Organ Donation for Scientific Research

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.

00:20 Speaker 2 Welcome to another exciting podcast of Laman Yishmu and Ask the Rav. Many people have been asking questions about arranging Minyan for Krias HaTorah on Shavuos, so people should be able to hear Aseres Hadibros based on the Maamer Chazal, that when Aseres Hadibros is read, that's as if we are receiving the Torah from Hashem on Har Sinai. And every year when we read the Parashat Aseres Hadibros in the Torah, we're experiencing Maamad Har Sinai again. And it was always the tradition to bring little children to hear that, and the Rebbe renewed this minhag again and asked to bring children to hear Aseres Hadibros. So people make-- Are making different Minyanim, and a number of questions have been raised. I just wanna focus on one particular question, and that is from a, a dis-- A community that was asking, they wanna arrange another late Minyan, but they wanna ask if it's possible to make-- For whatever reason it's very hard to make another Krias HaTorah with taking out two Sifrei Torah and having a Maftir and Haftarah, can you just not have the Maftir and Haftarah? And they were told outright there's no such thing. You can't not have Maftir and Haftarah. And they were troubled about this. Where, where's the source? Where does it say that you can't just cut out on the Maftir and Haftarah? Now, honestly, the question is hard to understand. Obviously, the same way in any Minyan in Krias HaTorah, imagine if someone will decide that we're having a Minyan of Krias

01:45 Speaker 2 HaTorah in the Shul, and we decide we wanna cut out a Maftir and Haftarah. That's part of-- It's part of a Takanas Chazal, that we have to have an Ali-- We have to have a Haftarah. There's an Aliyah called Maftir. Maftir is a Machlokes if it's part of the regular Kriah Onat, if it's part of Minyan Sheva Onat, on Shabbos Sheva, on Yom Tov Chamisha. But when it comes to Yom Tov, there's an additional thing of taking out a second Sefer Torah because the Takanas HaGeonim or Rabbanus B'Eretz that we're supposed to on Yom Tov read about the Yom Tov. So that there's two things. There's the idea of the Maftir in general, which could either be the last Aliyah or one additional Aliyah, and then there's a special Takana Yom Tov to have a special extra reading, and there's Takana Chazal of having the Haftarah. So we're not, uh, we're not Chas ve'Shalom not reforming. We don't cut out things just because it's long. Even when it comes to Parashat Zachor, there's a very heavy debate about this. People wanna make Minyanim just to hear Parashat Zachor. So instead of reading the whole entire Torah and then the end having a second Sefer Torah, if I'm Maftir let's-- Oh, this the, the reverse. Let's only do the Maftir. Uh, the reason why there would be a Savara that you should be able to only do the Maftir and only do Parashat Zachor, because Parashat Zachor is an independent obligation, which was according to many

03:04 Speaker 2 opinions, Minhag Torah way before the Takana of Krias HaTorah and, and, and Achiv Min HaTorah. Be-- T-Takana of Krias HaTorah is from Moshe Rabbeinu, whatever it is, but it's not Achiv D'Oraisa. So we actually have a Machlokes. There was an, a Shul where they missed out Krias HaTorah, and that week was Parashat HaChodesh, and there was a discussion of maybe to make a Minyan only for Parashat HaChodesh. So whereas Rabbi Akiva Eger says you could do that because Ba'al Parashot are an independent Takana, but the Chida writes, the Birkatei Yosef, the Chida writes, "Why is, why is it more important for you to hear Parashat HaChodesh than Krias HaTorah? You're supposed to also hear Krias HaTorah. What are you cutting out Krias HaTorah and only do Parashat HaChodesh?" And then he says, "Where do you have such a thing of having only one person having a Minyan, only one person getting Aliyah just Parashat HaChodesh?" So he argues very strongly that that's not the-- That, that cannot be done. But that is even about other Parashiot. Certainly, if there's a Takana of Krias HaTorah, part of the Takana that Chazal made, that every time you're reading the Torah, you're supposed to have a, a Krias HaTorah of Maftir as well with Haftarah. So that, that can't be cut out. Just to understand the significance of this Aliyah of Maftir, especially on Yom Tov, that there's a whole discussion in place, what do you do if there's a mistake in the Torah? And there's a range

04:20 Speaker 2 of opinions which I'm not gonna go into right now. And sometimes we do take out a second, second Sefer Torah, sometimes we don't take out a second Sefer Torah, and sometimes the argument is that if there's a mistake in the Sefer Torah, it basically depends on the fact if you're allowed to read in a Sefer Torah with a mistake or you're not allowed to. There's a Shitah of the Rambam that a Sefer Torah with a mistake is valid. But if we're going to continue reading, it might be a Bracha L'Vatalah. We're gonna go and take out a new Sefer Torah, it might cause a problem of Pagam, of looking at the first Sefer Torah as if it's no good. So for the past readings, we consider it a valid reading, but not for the future readings. That's sort of the interim compromise. Be that as it may, without going into the various details, so often when it comes to the very last Aliyah, what we do is we rely on the Shitah, or many opinions say this, that Maftir only the Minyan Sheva. There's a Machlokes if the last Aliyah, the Maftir who's reading the Haftarah, is one of the seven or an extra one. What we do is we have sort of a compromise and, um, on a fast day, the person reading the Haftarah is one of the Aliyot. On, on, um, Shabbos and Yom Tov, it's not one of the Aliyot. Shabbos and Yom Tov because technically you're allowed to add Aliyot,

05:35 Speaker 2 so we add an extra Aliyah because anyhow you're allowed to add an Aliyah. Like this we cover our bases and we finish Krias HaTorah, we do Kaddish to make a separation, and then we have the Haftarah. So when there's a mistake in the Torah, there's an argument that says that maybe we'll cut out-- Won't cut out the Haftarah, Chas ve'Shalom, but we'll have the seventh Aliyah being the Aliyah which becomes Maftir, and then we'll read the Haftarah, so we don't-- We won't have an issue of taking out another Sefer Torah. This wouldn't apply in Yom Tov because Yom Tov you have to have the Haftarah. The Haftarah is an obligation, independent obligation of Chovet Hayom. You can't say that the Kriyat HaTaarah that I read will cover me for the Maftir because there's a separate Chiyuv to read about the Kerev Musaf of that day and therefore that cannot be even in the case where there's a Shayal of Hapgam of a Sefer Torah that because of that there's a problem with the Sefer Torah. So again, the purpose of the Rebbe's Sichas, the Rebbe spoke about is bringing kids to a Kriyat HaTaarah in shul. It wasn't about making up new ideas. It wasn't even about creating new Kriyas. There's nothing wrong if there's a regular Kriyat HaTaarah happening under the conditions of Kriyat HaTaarah, then that's perfectly fine. But creating new concepts, the idea was to bring them to the shul when the regular Kriyat HaTaarah shul is happening. Moving on to another

06:52 Speaker 2 question. This is not a Halakha question. It's a question that people ask many, many times. So I was approached by a teacher who's teaching about Tznius and the question she asked is why does it seem like the rules of Tznius became stricter and in previous generations the rules were more lenient? And the reason she was asked that question was because looking at photographs and pictures of Zeid, of Bubbes, of grandmothers in previous generations, it looks like they didn't keep the same kind of rules of Tznius that we keep. And it's a legitimate question that people ask. Obviously, we will not change the Halakha based on pictures, but something that people want to understand. So the answer, the basic approach for that is, I mean, the Halakhas of Tznius are already discussed in Gemara, Shulchan Aruch and Peskim. Now, over the generations, depending on the time and place and circumstances, sometimes these Halakhas were not exactly kept exactly the same way. And let's understand a couple of things. First of all, a lot of these pictures took place in times when there was a lot of significant upheaval in the Jewish community. There was immigration waves, there was wars, there was economic hardships. There were times when there was a strong secular influence and a very weak Jewish education. Case in point, in many places, if a Bachur was able to marry a girl that was Jewish and keeping a basic level of Orthodoxy, that was considered a major, major accomplishment because a lot of the

08:14 Speaker 2 youth, especially the girls, were drifting away from observance. And finally, you got someone who's planning to keep Shabbos, Kashrus, Chinuch, people starting intermarry. Now, while Tznius is very, very important and it's definitely a part of Halakha and extremely significant, but they wanted to keep the basic religious survival and therefore they didn't focus on that. Besides for the fact, like we mentioned before, the immodesty in the world around was much less. Later, Peskim put Rabbonim, Peskim, Rabbeyim put a greater emphasis on standards of Tznius to maintain our sense of Kedushah. There was also certain things that were not clear in certain communities, the standards in Halakha. Every community has a different way of interpreting those standards. And in the photographs also, these are isolated photographs which sometimes are not very, very clear. It doesn't reflect how the community at large acted. So Tznius was equally important at all times, but based on the realities and the challenges and the priorities of the community, they didn't necessarily express these Halakhas in practice. Just to give an example to illustrate this point, the Rebbe wrote a letter on his own initiative, and this wasn't a response to something, to the Rebbe of Krakabad, Reb Shneur Zalel, and told him how he has to work, that the Russian immigrants that are coming out are much more lax in Tznius and it's part of his job to work on their Tznius. But the Rebbe made a comment at the time which was very, very interesting. The Rebbe said, at the

10:00 Speaker 2 moment, we're not going to go into the details. The Rebbe was talking specifically about head covering, whether the hair is covered and some hair is sticking out or not. Let's leave that. There's a concept in Halakha called Saida Chutzlat Samasa. The Rebbe said, leave that for right now. I don't have the letter in front of me, but something to the effect, without going into, but there's basic Tznius and these people are coming to Krakabad, a religious neighborhood, and they're not keeping regular norms of Tznius, which in Russia, this was overlooked. But the Rebbe said, no, the realities of life are different and now that's something we have to be very strong about. This was in 1953. Literally less than a year later in 1954, the Rebbe came very strongly with a campaign and argued very forcefully about the insistence that people have to wear Dafka or Sheitel. The only head covering that's legitimate is a wig and no other form of head covering is because some hair could show, some people could move it back, it could slip. We recently had an incident where it's all over in the news where someone for the purpose of their license, it was insisted that they remove their head covering. So in a Sheitel, they wouldn't necessarily even know there's a head covering, wouldn't even ask you to remove it if it's a full proper Sheitel. So the Rebbe insisted very strongly. He said he will not be Mesad HaKedushim unless they agree to this. The Rebbe said

11:22 Speaker 2 he's going to fight for this and that's the Beracha of Hanachas comes through that. Only a year before that, the Rebbe, because depending on the circumstances, you know, what becomes the higher focus, the lesser focus, and that has to be determined in every community and every time. But the photographs are never an indication of what really Halakha is all about.

11:39 Speaker 3 A brief ad and we'll be right back to the podcast. Always wanted a real thorough grasp of Hilchos Shabbos? Now is your chance. Join a comprehensive course with Rabbi Tuvia Kasimov and learn the Halakhas clearly and practically. Starting soon with limited spots available. Sign up at lamanilmadu.com.

12:06 Speaker 2 Moving on to another very, very interesting question. Interesting, I got two people ask the same exact question both on the same exact day. Um, someone who's co-- in the process of converting, and there's a relative who's not Jewish, and the relative wants to donate their body to science. Is it-- This potential convert is asking, "Is it a problem if a non-Jew donates their body to science?" I got another variation of that question, but that's basically the gist of the question. So when we talk about the idea of people of, of donating the body to science, of, of, uh, of nituchei meis, of doing surgeries on, on, on, on the dead, so there's a lot of aspects that we need to look into. There's the issue of nivul hametz, disgrace, not being respectful to the meis, to the deceased. There's the issue of hana'ah. One does not have hana'ah from a meis, have any type of benefit, and that comes up a lot when people want to do implants, cadavers or whatever it is from, from, from a meis. There's a chir of k'vura. Bechol hal you're supposed to bury a meis, a chir of k'vura, which is why cremation is not acceptable. There's a absolute chir of k'vura. And there's also issue of halachas of meis, of letting, uh, the body stay overnight. It's supposed to be buried right away, depending on the conditions. So if we talk about the idea of nivul hametz, checking, taking a body that passed away and looking, inspecting, and

13:42 Speaker 2 examining things, whether for medical purposes or bechol hal. So we actually have this in the Gemara. The source of this is in the Gemara, where someone was killed, and the murderer is now brought to justice. And then the question is raised, one second, maybe he killed someone that was gonna die anyhow, a treifah. A treifah is someone who doesn't have a chance of living for twelve months. And when a retzeach, a murderer, kills a treifah, then he obviously doesn't have a chir of misu because the person was gonna, was gonna die anyhow. So the argument is perhaps we should go and check the, the body, the, the person that died, take him apart, and check whether he was really was a treif or not. And the Gemara says, no, that we can't do that because nivul hametz, because we don't wanna defile the kedusha, the sanctity, the, the special of the, of the meis' body. It's just, it's disgraceful. So you see here that even when it comes in terms of punishing a retzeach, a murderer, there's an issue of nivul hametz. There's another Gemara which talks about-- I'm not gonna go through the whole sugya, but there's a back and forth on the Gemara. The Gemara talks about a-- someone that, that sold their property, and then there's a question if they were of age, if they had signs of maturity when they did the sale, because it could be it was a katan who the sale is not legitimate. And the one was--

15:09 Speaker 2 The seller actually died, and the question is maybe we could actually examine the body and see if there were signs of maturity. Again, this we talk about over there about nivul hametz. That's not acceptable because nivul hametz. So surprise of surprises, there are poskim that say that you're allowed to... Depending on the circumstances, if somebody's gonna lose a lot of money, there might be room for nivul hametz to examine the body. Then certainly if you wanna be mater naguna, and you wanna check a body and see who's the one that died because the lady otherwise is gonna remain naguna, there are poskim that say that's l'tzorech. That's-- And why does the Gemara say that for a retzeach we don't go check whether he killed a treifah? Because so long we have no, we have no chir to go and check. So there's no chir. So long it wasn't checked, we assume that it's not a treifah. Likewise, when the, the, the question whether the sale was valid or not. So the, the relatives, based on the context of the Gemara, which I'm not gonna go into, it's their obligation that they should not go and be mevonal hametz because they wanna c-- dispute a sale. They shouldn't go and do-- defile the, the, the meis. But otherwise, there are poskim that said if there's a real legitimate tzorech, it's okay. A lot of poskim disagree with that, and they say, "No, there's no such thing. Nivul hametz is, is an absolute standard." Of course, the

16:29 Speaker 2 exception would be pikuach nefesh. If, if it's being done to cure people, to save people's lives, then it's not nivul hametz. But then again becomes a question, what's the definition of pikuach nefesh? In a famous response of the Noda BiYehuda, he says that to learn medicine is not called pikuach nefesh. The definition of pikuach nefesh is choreg lefaneinu. If we have a sick person in front of us, not a potential possibility of pikuach nefesh, even though it's a fact it will definitely, certainly come to use for pikuach nefesh. If right now there's a situation of pikuach nefesh, we call that choreg lefaneinu, then-- So this is why a, a Kohen shouldn't be learning medicine, even though he could save lives, but there's no lives that he's currently saving that we know of. Reb Moshe Feinstein, interestingly, is very stringent even for pikuach nefesh. He argues saving li-- Even if there would be a choreg lefaneinu, and you would know there's a particular life that could be saved right now, and he says there's no chir to go learn medicine to save lives. We have to save lives with information we have, and because we don't have to examine new information in order to save lives, which would be chidush, therefore, we're not gonna go and defile a meis for that. Others argue that even for pikuach nefesh, Rav Binyamin Zin says it's stealing the body. You're stealing from the body, and you have no chance to return from the person who passed, from the deceased.

17:46 Speaker 2 And this form of stealing is not allowed even in, in the place of pikuach nefesh. That is not the consensus. The consensus is if it's a real pikuach nefesh, a choreg lefaneinu, and it's someone that we know is gonna be cured, it's permissible. But having said all of that, we haven't yet approached the discussion about how this applies to a non-Jew. So It's important, however, to put things in context that it's not so clear, even when it comes to Jews, how far the Issur of Nivul Hametz goes. Many Poskim say that if Mechila, if the Metz himself agrees, the one while he was alive, he was Moichel and he allowed it, there might not be an Issur of Nivul Hametz. Again, that's not the accepted position. But even the Binyan Sin that didn't allow it for Pikuach Nefesh said when the Metz is Moichel, then it's legitimate. Going back now to the topic of Goyim. So first of all, we have a range of opinions whether BeChlal is an issue of Nivul Hametz in, in donating one's body for science and having science use the body for particular ca-causes, which will include eventually saving lives. And the parameters of Pi-Pikuach Nefesh with Goyim and Yidden are not necessarily the same. Additionally, there's a very strong argument that by Goyim, there might not be an Issur of Nivul Hametz to begin with. We have a story in the Gemara where there was a, a, a woman that was supposed-- was judged by the government to be

19:06 Speaker 2 killed, and the Talmidim of Rabbi Shmuel went, and they examined her body to check, to work out how many Avadim. This was in the gift. I mean, Halacha, how many Avadim are there in a woman's body? So clearly, they weren't concerned about Nivul Hametz. The simple explanation is because she wasn't Jewish, and there's no Issur of Nivul Hametz by Goyim. The Issur of Nivul Hametz only applies to a Yid. I mean, you could argue it's not a form of Nivel they were doing for learning. Diff-difficult stretch to say that. Another very strong Smara, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach argues that Nivel is defined according to the, the society. For Jews, this is called Nivel. Goyim don't consider this a Nivel. They actually consider this a respectful thing to donate, donating one's body for science. So for them, it wouldn't be an issue of Nivel. Now, in terms of the Issur of Hana'ah, so BeChlal is a Machloket if a deceased body of a Goy is Mutar BeHana'ah, Asur BeHana'ah. There's extreme opinions in both directions. Mamash absolutely Asur or absolutely Mutar, and nobody argues, some Poskim say. So that will be one of the difficult challenges over here, Hana'ah. But clearly, the person is not having-- who's having Hana'ah from a Metz over here? It's not the person who's donating their body. It's maybe the scientists who are examining the body. And the question is if that's even really called Hana'ah. They're not having a, a, a factual actual benefit. They're having-- the benefit is looking

20:28 Speaker 2 at the body. His Taklus is questionable at all if it's considered Hana'ah, if it's considered benefit. We have a, a, a, uh, interesting argument that a Meshech Pirha was asked this question, and he argued there's a Machloket Rashi and Ramban on the Pasuk that says Ki Kil, that you're not allowed to leave a dead body hanging on a tree. Ki Kil Es HaLakim Talui. So Rashi says, "'Cause Yidden are Banav Shel Makon, they're children of Hashem," and it's so to speak as if Hashem is hanging. The Ramban says no. It was up to Yidden. So it seems like a Machloket Rashi and Ramban about the Issur of Halanat Hametz, which will from there also apply to the, the, uh, Nivul Hametz. The Meshech Pirha argues strongly in favor of Rashi, although he on the side in the Meshech Pirha has printed a, a note on some of the prints on the side that someone commented him that he found in Targum on Megillas Esther that Esther was asked by Achashverosh, "How is it okay that they hung them up and let them hanging there for so many days?" So that was a question she was asked, but that doesn't make it into Halacha. They're not allowed to do that. So the accepted position is that it's not a problem for Goyim. There's no issue of Nivul Hametz. Certainly, if that's what they want, certainly if they agree. Even the Chiyuv of Kever is not a Chiyuv by Goyim. It's mid'R KeShalom. It's the right thing

21:38 Speaker 2 to do. But if they want to do otherwise, the R KeShalom doesn't apply. But th-in this case, it's much better because the person's asking the question is asking if since they're the ones that are gonna be making the decision about a relative who's a Goy, if it's okay. So now we're talking about a Lifnei Iver question, and we're not even talking about the Goy himself, what he should be doing. It's a, a very dis-- Lifnei Iver. The Goy himself decided that he wants to donate his body. The relative ultimately had the decision, do they have to stop it? There's so much to say that it's perfectly permissible to begin with. If it is really no, no real concern, that should be perfectly fine. Uh, I will mention that when the Hebrew University, um, started, so some of the Rabbonim there, Chutz L'Aretz, at the time, it came up the issue about, uh, what to do about Nituchei Meitim. And the suggestion was, which was accepted in many hospitals in Eretz Yisrael, to use rather non-Jewish bodies rather than Jewish bodies because of this Halachic issue.

22:34 Speaker 3 A brief ad, and we'll be right back to the podcast. Want real clarity in the Halachas of Taharat Hamishpacha? Rabbi Mendy Hirshcop's year-long Hilchos Nida course is starting soon with an opportunity for Shimush. Spots are limited, so reserve yours now at lamanilmadu.com.

22:58 Speaker 2 Moving on to another question. I was asked a very interesting question, and this happens a, a lot. Someone was suggested a Shidduch, and they said they're busy with something else, but if this thing doesn't work out, they'll go back to their original Shidduch. Another question is, is that called a promise that you have to keep? So when you make promises, the Halacha is that, um, someone who doesn't keep their promise, even if they didn't make a Kinyan, they're what we call Mechusra Amana. They're not trustworthy. There's Tarumos, there's complaints that could be, uh, could be had against a person who makes a promise and doesn't keep their promise. There's a Pasuk, "She'eidis Yisro Lo Ya'asu Avlav Lo Yidabru Chazev." Yidden don't talk lies. You say something, you keep your word. You're not allowed to even tell a child, "I'll give you a present," and not give it to him because of "Lindu Lashonem Daber Sheker." So you say a word, you accept something. You said, "I'll look into this." And people do this all the time. They're asked about a Shidduch, so instead of saying no, another way of saying, "I'm busy with something." "So when you're not busy, can I come back?" "Yeah, sure, you can come back." But do they really mean it? It's a good question, but that's what they said. So even, even if in a case where they really genuinely meant them, now they, they changed their mind, there's a strong argument in this case they, they don't have to

24:15 Speaker 2 sacrifice their life and go out with a girl which they're not-- or with a boy which they're not really interested in going out because they said y-before that they might, that it-- they will look into it. And there's m-multiple reasons for that. So first of all, the idea of, of when a person makes a promise and he has to keep his word, if there's a change in circumstances, there are many Mach-- We call a Trei Tari with Nishtana Hashar, the price has changed. So what I said was based on the previous price, not on the current price. And that's a big Machloket is if this, that you made a promise based on the old price, so that's legitimate even after the price has changed. But even arguing that even when the price change, you still have to-- and the circumstance have changed, you still have to keep your original word. This case is very, very different because when people say, "Yeah, I'm busy with something," it's pretty obvious what they mean is they're trying to push you off. There was no Smichas Daas, there was no Gemirus Daas, there was no acceptance that, "Oh, of course, yeah, obviously, then come back to me." Everybody knows there's a certain in the shidduchim language, and you don't say an outright no when you say, "I'm busy with something." Now, it could be they're genuinely busy with something, but there's no clear indication that you really meant what you said. So much so the halacha is that if

25:26 Speaker 2 a person makes a promise... So depends how much they promise. If they promise something small, they say, "I'll give you a gift of ten dollars," then they have to keep their word. If they say, "I'll give you a hundred thousand dollars," so the person who's receiving it also to begin with knows this is the selling the Brooklyn Bridge. He knows that's not-- it's not necessarily gonna happen, and when there's no smichas das, when there's no... On both sides, there's no certainty, clarity that this is for sure gonna happen, then there's no din of mechusrei mana. I'm not gonna say there's always a pious behavior, a person who wants to go beyond, beyond all the rules and be extra pious, special great tzadikim, even if they-- let's put it on halacha, bedieved even if they thought of something, they would keep their word in their mind. There's a lot of great stuff out there. But here we're talking about a person binding himself meeting with a girl which he doesn't wanna meet with or meeting with a boy that she doesn't meet with, which in itself could also be a problem, because if he really-- they really wanna meet and there's going out just for the intent of going out, they might decide to find favor in each other's eyes, but it might be a form of deception there too, because they're doing it only because they made a promise. That would, that wouldn't make much sense. There's another point here altogether, this whole halacha mechusrei

26:36 Speaker 2 mana, that a person has to make a, a promise as a gift or a sale, is about financial matters. When we're talking about personal matters, it's a whole different set of halachas altogether. And like I said, in this case, there's a legitimate argument that it's perfectly fine and they don't have to worry about the fact that they, that they said they're gonna be looking into the shidduch. Question-- Moving on to another question. There was, um, people got together on a Shabbos, and someone went and took cold, fully cooked chicken, cold chicken, and put it right onto the blech to heat up on Shabbos. It was wet. You're not allowed to reheat wet stuff on Shabbos because even if it's previously cooked, yash bisul achar bisul balach. They put it onto the fire. Luckily, it didn't reach on the fire hot enough that we call yad soledet bo, that it-- hot to the touch, and if it didn't actually cook. But the question is if the food is permissible. There were a number of issues here. Number one, the issue of bisul, cooking on Shabbos. Number two, issue of chazarah nasui nebach tilah, that even when you take something off the fire, you, you can't-- and even if it's fully cooked and hot, you can't put it back on, only with certain conditions, which these conditions obviously were not kept over here. Now, it's very important to emphasize that it didn't reach yad soledet bo, but it could have reached if you would leave it there

27:56 Speaker 2 that long. Was the food permissible after the fact? The answer is the food is permissible because a-after the fact, no cooking happened because it didn't reach yad soledet bo, so nothing really happened after the fact. Both bisul and chazarah, cooking on Shabbos and the rule of chazarah, has to do with the place, that the area is a place where things could become yad soledet bo. But there's another rule called gezeiras Hechsher. Chazal made a rule that you're not allowed to put something in a place where it could turn yad soledet bo, even if you plan to take it off before, because you might forget. So what about violating that gezeira of Chazal? So they didn't cook, but they violated the gezeira of Chazal not to do something which could cook, even if you plan to take it off. So for-- the answer for that is that after the fact, we call this meis Shabbos, something that happened on Shabbos, because number one, it's a machlik that we did such a gezeira altogether. It was also cooked already. There are opinions that say there's no cooking with something wet. It's a issur d'Rabanan. Nothing was accomplished. That's the most important part over here. Lo yahano meis of meis Shabbos is us or something did something on Shabbos, we do some benefit. You're not having any benefit because nothing really happened over here. So many places can clearly say that this is okay. Some wanna argue you should wait till it cools off again if it reheated

29:07 Speaker 2 a tiny bit. Um, there's enough what you're relying that it's perfectly fine, but the evident... Move on to final question about having a kiddush for a daughter. Where does the idea of having a kiddush for a birth of a girl come from? When do you have to make the kiddush, et cetera? So s-there was a, a, a Rav in Amshilker, a Pinchas Hirsch sprung, and he said an interesting, um, arg-- found an interesting makar for the meaning of a kiddush. He's not the only one that brought that source. There's a Gemara in Baba Basra that said that Boaz had thirty sons and thirty daughters, and he made a hundred and twenty parties. So why did he make a hundred different parties? Different opinions, different ways how to-- different texts in that Gemara, different Girsas, different versions. But Rabbeinu Gershom says that Rabbeinu Yochonon, because of the birth of his children, he had sixty-- he had thirty boys and thirty daughters. So why thirty boys and thirty daughters? That would be sixty parties. Why a hundred and twenty parties? He also cele- made another sixty parties to celebrate the weddings of these children. So clearly, when the girls were born, he made a celebration. In the time of Boaz, there was already a party, a kiddush for a boy and for a girl. We also have another Gemara. This is a Gemara in Baba Basra I was quoting. There's another Gemara in Baba Kama, where the Gemara talks about special meals called Shevu'ah Ben and Yeshu

30:19 Speaker 2 HaBen, meals assoc-associated with the birth of a boy. Now, some Girsas, there are some places, some places the Ramban in the Sefer Torah HaAdam quotes from a Mechilta, which we don't have there now, a Mechilta, but he brings a Mechilta that says Shevu'ah Ben, Shevu'ah Bas. Which one comes first? Shevu'ah Ben Koidem. So Shevu'ah Ben and Shevu'ah Bas implying there's something called Shevu'ah Bas, some celebration with the birth of a girl. Now, if the Sh-Yeshu HaBen or Shevu'ah Ben that Gemara talks about is a Shalom Zachar, which is what the Tur Musadash says, that we thank Hashem that the boy was saved. There was a childbirth and the boy was born and he was saved and, and all came out from danger. Shevu'ah Bas would be the birth of a daughter. So in fact, there are, um, those that wish to suggest that. The, the-- There's a sefer called Shaarei Simcha. One of the Rishonim that writes this is a Pish called Yitzchak Giranan, and he wants to suggest-- He also brings this thing, Mechilta Shevu'ah ben Shevu'ah bas, and he wants to suggest that Shevu'ah bas is connected with giving a name for the-- They used to-- The meaning was to give on Shabbos, to give a name for the girl. So it's a form of some type of Shalom Zachar. There's a letter of the Rebbe that clearly writes why we don't do a Shalom Zachar for a girl. It's not the same level of simcha v'bon in a girl, but at least

31:37 Speaker 2 there's some type of argument to this idea. Now, there are other mefarshim clearly to show and to learn that Shevu'ah ben Yeshu'ah ben has to do with Brit Milah Pidyon Haben. If it's Brit Milah Pidyon Haben, if it's not Shalom Zachar, Brit Milah Pidyon Haben clearly applicable only to a boy, not to a girl. Gemara has no association with a girl. But there's good reasons for making a kiddush for a daughter. Number one, we have to thank Hashem for having a daughter, especially if we give her a name. So we thank-- When we give her a name, when her neshama comes down, we thank Hashem for that. It's a seudat hodot, a party of thanksgiving to Hashem, both for the mother and the daughter that came out safe from a potentially unsafe situation. It also gives an opportunity for people to come give brachos for the new baby girl that was born. They say a story of the Harnester Rebbe that, um, a father asked a bracha for his daughter who was having difficulty with shidduchim, and he said, "Well, was there a kiddush or not? Because if there was a kiddush, I would have given her brachos,"

34:00 Speaker 4 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.