May One Use Oat Matzah for the Seder?

00:00 Speaker 1 Welcome to the Halacha podcast Laman Yishmu with Harav Yosef Yeshaya Brown, Maharad 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.

00:19 Speaker 2 Welcome to our next exciting Laman Yishmu Ask the Rav podcast. I wanna point out that, um, in response to people who have asked about the podcast, on our website, asktherav.com, you can see a lot of the references. So here we discuss the give and take or back and forth, the reasons for, reasons against. But if you wanna look up the sources, a lot of the sources and references are addressed at length on our website for each podcast. Which brings me to the first question that many people have been asking about this whole idea of using technology for Halacha. In the past, people would ask shailas to a Rav in person. Today's day and age, it's a time of technology. People use, of course, the phone, but people also use text me- messages, email, and other different forms of technology instead of face-to-face contact. Is that a good thing or not? So truth to be told, there's a lot of positives in these new methods of communication. Of course, we might be missing the personal element. Talking to a Rav in person, there's nothing like that. And very often you talk on the phone, you have no idea who you're talking to, and it's really important to know who we're talking to. In Halacha, we often find there's a difference if it's hefsed meruba, if it's a great loss. So the person's financial situation makes a big difference. And y- if you have no idea who you're talking to and you don't know their economic circumstances,

01:45 Speaker 2 you might give a different answer. It also depends who you, who you're talking to in terms of what's their level in Yiddishkeit and aweidas Hashem. So you have a concept of a baal nefesh yachmer, someone who's extra str-- uh, extra machmer because of his spiritual, higher elevated standing, and then you have a person who's starting to step by step. There are steps in Yiddishkeit. They're taking slow steps, and there might not be room to impose a particular chumra. We need to know exactly the person that we're talking to. D-does he suffer from particular ailments? Does he have mental issues? Does he have OCD? All these things could have particular bearing on the psak, and there might also be a particular difference where he lives because there's different minhagim, different customs based on the place, and those customs are sometimes binding according to Halacha. He might live in a place where there's a Marad Asra, and that Rav has a particular psak, and therefore that's the appropriate psak where he lives. So it's important to, to take all this into account. But yet I will say there's a major, major advantage in some of the new methods of technology over the phone system. In the past, poskim have spoken about against the idea that people are starting to ask shailas via the phone. When it became a normal thing for people to call up Rabbonim via the phone, a lot of Rabbonim lamented the fact that they don't have any more of that original style of

03:02 Speaker 2 contact. But the new methods of communication which involve a written response via text, email, websites, et cetera, has a one advantage that is very similar to the old style because people in olden days, besides for talking to a Rav in person, would write letters to a Rav. Most of our Shulchan Aruch, most of our responsa, the These are letters that were written in response to questions. Very often they're questions from great Rabbonim, but sometimes they were questions from laypeople who asked shailas, and they got a psak biktav. One of the advantages of getting a written psak is that the person who writing thinks much more when they write. It's very different when you write than when you speak. When you're speaking, there's writing, there's printing, and then there's publishing. And it's for generations. So when someone puts something and commits something to writing or to print or puts on a website, he's much more careful about what he writes. But also from the person who's reading it, when you're listening to someone, you heard what they said, and you've gone, and you might not even remember the details. When you have it in writing, you can review it again and again and again. Often when a Rav gets a phone call, it's very hard for him afterwards to contact the person who asked the question if he realizes that he found out new information. He might have misunderstood the question. But when it's in writing, an email, there's always a chance to go back and

04:26 Speaker 2 forth via the email. Now, it is, it is possible to call back a person, but practically speaking, based on the volume of calls that Rabbonim get, it's very hard to follow up in terms of the, the phone calls to know which phone call was which person for which shaila. Whereas when everything is writing, there's-- in writing, there's a record of everything. Of course, it's always best that a person asking the shaila identify themselves regardless of whether they're using the phone channel or they're using the text message or email channel. If the Rav knows who he's talking to, this could often have bearing in Halacha. Similar to when a person goes to a doctor, you can Google an answer for a medical situation, or you can actually talk to your doctor who has your file and knows your particular standing and would be able to give you a more, much more tailor-made answer for your situation. Moving on to another question. This is a very interesting question, and we-- as we have recently celebrated the fifty-thousandth question that came into our website. So this was question number fifty thousand. This came from a Rav in Eretz Yisrael. I believe it was in Bnei Brak. And this is the question they were facing over there. I'm not sure if they were facing this question in Bnei Brak proper or in Eretz Yisrael in general. So as there are sirens and people hear the siren, they have to go to a miklat, to a shelter, merkav mugan. So

05:35 Speaker 2 there was a shul, a minyan. They were in the middle of Shema. I think it was a minyan, not a person davening beYechidus. It was a minyan. And they were in the middle of Shema, and there was a siren, and everybody ran down to the shelter. In the shelter, they couldn't have continued davening because there was a horrible smell over there, and you not wanna daven in a place with horrible smell. So they had-- they couldn't proceed with davening. They had to wait for a very long time until they were able to get out of the shelter, come back to the shul, and continue the Shema. And the question that was asked was Do they have to go back to the beginning of the Shema? Why would they have to go back to the beginning of the Shema? And so this question came from a Rav Talmud Chacham in the Chabas Sfarim, and this is actually an interesting question because it's different aspects to the Shailah. The Halacha is that if someone waits in the middle of Shema, k'sha hak'dei ligmor nis kula, a person s-de-stops, uh, for the amount of time that it takes to finish the entire Shema, choz l'reish he has to go back to the beginning. That means if he delayed, he stopped because he was forced to stop, not if he decided just to stop. It's b'makom oynes. But it gets a bit more complex than that because the posek can make a distinction between what type of oynes. Is

06:41 Speaker 2 there an oynes machmes listim, robbers came and you had to stop, the Sheva was dangerous, and you just couldn't continue saying Shema? Or oynes machmes sha'makom o ha'adam eineroi. The oynes was because the place was unsuitable or the person became unsuitable. The person be-was-wasn't able to daven anymore because of this particular situation. You have to go to the bathroom or whatever it is, and he was not allowed to daven in such a state, or the place became ins-unsuitable. Posek can say that when the place is not suitable, that's considered a-- or, or the person, that's considered a proper hefsek, such a hefsek that cuts you off from your davening, and you gotta start back to the beginning if you waited the amount of time that it takes you to say the whole entire thing, k'sha hak'dei ligmor nis kula. But if it was because of oynes acher k'mo listim, there was robbers that came, no, that's not considered a hefsek machmes oynes, and according to Halacha, you would not have to go back to the, to the beginning. Asks the Rav the question, the reason they stopped saying Shema, the reason they stopped was because they went to the shelter. Once they came to the shelter, now there became a new situation, and that the shelter has a horrible smell. But the reason I'm in a place with a horrible smell, I could technically go somewhere else. The reason I'm here is only because of the sirens. So do we treat it as if it's

07:56 Speaker 2 a problem with the place, or we t-treat, treat it as an external oynes? So first and foremost, there's an argument in general, if you're in a place which has a horrible smell and you could technically leave that place, maybe it's not even considered makom she'eineroi. This is the chidush of the Afikha Mekinim. It's a very difficult thing to accept. It goes against the simple Gemara, the simple case in the Gemara of a person who's mevoye et ha'metunafas in streets that are unclean streets we are not allowed to say Shema in. Of course, if you're in unclean streets, you can walk very fast or not go there. Nobody asked you to go down that street. So the chidush of the Afikha Mekinim that says that you-- if you could go out of there, it means that's not called an oynes. That's very hard to accept. Well, in this case, certainly they can't get out of their shelter. They're now stuck in the shelter because of the siren, because of the missiles. It makes sense to say that we look at what's happening right now. Right now, it's a makom she'eineroi, and therefore they have to go back to the beginning of Shema. There was a Rav in Eretz Yisrael that argued that no, and he based himself on a Bach and a Machgas HaShekel, an Eliyahu Rabba, and a Pri Megadim. The argument was, I believe-- I don't know, I'm sure the Eliyahu Rab, the Pri Megadim, that the reason why when the person and the

09:10 Speaker 2 place are not suitable, he has to go back to the beginning 'cause he's a peshea. He's like a peshea because you should have checked the place. You should have checked your situation before davening if you're capable of davening right now or not. But when there's an external oynes, it's not his fault. And therefore, this Rav wanted to argue that when the person has to go to a shelter because of a siren, it's not his fault. He's not a peshea. He's not negligent. And if it's like an external oynes, then they wouldn't have to go back to the beginning of Shema. It-- this doesn't sound right to me and to many other rabbonim I discussed this with. First of all, the whole argument that it's based on whether he was negligent or not is not the simple reading of the Halacha. If you open the Ohr HaChaim, he explains it's very simple. Is it the Halacha they're not allowed to daven, or there's an external factor? When the place or the person's not suitable, then that's the person and place not suitable means Halachically you're forbidden from davening. That creates a proper hefsek, and if he has to go back to the beginning. When there's robbers, other external factors, external factors don't necessitate going back to the beginning. So that's the simple way of understanding it. Although this explanation is inferred from the Bach, the Magen Avraham and Eliyahu Rabba do not quote this part, and it seems like they don't accept that's the argument. And

10:20 Speaker 2 if you'd accept this argument, then that would mean that it would change the entire Halacha of a person before davening checked themselves out. If they have to go to the bathroom, then the Halacha would be different, which is a massive chidush. Arguably, if a person is going to a shelter, maybe the shelter generally should be checked before. Very often people know there might come a siren. But either way, it doesn't-- it, it seems like we look at the-- we don't look at the reason why he came there at his current situation. Currently, you're in a place that is not suitable. The Bach doesn't even say he's a peshea. He says k'mo peshea. It's not really negligent. Therefore, let me just say the simple bottom line Halacha if a person was in such situation should, should not happen. We shouldn't have any more sirens, but if such a s-situation would have occurred then, and has occurred as we have heard, when you had to leave because of the siren, but now they're in a shelter where they're not allowed to daven, in a place where you're not allowed to daven, and because of that you're not continuing to daven, and it takes the amount of time you delayed and did not daven, did not continue the Shema, the amount of time k'dei ligmor nis kula to finish the entire Shema, each person according to their speed of Shema, choz l'reish you have to go back to the beginning of Shema. Talking about shelters and sirens, I

11:30 Speaker 2 got an interesting comment, a letter from a, a, a Talmud Chacham in Eretz Yisrael, Machabas Sfarim, and he quoted a Gemara in Masechet Berachot where the Gemara says that there was a-- he was arguing that maybe people shouldn't stop their davening when there's a siren. And the reason for his argument was the Gemara says there was a pious individual that was davening, and he was on the way, and a minister came and he gave him Shalom-- told him Shalom Aleichem. He didn't respond. He was in the middle of Shemoneh Esreh. The minister waited till he finished Shemoneh Esreh, and he told him off, and he says, "In your Torah it says there's a mitzvah of bekach nefesh, Ach yiishomer lcha shmer nafsh'cha nishmartam l'Adon nafsh'chem. You need to preserve your life. Why did you not respond when I told you Shalom? Shalom, when I said hello to you, why did you not respond to me?" And he told him, "If I would cut your head off using a sword, would anybody be able to stop me?" So the Hasid told him, "Wait, wait, wait, wait. L-l-let me explain to you. ""I'm gonna appease you and explain to you. I wanna explain my s- my situation. If I would stand-- If, if you would stand in front of a king, and a person would say, 'Shalom,' would you respond to him?" He says, "Of course not." "And if you'd respond to someone as you were standing in front of the king, what would they do to

12:39 Speaker 2 you?" He said, "They would cut my head off." He says, "Well, if you would be standing..." The Hasid said to him, the pious individual, "If you would be standing in front of a king of flesh and blood that's alive today, and mother-- tomorrow he won't necessarily be alive, you wouldn't respond. I am standing in front of the King of Kings, who's ""who lives forever. Of course I can't respond." And when that ""when that minister heard this, he was appeased, and the ""the Hasid went back home peacefully." So clearly this minister told off this-- gave sterne to this Hasid and told him, "Yeah, ""." But the Hasid has emunah in Hashem. He wasn't scared. He understood that he's standing in front of a "" that's alive forever. So based on your emunah, you can rely on your emunah even in a place of sakana, and certainly the "" of the Isur. This, this is the argument. And a person who wants to be connected to Hashem can rely on his emunah and should not stop their davening, especially nowadays that we know there's far-fetched chances that missiles could be, could be harmful. It's one of thousands and ten thousands. We see the special nisim and meshicha that Hashem gives to Klal Yisrael. Is this really correct that you should not stop your davening when there's a siren? And the answer is absolutely incorrect, and for many reasons. The whole argument is absolutely faulty. First of all, the poskim write about this particular Gemara, that the reason

13:59 Speaker 2 why the Hasid Echad, the Magid of Avram writes this, why this particular pious individual was not "" not responding Shalom to the minister, 'cause he knew that he could talk to the minister afterward. He knew he was able to appease him. He knew this wasn't dangerous. Point number one. Point number two. The Sefer Ma'at Yehuda, one of the early Sefardi poskim writes, "Actually, no. Even if you know, you're not allowed to rely. You know for a fact you can talk to this minister and talk him out, and he won't do any harm to you, you're not allowed to rely on that." He says the, the reason he didn't respond was very simple. He didn't notice there was a minister there. He thought it was type of person. And in many other answers, he explains why you can't learn from this. Has ve'shalom, to learn from this, that if you know that you can appease him, that you shouldn't stop Shemoneh Esreh. No, he disagrees. You should not learn from this story. And because of that, mentions the Ma'at Yehuda, the RIHD, the Rash, the Tur, the Beit Yosef, do not bring this story in their Svara, or anything about this story. And whenever there's any Hashash sakana, any concern of danger, you must stop your Shemoneh Esreh. Another Sefardi posek called Yehuda HeChasidah, also an early posek. He says, "Nah, to say that he didn't notice it was a minister, that's, that, that's a derech. That's not the normal way of understanding." He says, "The

15:12 Speaker 2 answer is very simple. This is a Hasid Echad." Hasid Echad, he was a pious individual. He had miracles happening to him all the time. He was a "" He knew Hashem Immi, Hashem is with him, and therefore he has nothing to worry. He'll daven, and he's, uh, n-noth-- there's-- no, no danger will ever happen to him. And that's the reason the poskim don't bring the story, 'cause nobody has this level that they could say they're such a high level. There's no such people. The people that are like that are Chad Bedor, one in a generation. So poskim don't mention the story that people that are not suitable, that are not as pious as these individuals, shouldn't learn, "Yeah, I could continue davening Shemoneh Esreh even when it's a dangerous situation." No, that is not correct. Indeed, the Pri Chadash writes in this section, Shulchan Aruch, where it talks about being-- interrupting in the middle of Shemoneh Esreh, and it says, no, if there's a, a Melech, a king that's coming and it's dangerous, you're supposed to stop Shemoneh Esreh, unless you know for sure, based on your tzitzit, on your righteousness, and who knows that, that nothing will happen to you. The Kaf HaChaim also says you shouldn't learn from this Hasid. So I wrote back to this particular Mechabed Svara Minat Yisrael. He's bringing a Gemara that everybody brings the sterne from this Gemara. The Sefer Zahav Shever says that the Gemara is telling us a story that we shouldn't learn from this Hasid.

16:23 Speaker 2 The Pele Yoetz says even a bigger Chiddush. He brings some Svarim that when the Gemara says this Hasid Niftar L'Beis El L'Shalom, he went home peacefully, the word Niftar means he passed away. He actually, interesting pshat, he was punished because he would violate the rule of "" Now, some people wanna argue in general that the idea of stopping Shemoneh Esreh when there's a case of danger is only when there's "" only when there's for sure harm gonna happen. That's not the mainstream Halakha. The Tzur Shoe wants to argue this, and he brings a ray that Halakha, there's a difference if a snake is surrounded around a person's heel, then he should not stop Shemoneh Esreh. But if it's a scorpion, a scorpion is more dangerous, and a scorpion, you're supposed to stop. So he says the difference is that a snake is not for sure it's gonna cause harm. Well, that particular point is actually a very difficult point. Why is it that when a snake is surrounded around a person, you're not supposed to stop your Shemoneh Esreh? People-- The pos-- The Rosh and the mefarshim talk about this a lot, and they bring a bunch of different explanations. The Mukna Rechem of the Munkatcher has a lengthy Ariches on this point, why when a snake is surrounded you now have to stop Shemoneh Esreh. So first of all, the Chinuch writes that the snake-- it's talking about a snake that you know for sure doesn't kill. So the whole argument falls. Some people

17:36 Speaker 2 say because once a snake is wrapped around a person, and he's not doing anything, and he doesn't bite, for sure he won't bite. Also, we-- they say that most snakes don't bite, and if they do, it doesn't, it doesn't harm. Some s-s-- The, the, the Mukna Rechem concludes, the Munkatcher, this ar-- the whole discussion about the Nachash, there's a many oth-other answers why we-- it says in the Gemara that a Nachash. It's talking about those kind of snakes that don't cause harm. But the Mukna Rechem concludes, it says absolutely clear that according to Halakha, any safek, doubt of Pikuach Nefesh, for sure a person should stop Shemoneh Esreh. But even if we will argue that since most snakes don't kill, if that's-- whatever the case, that's what some mefarshim say- Then over there, it's not only the-- First of all, snakes don't bite, and if they don't bi-- if they do, they don't kill, which is two ro'ev, two majorities. But it-- Be that as may, even if we would say one maj-- ro'ev is enough, a snake is very different than missiles. Like many, many Poskim of our generation said, a s-- the snake is not-- is, is very different than a miss- missile is the etzem dangerous. Sometimes, David Yehuda helps is hatzalah min hatsad, is the dangerous right in front of us. The snake is not a dangerous thing. It's a snake that bites. The missile is actually considered a dangerous thing, min hatzalah atzmo. Besides for the fact that this whole

18:55 Speaker 2 entire conversation with the snake is talking about to be mafsik bedibur. Here we're not talking about a person stopping their Shemoneh Esreh and talking. Here we're talking about just moving from one place to another. Certainly to-- Even if you would say a person is allowed to be stringent and not be mafsik, that's talking not to stop your Shemoneh Esreh, talk in the middle of your Shemoneh Esreh. But to go from one place to another because of the place of sakana, there's a missile coming, there's a warning, absolutely that's what's-- what a person is supposed to be doing. And, and, uh, we'll mention this, just the Maharsha writes about this chasid echad, that this chasid echad wasn't worried in the case of the minister that there will be a sakana. His implication is that he looked at this min-- It's not a king, it's just a minister. He's-- Like difference between a snake and a scorpion. So if there's clearly a situation where there's a potential safek of sakana, then you-- one has to stop the Shemoneh Esreh, and they should not continue that Shemoneh Esreh, uh, but they should rather go to the shelter immediately. Which brings me to another question on that same topic, that a question was asked. There's warnings that people get that there might be a siren coming soon. So when they get the warning till they start Shemoneh Esreh, if the siren will come, they'll leave in the middle of Shemoneh Esreh. If there's no siren, will continue Shemoneh Esreh.

20:06 Speaker 2 Or do we-- No, you can't-- Once you get a warning, you're not allowed to start your Shemoneh Esreh with understanding that you will leave in the middle if there's a siren. The answer is very clearly emphatically that if, if a person got a warning that is-- might-- that is-- might come a siren very soon, they're not supposed to start Shemoneh Esreh over here, rely on the fact they're going to stop afterwards and go somewhere else. It's like asking, is a person allowed to daven on the train tracks? They don't know if there-there's a train coming or not. If a train will come, I will stop my Shemoneh Esreh and go off the train track 'cause it's d-dangerous. You're now gonna put yourself in a position, I'm not talking a state of sakana, I'm not talking from a dangerous point of view. I'm talking about it's not dangerous because this time, let's say this time, you get a warning, and then there's a siren. Now, from the siren, there's enough time to get to the shelter. That's not the concern. You're now gonna daven Shemoneh Esreh in a place which your kavana will be disturbed. There's devarim a person-- one is supposed to remove before davenig all the devarim hachofez, hoy, ha'tordum kavanasi, all the thing that disturb your kavanah, your concentration. If you got a siren, if you got a warning to start Shemoneh Esreh, and now you... Will there be a siren? Will there not be a siren? Will there be a siren? Will

21:13 Speaker 2 not be a siren? So based on the fact that if there is a siren, you have to leave, I'm talking in a, in a place where there's concerns of missiles and all that, and it's dangerous, then you're not allowed to begin with, start your Shemoneh Esreh. Go there right away. Moving on to a Pesach question. There's some people that are gluten intolerant or various levels of that, how intolerant they are to gluten. Now, the question was, can they use oat matzah? Is oat matzah a-an option? So I wanna go through a, a few points. First of all, let's talk about in general for kasheros, not-nothing to do with Pesach. Oat flour is a kosher ingredient. It doesn't need a hechsher as long as-- not for Pesach. We're talking about in general for the whole year. As long as there's no kosher sensitive ingredients added, plain conf-- plain oat flour would never be a problem. You just have to make sure it's not infested. And those who are particular about chadash, about new grain, have to always check the code, the date code to work out what the right date is. But there's no real inherent problem with oat flour. Now, in terms of matzah, that's a very serious issue. S-many of the oat matzahs are treated with heat, and that's the only way they can store them, and that's a serious question if that's acceptable for Pesach. There are available oat matzahs that are not treated with heat, and if, if a person needs to

22:31 Speaker 2 have oat matzah, they should use those. Different hechsherim follow different standards, so you need to get from a reliable hechsher and find out that the oat matzahs are not treated with heat. Wheat matzah, of course, is always, always preferred, but if a person has no choice, they'll, they'll use oat matzah. Same with spelt matzah. It's a mitzvah m'derabanan to use-- prefer to use wheat, but if a person has to, they can u-- And the Gemara writes the custom is to eat wheat, but a person has to use spelt matzah. Generally, you're not supposed to go-- uh, not veer away from this custom, but if there's a necessity, it's very, very different. There was an argument, the Minchas Yitzchak argued that we have lost our tradition. There are five types of grain, but we have lost our tradition. We only know how to make matzah out of wheat because for the past hundreds of years, we've been making out of wheat, and therefore we don't know how to make matzah properly out of spelt or oats in a way that it shouldn't become chametz. But even the Minchas Yitzchak, who argued so, later wrote in a letter that he obviously wasn't talking about a person that for health reasons need to have-- can't have wheat matzah. They can't have wheat matzah. The next preference is spelt, and the next one after that is actually oat matzah. These are-- There are two issues over here, issues about chametz, which was the Minchas Yitzchak's argument that we don't

23:50 Speaker 2 know how to do it properly, and the other issue in terms of the fulfilling the mitzvah of matzah. So at least for the first night of Pesach, or the first two nights of Pesach, for at least for the first korayis of matzah, which mechayve the mitzvah of matzah, there's a preference, mitzvah m'derabanan to eat nafka minah. There's an argument over there that oats might not even be one of the five types of grain, but I'm not even gonna discuss that argument because as it goes against our Rishonim and our Poskim, that all-- we have a Mesorah tradition that shebeolashul refers to oats and not to another type. Although there are many professors that for botanical reasons, they argue that oats is not one of the five types of grain. That's not the accepted tradition amongst Klal Yisrael. The question is someone who does not have oat or spelt matzah, all they have is wheat matzah, or they have a problem, they can't have oat matzah either. Oat matzah is no good for them also. Or they wanna be extremely machmir. Whatever it is, they-- all they're left is now with wheat matzah, and that's their only choice. They don't have anything else. Whatever the situation is, and we often tell them, "Eat only one." Listen, the beer minimum. What's the beer minimum? The mitzvah d'oraitta, the only mitzvah of eating that we have nowadays, d'oraitta, is the mitzvah of korayis matzah. They eat one korayis of matzah. But if they're eating only one korayis of

25:01 Speaker 2 matzah, it's very important to understand not the eating a korayis of-- Some people will eat the oats and the spelt, but for the mitzvah of matzah, for the first korayis, they'll eat wheat. No, I'm talking about someone doesn't have oats. That's not an option. So he's only gonna eat one kezayis, and that's it. If you're only eating one kezayis, that follows the Halacha in Shulchan Aruch that if a person doesn't have matzah shmura, doesn't have matzah that's protected from chametz. He has matzah which is kosher, but it's not shmura. L'shem mitzvah matzah, he only has a kezayis. So the Halacha is that this person eats the matzah at the end of the meal. He starts off with maror, and, and at the end of the meal, he eats the matzah shmura. He makes a beracha on that matzah. Uh, well, let, let me make it more clear 'cause I was... There's, there's two different scenarios. Scenario, he has two different types of matzah, shmura and not shmura. Let, let me talk about the more simple example, where a sick person who could only eat one kezayis, or he only has one kezayis. Says the Magen Avraham, "Don't eat the kezayis of matzah in the beginning of the meal like everybody else does. You eat whatever you want first. At the end of the meal, you'll wash and eat your kezayis matzah." That kezayis matzah will work for motzi... For matzah, af al pi kakmin. So this person makes kiddush first. After kiddush, kadesh, he needs

26:19 Speaker 2 to have kiddush makom seudah, so the Magen Avraham says have kneidelach. We don't need kneidelach on Pesach. We don't have any mezonos foods. So what is he gonna have for kiddush makom seudah? He can have another cup of wine. Or alternatively, and the person's in a desperate situation, you can rely on the opinions of having just one full revias. Normally, for kiddush, you don't have to have a full revias, but by the seudah, we are machmir if we can. But in this case, for sure, he has to have a full revias. There are those that say you need to have the mitzvah of kiddush plus another revias. For the kiddush, you don't need the full one. But in this ca- if a person has desperate, could rely on one full revias, and that will be his kiddush makom seudah. And then eat whatever you want. Eat your meal, and leave your matzah to the very end of the meal. You'll wash at the end of the meal. That's when you'll wash. So I w- I do wanna point out, if somebody is doing that, then they're washing only for one kezayis. They can't eat much more. When you wash for only a kezayis, you don't make the beracha al netilat yadayim unless you're eating a kebeia. That's relevant for the whole Pesach, for that matter, for people that are not eating enough. People go into the me- measurements, how much you have to eat for motzi matzah. The, the question is a whole-- Every time

27:27 Speaker 2 you wash, you need to eat a full kebeia. So if you're not eating kebeia, you don't make a beracha al netilat yadayim. If you're going to be eating fish and flesh and all those things, you make a beracha. Normally, you don't make a beracha in a-- by the seudah on anything during your Shulchan Aruch. But this person's Shulchan Aruch was before he washed. When he makes the beginning of the meal, he'll make a beracha on karpas. He'll make ha'adamah, and that will cover his maror like we do, and that will also cover all the vegetables of his meal. He will not m- He'll have to make a beracha on all the food except on the soup 'cause the soup is a liquid, and liquid is covered... All liquids are covered by wine. They're secondary to wine. But you make a shehakol on meat, on, on the Shulchan... The egg they eat for Shulchan Aruch. And before he eats his matzah, he will make a beracha acharonah before he washes the matzah, beracha acharonah on his entire meal that he ate before. If he didn't make a beracha acharonah, he has-- Bentching, only after the fact bentching will cover it. But before bentching, he'll have to make a beracha acharonah. Even if you washed and ate matzah, make a beracha acharonah before you-- because you still need to make a beracha acharonah for the food before the meal. Another question that we got was about kashering. Can you use water that was heated on an induction

28:42 Speaker 2 stove to kasher items, or do you need to heat it davka with fire? So it really depends. If the fork-- The simple answer is, if the fork, spoon, knife, whatever, has became treif or became chametz-dik, not via an induction stove, not in something that was heated via an induction stove, there is a chumra that says that for that, you shouldn't kasher using water that was heated in an induction stove. Let me explain. There's a discussion in the Gemara and in the Shulchan Aruch about using Chametz Tveria, the hot waters, hot waters of the Tveria River. And the question is why kashering wouldn't work there. In our Shulchan Aruch, it actually says that the reason there's a problem to kasher because they're not tool dasaer. They're not created by fire. And that creates a whole shail about electric in general and about a microwave. But one thing that's clear in this Halacha, that even if you're gonna be machmir with the Chametz Tveria, even with Chametz Tveria, it says that if it absorbed treif or chametz via was the Chametz Tveria, then you're allowed to kasher via the Chametz Tveria. The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch says furthermore, that's not even a chiddush. Obviously, if it, if it came treif this way, you could kasher that way. The chiddush is don't say that I have to davka use Chametz Tveria. No, you can use any type of hot water. So if it became treif through a, or chametz-dik through an induction oven process, you could kasher through water

30:12 Speaker 2 heated in an induction oven. The question is if it came through something else, then that's a chumra. Although strictly speaking, that really shouldn't be, shouldn't be an issue whatsoever. I'll mention just one more final question. Someone was eating by a friend. He was invited out. He was-- started to bench, and he said the word barech, and his friend said, "Oh, whoa. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait, stop. I wanna serve more." So the Halacha is if you Gemara believe it, once a person decided he doesn't wanna eat anymore, that mean the meal is over. You had a hefsek hadaas. But we say that if you eat by other people, you never take your mind off 'cause you rely on the tak of the baal habayis, on the table of the baal habas. I'm re-- I'm a guest by him. I rely on him. But in this-- But if a person washed already for mayim achronim, if a person already wa- then, then his mind is off. What if you just said the word barech? The answer clear- I mean, clearly is if you-- once you said the word barech, that's it. The, the-- your meal is over, and if you wanna eat something now, you have to make a new beracha on that. The reason why there's a question, this question came from a, a mechabed Sefarim actually on Halachas Birchas Hanena, is because one of the, the points why not taluyada when a person washes for mayim achronim, that's much more hefsek hadaas is because

31:28 Speaker 2 he did an action. Well, in this case, the guy didn't do an action. He just dibbur. He just said the word barech. But in this, this word is not just like saying, "Let's go bench," havel and vaniveif. This is much worse. Saying the word barech means starting to bench. Starting to bench means when a person is relying on the baal habayis, that means I nullified my mind. I, in my mind, decided to stop eating, so now I've nullified my mind to the mind of the baal habayis. But if I'm not part of the baal habayis, I removed myself completely, and I said the word barech, that means it's, it has nothing to do with my-- I did not nullify myself to the baal habayis. So a- when you're relying on the table of baal habas, so that means you took... It's in a case where you took your mind off the food. Had I known the baal habas would bring more food, I wouldn't take my mind off. But when you said the word barech, it's nothing to do with food. That means the meal is over. You removed yourself completely. So even if you just say the one word barech, your meal is over, and you can't continue eating unless you make a new beracha. A chag kashe ve sameach to all our listeners.

32:25 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.