Conversation Style on a Shidduch Date

00:00 Speaker 1 Welcome to the Halacha Podcast, Lemaan Yishmeu, with Harav Yosef Yishaya Brown, Mahara d'Asra and a member of the Crown Heights Beis 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.

00:20 Speaker 2 Okay. So we got a very interesting question, which again about Tefillin and about Mitzvot. In the Siddur, before the section which talks about putting on Tefillin, there's a small paragraph that says the proper Kavanah that you're supposed to have when you put on Tefillin. Specifically, it says you should have in mind that Hashem told us to write the four sections, four Parshiyot in the Torah, which talk about the unity of Hashem and how the Tefillin helps us remember the miracle that Hashem did when we came out of Mitzrayim. We put on our Tefillin corresponds to the-- on the hand corresponding to the heart, on the head corresponding to the brain. The idea of Tefillin is to subdue our mind and heart to Hashem, and so on and so forth. That to think about this paragraph could take a while. It doesn't happen just like that on a whim. Furthermore, we go on Mitzvot. We don't even tell people that we're putting on Tefillin about this Kavanah and how this is essential to the Mitzvah of Tefillin. So the question is: Is it really essential? Can you just put on Tefillin without thinking anything? And if you do have to have Kavanah, then how do we justify the fact that people go on Mitzvot without any Kavanah? So do you-- should you have Kavanah? Yes, you should have Kavanah. It shouldn't really take long. It should take a couple of seconds. You just have to think about the content of that particular paragraph, and it shouldn't

01:42 Speaker 2 take long. But it is not Ma'akiv. It doesn't hold back from the Mitzvah of Tefillin. You can still fulfill the Mitzvah either way. Now, this particular issue was addressed in a letter Rav Hutner wrote a letter to the Rebbe about issues about Mitzvot, that people don't have the proper Kavanah. The issue there was, was other aspects of the Mitzvah of Tefillin, which I'm not gonna go into right now, but the Rebbe does address this particular issue in passing, and this is based on a Bach. The Bach writes that the-- in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Tefillin properly, if a person does not have in mind the intention that we just spoke about, he mentions this both in regard to, in regard to Tefillin, he mentions in regard to Tzitzit, he mentions this in regard to Sukkah, then he really hasn't done the Mitzvah properly, which really raises an issue that, that people are not keeping the Mitzvah properly. So the truth is, if you look carefully in the words of the Bach, the Bach does not write that he hasn't fulfilled the Mitzvah. The wording of the Bach is that lo kim hamitzvah k'tikunah. You didn't do the Mitzvah the way the Mitzvah should be done. That doesn't mean you haven't done the Mitzvah at all. So it's the right way, the proper way of doing the Mitzvah, but you still have fulfilling the Mitzvah. The Mitzvah is still being fulfilled, number one. Number two, it's altogether not clear that we actually pasken the

03:15 Speaker 2 Halacha is actually like the Bach. At the time, besides when Rav Hutner writing to the Rebbe about the Mitzvah of Tefillin, there was, there was, um, some people that came out with complaints about the Rebbe's Mitzvot Tefillin many years before, and the Rebbe addressed many of the complaints. Again, addressing indirectly this particular Bach, the Rebbe spoke about the Sefer Ha-Teres Kenim that writes that if people don't have the proper intention of Tefillin, then it's like as if they're wearing etzem va'avanim, wood and stones. And again, the Rebbe says that's, that's an added thing. That's not really what the Mitzvah is all about. So yes, personally, should we have in mind-- should we have this in mind when we are doing the Mitzvot Tefillin? Yes. Do we have to stop other people in the Mitzvot? No, we don't have to. Moving on to another question. People have asked the following question. When people catch fish, often it happens that, that, um, the fish just has some suffering for a couple of minutes. It takes a few minutes till it stops breathing. And the question was, is there a Chiyuv to kill the fish as soon as it's caught? There are experiments that show that the fish suffer when they take them out of the water. The short answer is no, there's no such obligation. In fact, look-- have a look what the common minhag is. People catch fish. We never heard of such a thing that people have to cut off the head of the fish

04:48 Speaker 2 right after they catch the fish. Why is there really-- is it-- is this not really an issue of Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim? So there's a couple of reasons behind it. First of all, there's no intention to give Tza'ar, to give pain to the fish. It's a natural consequence. The Torah allows us to capture, the Torah allows us to kill. There's no Chiyuv to go and put in the extra labor and go make sure to go and kill it right now. It's very different than the idea that if an animal is going through pain, there's a Chiyuv to unload from an animal, and even if the animal is not yours and even belongs to a non-Jew. Here we're talking about it's a process that we're doing. We're doing the process, and we don't have to add anything to the process. In fact, the, um, the, there is a discussion in Poskim. Chazal tell us in the Pasuk, "Ve'ahavta lereiacha kamocha," to love your fellow Jew, "re'u lo mi sheyafa," that you're supposed to choose even a person that's going to be killed because he's a Rasha, a wicked person, he's being killed through Beis Din, you have to choose him a better form of death. But by Ba'alei Chayim, by animals, this Halacha doesn't apply according to some opinions. So that's, that's, that's another reason, um, for leniency. Uh, additionally, there's actually an advantage not to go and kill. We're not looking to have the habit of Diyok Dayim, directly going and killing. It's not, it's not

06:06 Speaker 2 a healthy attribute to, to train ourselves. So people do catch the fish, but to go take a knife and afterwards cut and make sure that it gets killed, uh, uh, actually, there's, there's, there's something to be said about that, that sensitivity. Never mind, there are opinions that say, going back to the general question, that when it comes to killing, there is no such thing as tza'ar ba'alei chayim. Tza'ar ba'alei chayim is causing pain, pain that result which is in the process of killing. So whether that's the halacha or not, the Alter Rebbe's doesn't hold like that, but that's just again another added perspective. The halacha is that you're allowed to eat fish technically, you would be able to eat fish while they're alive, other than the fact that it's balt shaksu, it's an abomination, it's not, it's not a menschelich way of doing things. But technically you'd be allow-- you'd be allowed to do that. You're allowed to cut a piece by piece and eat it. So there's no reason why you have to go kill the fish right when it comes out. But what are the-- Also there's an opinion altogether that there's no tza'ar ba'alei chayim with fish. The reality is that people today use all different types of methods of killing the insects at home, even though that does cause pain, and they don't have to go afterwards and take a hammer and kill the roaches and mice, et cetera. I will just point out that the Gemara says a mashal about

07:16 Speaker 2 learning Torah, that we are associated with Torah like fish in the water, that when fish come out of the water, they right away die. You cannot be without Torah. The expression of the Gemara is that fish, when it goes into dry land, miyad meis, they die right away. In some place, the expression uses they can't live a regah. It's broken. See this that way. They can't live a moment without being in water. So that implies sort of that they die right away. So as we mentioned earlier, that there are studies that show that they actually do have some life and some suffering. So o-obviously this type of little breathing that they're still having is not a form of chayis. If you put them back into the water, that reveals that originally they were alive all along. The Rebbe actually once spoke about it, that the message from this is the idea of teshuva, that the person could be killed. Technically, when you take the fish out of the water, Chazal tells us it's dead. But you could put it back in the water, it's gonna come back alive. So that's the message, the idea of teshuva, that a person could cut themselves off from Hashem, and they can reconnect. There isn't a, a similar idea that often with animals, after the shechita, the nerves are still operating even though it's dead. And in Sefunim, the RiKanti writes that it's k'mandaleisl, it's as if they have no life. That it is-- this, it, they'll-- since they

08:27 Speaker 2 will eventually die by themselves, that's not considered life, and they will-- therefore we don't have to be concerned with tza'ar ba'alei chayim. Going to move on to another question altogether. People often ask this question. We have the daily study of Chitas and the daily study of Rambam. Can we do the Chitas and the Rambam the night before? And we'll soon see there's this question also about general shiurim that people have, but let's first start with Chitas and Rambam. So someone actually asked this question to the Rebbe about Chitas. The question, the way he phrased it, was that he already learnt the Chumash the day-- the night before. He wants to know if the next day he has to repeat it. The Rebbe answered a three-word answer, lo shamaiti beze. I didn't hear anything about this. Meaning the Rebbe didn't give a definitive ruling if the fact that he learned Chitas the night before means he fulfills the obligation. Lo shamaiti, I didn't hear. Certainly, an im-- the implication here is that certainly a person should not rely l'chatchila and go and learn the night before. The question over here is if you have to learn over again on that, the Rebbe said lo shamaiti. It's-- somehow it's accepted that Rambam could be studied the night before. We'll talk about that in a moment. I will just mention in general, shiur of a Chitas, like most shiurim, is a good idea, the right time to learn is after davening. Tehillim as part of Chitas, bechalal we

09:44 Speaker 2 don't say at night if it's before midnight. Chumash could be said at night if it's said with Rashi. That's just a general comment. Now, this idea that the Rebbe's answer, lo shamaiti beze, is an an-- is a printed answer, and the Rebbe printed in many places. But there are sichas where the Rebbe spoke about this as well, that when it comes to night, it's not the time to learn the shiur of the next day. It's a time to catch up the shiur from the night before. Sometimes the Rebbe did use the term the meshech me'es la'es, learn the Chumash in the twenty-four-hour cycle, but, but he didn't say how this twenty-four-hour cycle operates. Could be day and then night, which is unlikely, but the Rebbe did use that expression me'es la'es. There were times the Rebbe spoke about the two shiurim. The one time the Rebbe spoke about the Monday shiur and the Tuesday shiur, and he said it's the Monday shiur from the previous day, 'cause now it's the night after Monday, and it's the Tuesday shiur for tomorrow. So he spoke about tomorrow's shiur and says the shiur for tonight, 'cause we have both system of the day preceding the night and the night preceding the day. I'm not sure if the Rebbe was talking about learning Chitas that way, but the Rebbe clearly spoke about not to learn the shiur for the following night. So when the Rebbe used that term, it means that today, tonight starts today, that tomorrow we're going

10:52 Speaker 2 to be learning the Chitas. Why am I saying Rambam is different? Rumor has it is a maiseh Rah that the Rebbe would learn Rambam the night before. In fact, the Rebbe did speak about Rambam. The implication over there a bit is about Chitas too, but the Rebbe spoke in a Sheini Rabbi Sicha that we-- about learning Rambam in the zelbe chov dalos shos, in the f- twenty-four hours, oder mitzarf zein de layla shel achari zeh. So when he said before twenty-four ho-hours, he didn't mean the layla shel achari zeh, the night after. He gave two options, learning within twenty-four hours or the night afterwards. So often the Rebbe spoke also about the lesson of Rambam, of tomorrow's Rambam, but again, that the Rebbe did about Chitas also. But it seems there's a clear difference between Chitas and Rambam in terms of the takanah. It's a very different takanah. Rambam is not studied on Tisha B'Av. Chitas, our main thing is we do study it on Tisha B'Av. Rambam is more a form of talmud Torah, of limud haTorah. Chitas, the Rebbe spoke about that the takanah of Chitas doesn't-- was nothing to do with the mitzvah of limud haTorah. When the Rebbe spoke about takanah of Rambam, he clearly spoke it does have to do with the mitzvah of limud haTorah, of learning the halachas of kol haTorah kula. So it-- that, that could be an explanation for, for room for a slight difference. This is a general halacha that we find in Shulchan Aruch

12:05 Speaker 2 that it says if a person didn't finish their shiur, that they have a choik kevua, a set fixed schedule of learning, they should finish it the following night. They must finish it the following night because if you have a shiur, a fixed shiur every day, that becomes like a neder. Now, the poskim don't talk about the night before. They say if you have a shiur for the day, you can finish it the following night. What about the night before? So why could you finish it the following night if it's a neder when you missed your neder? And why it have to be the following night? You wanna make up, make up maybe the next day. So the Kaf HaChaim writes, and this is in the Shulchan Aruch, that you're supposed to finish your shir the following night because Torah is like Rabbanus, that the night follows the day. Well, if it's like Rabbanus, the night follows the day, that implies that you can't do the night before. So this could be about any shir, a Daf Yomi shir, a shir Gemara, a shir Chassidus. You have a fixed amount that you learn every single day that you can't do the night before. Rabbeinu Yonah in Brachos writes-- it seems like he associates the shir that you have with Birchas Hatorah. Birchas Hatorah you make in the morning and then exempts you until when you go to sleep. Why is that? Because when you wake up in the, the morning, you have to start learning until

13:09 Speaker 2 you go to sleep. So if that's the case, the night after is a continuation of the previous day. That could explain that we find in the Sefer Yosef, I mean it's an early sefer. He talks about people starting to learn their shir already early in the morning before alos hashachar. And we were saying that there's a question if you could do the shir the night before. No, that's very different 'cause that's after the person went to sleep. He already can make Birchas Hatorah. We make Birchas Hatorah even before the break of dawn. So after he went to sleep, it already starts a new day. So all of this would imply seemingly the night before is not included. I don't think that's correct. The Rebbe did say that about chitas, that is true, that you shouldn't learn on the night before 'cause that wasn't how the takanah was made. But b'klal, if a person has a set shir, a-although you can make up the neder the night after, that's an extra thing you can make up the night after, but certainly the night before is part of the day. So l-l-let, let's just examine this a bit. The idea that the night before is included, we actually have some proof from a pasuk. The pasuk when it talks about learning Torah says, "Ve'gisa bo yomam va'laila." Chazal say, "Pereg echad shachar, pereg echad" always talk about the day and the night. You could argue that's a lashon haPasuk, but some people actually bring that, that that's

14:18 Speaker 2 the way Torah operates. Any mitzvah which you have to do all along, it starts-- Torah you have to learn nonstop. It starts from when you wake up until when you go to sleep. So that would imply that the order is day and then night. However, if you look carefully, I quoted before from Rabbeinu Yonah. Rabbeinu Yonah was talking about not the idea of a neder and not the idea that you have a fixed amount. He says you're supposed to learn Torah. You didn't have a chance during the day to learn Torah, learn Torah at night. He's-- make up for the fact that you didn't learn Torah during the day. He's not talking about a fixed shir, and there's a big difference between the two. How do you make up by night for learning Torah? You're supposed to learn Torah day and night. Well, how are you making up? So mefarshim say because the main idea of learning Torah is by day. By night you sleep, so you're taking away from your sleep. When a person sleeps, they're patur from all mitzvahs, even though he's currently up at night, but he could have gone to sleep. So the Rabbeinu Yonah was talking about one idea, that you missed out learning during the day, and Shulchan Aruch is talking about a different concept. Shulchan Aruch was talking about people that, uh, have a shir kavua to learn Torah. And on that the Kaf HaChaim gives a new reason because of kadoshim, and we find in other sevarim,

15:22 Speaker 2 the Rebbe actually compared the idea of learning chitas the following night like kadoshim. Because Rabbeinu Yonah-- from Rabbeinu Yonah, it compares to Birchas Hatorah, so we're not gonna say, well, after a person goes to sleep at night, they can't make up their shiurim anymore. No, we haven't heard of such a thing ever. When we say maybe after midnight you can because people already could say berachos from midnight, nish mesraber. Clearly, there's an implication although you can make up the shiurim the following night after sleeping and after midnight. The fact that Birchas Hatorah b'klal, there's a difference between midnight, that's a, that's a kabbalistic thing. When we're talking about, um, uh, there is an advantage before midnight and after midnight, the Rebbe implied that somewhat. When we're talking about the idea of a neder, the idea is that you can make up the neder the following night. What's the idea of a neder? The person took upon himself, I have a krias, I wanna have a krias for this day. But his krias was about this day, every day I'll have a certain amount I wanna accomplish. But doing it earlier, what's the problem? I'm still accomplishing my amount. Idea of a neder is because it's the idea of talmud Torah every day, and every day I'm, I'm taking a certain amount. But why would it be a problem to do it early? That's not in a person's mind when he makes a neder. Even if you say that he can do it a few days

16:33 Speaker 2 earlier, logic says the night before he should be able to. The Gemara says he-- the lashon in the Gemara about this is, you pay up by night. That means the learning is supposed to be done by day. Now, if night is still associated with the previous day, why is that called paying up? Obviously, because night really belongs to the next day, but still you could make up for it. It's a form of pay up. So it's not when-- it's not completely like Rabbanus, that the night before has no connection, it's day and then night. It's also like Rabbanus that we also have a pay, pay time, not part of the mitzvah, that we do the following night. When we compare, the Rebbe speaks about chitas on Tishba, and the Rebbe said it's not mamash like Rabbanus. We're comparing it to Rabbanus if it's better to do chitas by day. So it's not directly mamash, mamash like Rabbanus, never mind by Rabbanus we find the idea also that sometimes the night before is part of the day. Just a similar concept that we find somewhere. There's a machloket if a person does selichot, if he's supposed to-- the chazan for selichot is supposed to daven all the tefillot throughout the day. It's not the Mincha today anymore. All the tefillot throughout the day means Shacharit, Mincha, the previous Ma'ariv or the subsequent Ma'ariv. The Mateh Efraim said they should do both. So you see you can have Ma'ariv before and Ma'ariv after, and they're both included.

17:51 Speaker 2 And in fact, I found that the Pesach Chadash writes this very, very clearly, that although you could make up the night after, but you could also do the night before. And people say a story that when they started sh- the, the Krias of Daf Yomi, the Gerer Rebbe, the Imrei Emes, came the night of Rosh Hashanah, was the first day of the Daf Yomi, and he came and he announced, he started learning, he announced to all the chassidim he's starting to do Daf Yomi. When did he start? The night before. And I don't think anybody's particular about this, about not starting the night before. So we have from our Rabbeim about chitas. What we have, we have, but when-- we don't have to add what we don't have. I'm not sure if it has halachos of a neder. Even if you say you can start the night before- Do you have to wait till it's nightfall? Can you start from Shkiya? Do we have to look at Lashon Mari Adam? I'm not sure. I, I don't have clarity about that. May-maybe you do have to wait at nightfall 'cause it's a safek in a din of a neder, which normally is a safek in a neder, you have to be machmir. Let me move on to another question altogether. There's a halacha that one is not allowed to be sh'al shalom b'ishah. Ask a woman how she's doing. So a guy is going, meeting a girl for a shidduch purposes, for a date. So he's

18:53 Speaker 2 not supposed to ask her, "How was Shabbos? How are you?" I mean, how does that work? So a lot of poskim talk about this idea, spec- that the specific issue is first of all using the word shalom. And even if you s-- we say that if you don't use the word shalom, it's also a problem, but the question is how are-- The specific question, mashloimeich, how are you? But just to say, "How was your Shabbos?" That's not a problem. Any standard everyday greetings that do not s- uh, convey a message of affection or closeness wouldn't be a problem. Nevermind, the poskim say even saying mashloimeich, today's day and age, it's a normal way of expression. It's not a problem. Specifically with a woman, a person is going for a shidduch, she's not an eshes ish, she's a pnuya, so it's much less of an issue. There's an expression in the Gemara, hakel l'shem shamayim. It's being done just to be a mensch, just as a, as a form that Maram Shick says, as it is that people are meikel in the din of sheel shalom b'ishah 'cause it's l'shem shamayim. Everybody knows it's, there's no intention of affection or close, just the way that people talk, and the kavana is only l'shem shamayim. Certainly when it's just, it's considered insulting and offensive not to talk that way, there really shouldn't be any problem, and indeed that, that is the minhag. Just to bring a, a proof of that, it says in Poskim that giving ma'atanas,

20:01 Speaker 2 giving presents, is a form of sheel shalom. So if that would be the case, people would not be able to give sh- presents, a chasan to a kallah, and clearly there's no problem of a chasan giving a kallah presents. That's been the minhag all along. It's the current minhag. It's mentioned in Sfarim. The Rebbe spoke about specifically that there is a minhag to give presents, but they shouldn't give a ring. So there's nothing wrong with giving a presents. Obviously, there's no problem with the present form of sheel shalom because it's not the same level of chibah when it comes from a chasan to a kallah. Everybody knows why it's, why it's there. Moving on to another question altogether, in a different area altogether, in the area of hokus brachos. There's a shitah of the Rashba, which the Rama brings la-halacha in Shulchan Aruch. The Rashba says that if you make a bracha on a fruit, you only exempt-- You do not exempt a fruit which is more chashuv than the fruit you made a bracha on. So let's say, let's use the term chaviv for chashivus. Chaviv is something that you like better. You made a bracha on a apple, and you like the mango better, and this-- We're not gonna go into the details of what's considered chaviv right now. So the bracha on the apple, the eats will not exempt the mango 'cause the mango is more chashuv. You-- Unless you have kavanah that it should go on the mango also. So normally

21:16 Speaker 2 we say if the fruit is in front of you, it's good enough. No, here it's not enough the fruit is in front of you. There has to be kavanah, and it seems like it's not just enough that the fact that you had in mind to eat a mango. You have to have specific intention that your bracha should exempt the mango. That's a big chidush of the Rashba, and the Rama brings it down la-halacha, and a lot of people are not aware of it. So the question I was asked was, it specifically mentions something which is more chashuv. Ein ai chashuv cannot exempt something which is chashuv. Do we say the same about shalem and prusa? We know in the halacha something that's complete is more than something that's half. So if you make a bracha on a half apple, will it exempt a whole apple? W-Would that be the case? So the short, brief answer is there is a machloket if this halacha of the Rashba would apply f-for a shalem and a prusa, a whole item and a half item. There's a lot of proofs that the Rashba's halacha will not a-apply over there. A bracha on a slice can exempt a whole item. Certainly bediavad after the fact, we can rule like that too. So let, let, let's try to explain the, the root of the question. The question is by a whole item and a half item, a big item and a small item. Is the Rashba's halacha apply on something which

22:29 Speaker 2 has a din kdima, which according to halacha you're supposed to make a bracha first, on something which is a din kdima because of external reasons or because of internal reasons? The Alter Rebbe brings the halacha of the Rashba that if you make a bracha on pasta, for example, you will not cover your cake, 'cause cake is more chashuv than pasta. How is it more chashuv? Cake, if you eat a krias with a fixed meal, could turn to chametzi, 'cause it's baked. Something that was cooked does not turn into chametzi, so the cake is more chashuv. The pasta will not exempt the cake. It's not clear why-- What's the pshat in the Rashba's shitah? The Aruch HaShulchan says that the Rashba is only talking about talmidy chacham that know which thing comes first in the order of brachos, because the person didn't wanna go against the rules of din kdima, what comes first. And well, if that's the pshat, then it applies anything that comes first according to halacha. A whole item comes before a half item, but the, the Aruch HaShulchan's a massive chidush. It's not the pashut pshat. So is there really a reason to distinguish between something whole and something which is chaviv? Something which is chav-- The thing itself is more chashuv. Whole is the din of the bracha. You're supposed to be making a bracha, covered for the bracha is on something whole. Do we have a source for this in Poskim? So in the Gemara it seems to imply very

23:37 Speaker 2 clearly you can make a bracha on psisim or peitos hasheleim. You can make a bracha on slices, and you cover an, a, a, a whole bread. It seems prusos and sheleimos are very normal things. People have slices. People have whole foods. And it doesn't say anyway that it doesn't exempt it. So it's, this is a massive chidush to say it shouldn't exempt it, that the shitah of Rashba would apply here. So I found a Sefer Hafla, which was printed from a Ketav Yad, and he actually proves from the Gemara that a prusa could exempt a sheleima even though it's more chashuv. He doesn't say clearly if talking about with kavanah, without kavanah. Seemingly, he was talking about even without kavanah. A, a few reasons to explain why it should work is, first of all, whenever you're eating, every sheleima breaks. So if your sheleima breaks, that means it's automatically gonna turn into a prusa. Also, a whole food includes in it a slice. We have a klal, yesh b'chalal masai manat u'ma. Includes one hundred. So when you made a bracha on the slice, you made a bracha on the slice, which is within the whole food. A chashuv food doesn't include in itself a not chashuv food. Also, the, the whole food you could always break. So how can you say that a slice will not pator the sheleima? It technically could be broken. So the, the modern-day poskim talk about this. The Shulchan Aruch actually writes this halacha applies also for prusa and

24:58 Speaker 2 sheleima, but in the Rishonim seems, it seems to imply not like that unless these Rishonim don't hold like the shitah of the Rashba. But there's a, a very, very important thing that I wanna bring up about this whole entire halacha. Although there's such a Rashba, the N'tiv and Aruch write the meaning is not like the Rashba. People don't have this custom. People make a bracha on one food and it covers other foods also, and it doesn't seem to me they follow the Rashba. The Alter Rebe is mechadesh actually. Although the Alter Rebe in Shulchan Aruch brings the Rashba as a halacha. In Luach Birchas HaMinim he brings the Rashba as a halacha. In Sefer Birchas HaMinim he brings the Rashba and he says, "Yesh chelkim." He doesn't say who he's talking about. Some disagree. We don't know who he's talking about. It's not clear. The Alter Rebe says try to avoid this issue. You should always have in mind special kavannah to exempt it. He doesn't say what happens if you didn't have in mind b'di'eved. The Rav Chaim Noah writes that b'di'eved safek brachos lehakel, don't make another bracha. We can add another point that b'di'eved, after the fact, there's always gonna be an opinion that says the other food comes really first. So b'di'eved you could always rely on another opinion. Just a bit of a complicated case, as far as to mention it. I got a question from a chashuve Rav and quite a few rabbonim were involved in discussing this topic.

26:13 Speaker 2 A very interesting point. One of the big questions people have today is mourners going to weddings. It's very hard for many people that can't come to a simcha, so there's a s- solution, seemingly a good solution for everyone. The Rama says that if somebody tells his family not to keep aveilus for him, shiva, shloshim, they shouldn't listen to him. Says the Shach, if he says, "Don't keep aveilus for twelve months," which is only something of kidduš hav, only a father and mother people mourn for twelve months, then you should listen to them. So a simple solution would be that people should in advance be moichel and say they're okay with their children going to simchas. Now, maybe it wouldn't be such a good idea to come up with these ideas, but if so many people are having this problem all the time, it's, it'll avoid a mishol. Is there a problem with such an idea? You can't say the people when they're alive can't say they're moichel. It says befeish that they could be moichel. Now, over there it's talking about not to keep aveilus altogether. Here we're talking about a specific thing, not, uh, they should be able to go to chasunas. But we find that even there's a case brought in the Maharik that a mother told her daughters a specific thing they shouldn't do, like aveilim cover, wrap their heads around. She wasn't moichel on everything, and it seems like that would work. I know of a particular talmid chacham who wrote

27:30 Speaker 2 in his Sefer that he allows his children to go to simchas, one brother to another brother, that's his kavod. And Rav Elyashiv said that the reason why a lot of people are lenient today because that's part of the father's, uh, prefers that the children come to each other's simchas. That's a massive chiddush, the father didn't even write that in his Sefer. He didn't say he was moichel, that we can just assume so. That's a massive chiddush. I think most people don't pasken like that. All the shailas and solutions about going to chasunas means that all the rabbonim today do not follow this position, and I don't think Rav Elyashiv in his family did that either. The Moshe Feinstein was asked about a married woman, and he says she has to give respect to her husband. She can go to a simcha 'cause her husband comes first. This is a, a simcha on the husband's side of the family. Um, there was a story with a child whose mother passed away, his father's getting remarried, and some people said he could go to the chasuna 'cause k-- the reason not to go to the chasuna is kidduš hav. The reason to go to the chasuna is kidduš hav. Kidduš hav comes first. So the Moshe looks at it as a regular kidduš hav issue. Although the reason for mourning twelve months is because of kidduš hav, but it turned into a halacha of aveilus, so maybe this doesn't follow the regular rules of kidduš hav. And

28:43 Speaker 2 we, we find that Poskim use the r- regular rules of aveilus for twelve-month aveilus, not the rules of kidduš hav. The expression in Poskim is that aveilus for twelve months is kal shel bikal, one of the lightest things in halacha. If this would be ka- kidduš hav, kidduš hav is chamura sh'bchamura, is quite severe. But at the same time, it seems like it follows the rules of kidduš hav that the parents could be moichel. So some people suggested that maybe even if a father is moichel, there's still a mitzvah to keep kidduš hav, so why would people throw out a chance for a mitzvah? But that we could answer. They could do other mitzvahs. They could learn Mishnah, they could do good things. Why should they davka do things that cause so much difficulty and challenges? And if the parents say befeish, "I want you to come to the simcha," they'll be mekayem the mitzvah of kidduš hav. Some people said that maybe the person that passes away loses out, that they're not really doing proper aveilus. It's highly unlikely that we would say they would lose out. This is an aveilus of twelve months, which is for his kavod, and it's only in the meaning very often. And who says this person is losing out? Maybe he's gaining because of that. So some people said that, well, this is a system of boycotting and avoiding keeping halachas of taharas, and maybe that's not the right way how to do things. But if people are

29:52 Speaker 2 anyhow not keeping these halachas, maybe it's actually a good idea. The other sefer some people said to ma'aser ani, nobody knows the father was moichel, not moichel. People won't-- People know he's a oval. People won't know. It's hard to use that argument because the Shach says if he's moichel, then it works. What about ma'aser ani? Um, maybe the people don't wanna talk about this when they are still alive. That could be. Uh, maybe 'cause they think there'll be a zizlin in the sivver. I don't know, but it's an interesting question why people haven't used this approach of, of, uh, moichel in advance. Just putting it out there. I, like I said, I do know a certain gedolei Yisrael that wrote that in their Sefer, but that's not the common approach. Don't wanna finish with the issue of mourning. One more final question. People often are davening, and they're-- people are nonstop asking them for tzedakah, and it makes davening difficult. And it is a fact it's very hard to concentrate in davening when people are stopping with tzedakah being bom- bombarded all day long. You're learning, davening at home. So the truth is, if you're in the middle of a mitzvah, even busy with your children, which is also a mitzvah, you don't have to do another mitzvah. The only mitzvah that you have to stop is if you're in the middle of learning. Learning, we don't say, "Es ikh a mitzvah patur min ha-mitzvah." You have to stop in the middle of learning for

31:00 Speaker 2 a mitzvah that no one else can do. But if you're doing other mitzvahs, you actually don't have to stop. There is a, a mitzvahs lo sasav le-yoshov, al yoshov dach nichnam, that if you can't let a person go empty-handed, but there's not-- that, that mitzvahs lo sasav-- Again, we're talking you're in the middle of a mitzvah right now. Number two, that mitzvahs lo sasav does not apply for somebody who's collecting for others. Often the mashulach comes to the door, he's not collecting for himself. So I'm not letting him go empty-handed, humiliated. I'm, I'm letting the third party go empty-handed, humiliated, so to, to begin with it wouldn't be a problem. But the, the, the pro-- a lot of-- what a lot of people have done is they put-- when they're davening, they put down money in advance, and they allow the gaav ha-tzedakah to come and take money himself like this. They won't be disturbed from davening. That's a very, very good solution.

31:41 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.