing of people talking during davening, it's worthwhile. Any technique, any gimmick, any meshugas. You're allowed to talk only with Hashem. If that works better, say that too. And bachlal in Torah we have a concept called mechlal hen atashamei alav. If you're saying you're only allowed to talk with Hashem, it's obvious, it's the opposite. There's a question of sarcasm as a Torah approach. A lot of people talk about this. A Rashi in Chumash on the pasuk, v'nirim ayu chalamei sov. The Shvatim says we'll see what will happen with Yosef's dreams. And Rashi doesn't give the pirsheming in sarcasm. People ask Rashi that. But there are mefarshim that actually say v'nirim ayu chalamei sov is the Shvatim said this sarcastically. And we have sukkat that mefarshim interpret sarcastically. Some people want to say that the Shvatim didn't talk echad b'peh v'echad b'lev. They wouldn't talk sarcastic. And if they decided, even if they decided they want to kill him, the mussar that we learn from this is they're not going to say, oh, let's see what will happen. And they did. They had edelkeit. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't put aside mutalada berachama Hakadosh Baruch Hu. That we should stop this madness of people talking in shul. And if we keep our shuls set aside for what the shuls are meant to be, a

27:01 Speaker 2 place for davening and learning, that brings bracha. I don't want to say about this mechlal hen atashamei alav. Let's say only the positive. Let's only have brachos and yeshuas. And we should be zechut to the emes and simcha. V'tov lev mishtutam b'viyat HaMashiach.

27:16 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 dot com.