Did Italy Exist in Moshe’s Time?

00:00 Speaker 1 Welcome to the Halacha Podcast, Lemaan Yishmeu, 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 Lemaan Yilmedu, the premier institute for practical Halacha learning.

00:21 Speaker 2 Welcome to another installment of the Ask the Rav in partnership with Lemaan Yishmeu podcast. So there was a serious discussion in Eretz Israel. This is an old discussion, but it was again revisited. It's becoming more and more. More people are moving into the city of Tiberias, and there's guidelines and policies put forth for how religious Haredi Jews can live there. And one of the issues that came up is what's the correct spelling of the word Tiberias. If you look around, traditionally in Shas, in most places, the city is spelled tes, veis, resh, yud, alef. But in modern Hebrew it's normally spelled tes, veis, resh, yud, he. So which is the correct spelling? How is it supposed to be spelled? So the, the-- in the Edah HaChareidis in Yerushalayim, they had a get-together, they had a session, and that was one of the issues that came up, and it was decided that it's supposed to be spelled with a he, although it sounds like the he is the more modern Hebrew spelling, and the spelling with the alef is more ancient. But they brought their proofs why it should be really be spelled with an alef-- with a he, sorry. And I wanna examine this point right now. We have a general klal that we have to look at a name and find out where it's from. Now, the city of Tiberias, by the way, before I continue, I do wanna mention that the Rebbe would pronounce it always Tiberias instead of Tiberias. Um, I don't

01:50 Speaker 2 know the source if, um, uh, in the original... We don't find in the original Mishnahs and Gemaras which have nekudos. It's hard to find what's the correct way of vocalizing it. Amongst Yemenite people, anyhow, every segol is pronounced as a patach, so that wouldn't make much of a difference. And specifically, interestingly, th-there's a Tiberian, the Tiberias way of pronunciation, which they have ex-- they actually do distinguish between a segol and a patach. So-- and I will use the pronunciation that the Rebbe used and refer to it as Tiberias. So going back to the name Tiberias, it's not found in Tanakh. It's not a Hebrew name. The first time we have this name mentioned is in Mishnahies, and Mishnahies it's with an alef. It's hard to know if it's really with an alef because we have to go through many different manuscripts, and often these things have changed from one manuscript to another. But normally, assuming it's an Aramaic name, normally Aramaic names finish with an alef, and many times in Shas it finishes with an alef. If you look at the source of the name, so in Midrash it's brought that Alexandria is named after the King Alexandrus, and Tiberias is named after the King Tu-Tiberius, Tiberius. And that's how the Midrash explains the pasuk karu veshemos malei adam es. They gave lands aft-- names after people. So it's a goyishe source, a non-Jewish name. It's not a Hebrew name. And it was-- if you look at the history, there was a bit-- a war

03:09 Speaker 2 happening at the time, and during the war with the Jewish people, that's when this name was given. So assuming that's the case, it really should be called-- it should be written with an alef. We have a Gemara that the Gemara says, lamah nikra shmat Tiberias. Why is the city called Tiberias? Shetoiv haryah bah, because there's good vision over there. You can see well over there. Rabbi Yirmiyah says, sheyeshev betabor shel Eretz Yisrael. It's at the belly of Eretz Yisrael. It's in the center of Eretz Yisrael. Now that's actually geographically, it's not in the center. And there's another discussion about that, why it actually says it's in the belly. Does the belly mean the center? Does it mean higher up? There's a Sefer Kaftor V'Ferech from one of the Rishonim that talks about the borders of Eretz Yisrael, and he ha-- gives his explanation why it says it's in the Tabor of Eretz Yisrael. Interestingly, the Sanhedrin, the last place the Sanhedrin were exiled was in Tiberias, and that's where they'll come back before Mashiach comes. They'll go to Tiberias, from there go to Eretz Yisrael. And the Sanhedrin are considered the, the, the center, and actually the same phrase is used, the Tabor, the belly, as Tiberias. But be that as it may, the Gemara gives the explanation why it's called Tiberias. And the Mephorshim actually asked this question: How could the Gemara say that the reason it's called Tiberias is because toiv haryah bah, because it's-- there's good-- because of its good vision, or

04:24 Speaker 2 Tiberias because it's called that way because yeshev betabor shel Eretz Yisrael, it's because it's in the center, in the belly, the b-- the stomach of Eretz Yisrael, when the real reason is because of the name of the non-Jewish king. So Reb Yaakov Emden talks about it, other people talk about it. Obviously, Chazal wanted to give it a Jewish meaning and a Jewish content, and that became eventually the Jewish name. So they wanted to give it a Jewish meaning, and that's the Jewish meaning. The Rebbe once had a discussion with the Rabbanim HaRashim, with the chief rabbis of Eretz Yisrael, and the Rebbe pointed out his-- the, the, the strange thing that the word Sanhedrin, Sanhedrin, the name of the Masechta, talking about the Sanhedrin, they actually are gonna return to Tiberias first. Sanhedrin is a non-Jewish word. In Torah we use the word shoiftim dayanim, not Sanhedrin. So HaRav Eliyahu, the chief rabbi, told the Rebbe that we find in Mephorshim, the Bartenura brings, Sanhedrin is rashot teyvis, so in the Hadri Panim there's a particular rashot teyvis in Hebrew, but that's not the pashut pshat. That is-- pashut pshat, Sanhedrin is a council in, in Greek and not, not in the Jewish language. So Rav Eliyahu mentioned to the Rebbe that Tiberias is also named after a non-Jewish source, and Chazal interpreted it Lashon Hakodesh. To which the Rebbe answered that when you're talking about a city, that's not a chiddush that you use a non-Jewish name for a city. Alexander Mogden asked that

05:44 Speaker 2 all the Kohanim should name-- be named after him. Alexander became a Jewish name. But Sanhedrin is a name of Torah. It's not a name of a city. It's a name of a Masechta. And that the Gemara, that the Rambam all gonna use the terms Sanhedrin rather than using the term shoiftim or dayanim, right? And it's a sefer which was written, the sefer has written for Rabanim. So that's an interesting point. And the Rebbe spoke there about the idea of refining non-Jewish languages, which we know this is all a different discussion altogether. So going back to the Gemara gives those different reasons why it's called that way. So there is a tshuva of the Beis Yosef. And he actually addresses what to write in a get where it makes a big difference. You have to write which rivers it's near. But he also talks about to write it with an aleph or with a heh. Now we have a general rule, which the Beis Yosef is not so agreeing with this rule, but that's generally the rule. And he brings in the Shulchan Aruch that a Hebrew name finishes with a heh, like Chana, Sarah, and a name which is in another language finishes usually with an aleph. So the one who wrote the question to the Beis Yosef, this is found in a sefer called Tshuva Beis Yosef. There's another Charles Tshuva response from the Beis Yosef called Afkes Rechel. But this is another different sefer called Tshuva Beis Yosef, Hilchot Gittin Siman Aleph. And

06:58 Speaker 2 in there, the one writing to him asks that since Chazal say it means tovah riyot, a good vision, so it's probably tov, tez, veis, and reish, yud, aleph, as in the word riya. Well, it just moves around the letters. That's what he suggests. But the Beis Yosef writes back, no, it's a Hebrew word. It should be written with a heh. And reish, yud, heh is also like the word riya, just missing the aleph. So instead of being reish, yud, aleph, like the word riya, seeing reish, aleph, yud, right? It's reish, yud, heh, and it's missing the aleph. So it's clear in the Beis Yosef that he actually suggests that it should be written with a heh. And this is brought down to Halacha and the Beit Heitiv and many other poskim mention this in Hilchot Gittin. There are those that suggest it should be with an aleph, but that is not the accepted position. Since the Jewish people gave it themselves the same name and it became a Jewish name with a Jewish meaning, that is indeed the meaning today in Gittin. And therefore, it should also be the meaning in Ksubis. We normally do a Ksuba the same way we do a get. The meaning is that we do it with a heh. And we have a general rule that even a name that's supposed to be with an aleph, if the person normally signs a name with a heh, we could write with a heh. Today's day and age, it's acceptable that people

08:19 Speaker 2 write a name Tvari with a heh. And even if both ideas would be equal, if a person writes an heh instead of an aleph, it's kosher. If a person writes an aleph instead of a heh, it's not kosher. So therefore, the accepted meaning became to write Tvari with a heh, which is indeed what they ruled in Eretz Yisrael today in their discussion. I'm just going to mention as we're talking about this that in Yerushalmi, it's actually spelled differently. Tvaria, tez, yud, veis instead of tez, veis, as in the name Tiberius, the name of the king. There's also a discussion in some poskim that maybe there's two different cities with the name Tvaria based on various different Gemaras. The Shalmei Shom wants to say so. Just a beautiful vort that the Ben Ish Chai says that since the Geulah comes from Tvaria, that's where the Sanhedrin will come back. So he says the explanation is that Tvaria is where Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Meir Ba'al HaNes is located in Tvaria. He says Rabbi Meir is the one that holds that the Yidden are always considered Hashem's children, whether they listen to what he says or they don't listen. Ben kach u'ben kach k'ruyim banim, whether they're oysner the Tzemach or not oysner the Tzemach, they're always considered Hashem's children. So therefore, Yidden are always, he says, always meleim mitzvot k'rimaim. The Gemara says that Tvaria is also called rekkes. Rekkes means empty, that even the people that are empty in Tvaria, that they call him, are always

09:37 Speaker 2 full of mitzvot. He says, why are they full of mitzvot? Because even when they do the wrong thing, they still loves them. And that doesn't extinguish their mitzvot. Their mitzvot are forgiven. That's the sefer that he says. Other people say because the Sanhedrin was in Tvaria and therefore the Sanhedrin had such an influence on the Yidden. A different pshat is the Rebbe Yaakov Yosef, Talmud of the Baal Shem Tov, says tovah riyot has a good vision. Vision means that you see what's going to happen. If a person sees the future, then he doesn't want to do aveiras. He wants to do mitzvot all the time. Therefore, Tvaria is a place that is full of mitzvot. And just to finish off on this point, that the Rebbe spoke about the idea of tovah riyot, the beautiful vision of Tvaria, that an aveiras Hashem means looking at a person with a positive eye. And if you look at another person with a positive eye, he looks at you with a positive eye. And that's clearly connected in the Geulah, which is obviously Yisrael. Once it's obviously Yisrael, galus came about because of the opposite of obviously Yisrael. So Tvaria is where the Geulah will start from because it's connected with having a positive eye. And that's all connected with the theme of Tvaria. It's time to move on to another topic.

10:39 Speaker 1 A brief ad and we'll be right back to the podcast. Already have Semikhah? Now it's time to fulfill the Rebbe's hora to receive Yadin Yadin certification. Join the Dayanist program with the renowned Magid Shir, Rabbi Tuvia Kasimov, and gain the knowledge and training to rule on real-life questions. Spots are limited, so don't wait. Sign up today at lamanyilmedu.com.

11:03 Speaker 2 Now, talking about Tvaria, which is the name of a city which has a beautiful history, brings me to another city, Lehavdil, outside of Eretz Yisrael, to another country, to Italy. So we have a particular association with Italy because in Chabad we have a tradition that the Alter Rebbe said that when it came, when Moshe Rabbeinu told Moshe, when Hashem told Moshe, Lakachtem lachem the mitzvah of having an Esrog, there was shluchim that was sent on one of the clouds, on a cloud that was sent to bring Esrogim from Calabria to have a Calabrian Italian Esrog. The Alter Rebbe, we have a tradition that the Alter Rebbe said davka to use a Calabrian Esrog from Italy, mitam hayedu aloy, that's the expression used in the sichos and the sefer of Managam. Tam hayedu aloy, the Alter Rebbe had a reason that is known to him. What's special about this Esrog besides for tam hayedu aloy? We have a mesoret, some sefer says that the tradition from generations is that Esrogim come from Italy. And when it comes to Chickens, birds. Well, how do you know which birds are kosher? We don't only follow the Siniman, we follow the Mesora, we follow the tradition. How do you know if this is really an Esrog? Something could look like an Esrog, smell like an Esrog, but not be an Esrog. How do you know it's the actual same min that they should tell Moshe Rabbeinu? So we have to follow our Mesora, and our Mesora is the Calabrian

12:21 Speaker 2 Esrogim. The Rebbe adds another point which was not mentioned in early generations, that Chazal tell us that when Yaakov gave a berach-- when Yitzchak gave a beracha to Esav, and he told him, "Mishmanay ha'aretz yihyeh meshavecha," that you will receive from the fats of the land, Rashi in Chumash brings, the Midrash says that he gave him a beracha that he will own Italia shel Yavan. Italy belongs to Esav. So Italy is referred to as Mishmanay Ha'aretz, the fats of the land. Says the Rebbe, if Italy is the fats of the land, when we do a mitzvah, we wanna do the most improved, positive way of doing a mitzvah. Kol chelev Hashem, a mitzvah is supposed to do-- done from giving the best. So the best place to get an Esrog is from Mishmanay Ha'aretz, where is that? Italy. So there's a nigele explanation why Dafke to use an Es-Esrog from Italy. Then there's a rumor in the name of the Rebbe Rashab that Dafke because in Italy they were not allowed to do-- in Calabria, they were not-- Yid-- Yidden were not living there, Dafke to elevate the lowest sparks. Vekashta misham et Hashem, the klipa is called sham. Elokus, godliness is called ze. We wanna take the Esrog, Dafke bring from such a place as Calabria. So these are various different explanations why Dafke in Calabria Esrog. The problem, however, and a number of people have asked this question, and sometimes Chabad Chassidim are attacked for this, besides all the other arguments that they,

13:35 Speaker 2 they have questions on the Esrog, but I'm talking about, about the principle right now. How could it be that the Amisha told Moshe, tradition from the Alter Rebbe, that Amisha told Moshe to get Esrog from Italy when there was no such thing as Italy altogether? 'Cause the Gemara says in Masechet Shabbos that when Shlomo HaMelech married, unfortunately, the daughter of Pharaoh, Gavriel, the Malach Gavriel, put a stick in the ocean, and on this stick grew the whole-- from that was produced-- was built the whole entire Italia shel Yavan, the whole entire Italy. So there was no Italy until Shlomo HaMelech married the daughter of Pharaoh, not in the time of Moshe Rabbeinu. So how can we say that Moshe Rabbeinu was told to get Esrog from Italy? It's very, very interesting because we bring this tradition. The Rebbe simultaneously, when he talks about the tradition, Dafke giving Italian Esrog, going back to the time of Moshe Rabbeinu, the Rebbe brings the word of Mishmanay Ha'aretz is Italia shel Yavan. And why is Mishmanay Ha'aretz Italia shel Yavan? So the Rebbe wrote about this both in the Reshimot and in Igrot, the Rebbe wrote-- later wrote that he found this earlier name of the Rebbe, Reb Heshel. Why does Rashi say that the fats of the land is Italy? Maybe it's something else. How do you know this in Peshat, in Chumash, that it means Italy? So the Rebbe's Peshat was that it says already in early Yesodim that-- the Rebbe says he found it later

14:49 Speaker 2 in early Yesodim, that Y-Yitzchak gave already a beracha to Yaakov. Once he gave a beracha to Yaakov that he will have everything, so now Esav came and he said, "There's no berachos left for me." So Yaakov-- Yitzchak told him, "You'll have the fats of the land." What do you mean you'll have the fats of the land? It was already all given to Yaakov. There's nothing left. Says Rashi, it's Italy. Italy wasn't around yet. Italy will only come about later. So Yaakov only received whatever's around now, that he will have ownership of that. You'll receive Italy. So the Rebbe brings that Pirush when he's talking about taking Esrog from Italy, mentioning clearly the idea that Italy was not around then, and simultaneously we're being told this is a Mesora tradition from the time of Moshe Rabbeinu. These things seem to contradict each other. So this is a serious question. By the way, there's another question, just about a gashmius digga thing, that Gemara says in Masechet Megillah talking about Italia shel Yavan, that on one side there's ocean, on one side there's mountains, on one side there's, there's, there's, um, a mechitza shel bazla. We know nowadays, we know Italy is surrounded by water from all three sides. That actually doesn't even fit in with the Matzita of Italy that we know, which is another question that's addressed in other places. But I wanna go back to the point how the people ask the question on Chabad Chassidim really should know this is not a question

16:04 Speaker 2 on Chabad Chassidim, it's a question on the Gemara itself. 'Cause there are many sources that it was Italy already in the time of Moshe Rabbeinu, starting from the Mishnah in the beginning of Kidushin that says that for Kidushin, the Machloket is what kind of coin to use, and one of the coins is a isar ha'Italki, which if you look in the Tosafot and the Orach and all of the Mefarshim, it says this is a coin from the time of Moshe Rabbeinu that we're supposed to use according to the Rosh Hashana for Kidushin. We have Mishnah in Masechet Shvi'it that talks about the money, Italki, and look in the Pirush of Rash, uh, one of the Rishonim, talks how this is from the time of Moshe. We have measurements that we use, the Mishnah says the Italki, also from the time of Moshe Rabbeinu. A-- The Torah tells that a Ben Sura DeMeira is Chayav Misa if he drinks wine. What kind of wine did Amisha tell Moshe he has to drink? Yayin ha'Italki, the Gemara tells us. But the strongest question is from the Gemara in Masechet Chol. The Gemara talks about an Ezov, and it discusses an Ezov that has a nickname, a Shem Lovaya, an Ezov Romi, a Roman type of Ezov. Clearly, the Gemara mentions that it has to be a name from the time of Matan Torah. So already in the time of Matan Torah, there was an Ezov called, if you look in the Sugya there, an Ezov called Ezov

17:12 Speaker 2 Romi. So these are all strong indications there was a Rome, there was an Italy. Rashi in Parshat Vayishlach, it already mentions the Aluf Magdil, one of the Alufi Esav, which then he says Aluf Magdil refers to Romi. Many other sources imply that the Romans, the Italians were around, was around earlier. We have in Seder HaDorot and in other Seder that Rambam brings this. It says that there was the son of Eliphaz, which is the son of Esav Tzvoi, he built Italy. So there was Italy already then. Now, I'm not gonna go through the whole discussion. Some people wanna say there's two Romes, there's one Rome. So there are a number of answers. Number one, it could be the whole Gemara is not a literal Gemara. There was a stick, it's a Ruchniusdige thing. There was a stick in the ocean which built Italy means as a result of Shlomo HaMelech marrying the daughter of Pharaoh, we have the Klipa of Romi, we have the Inna of Galut. That and some Mefarshim actually say that B'Fedush on that Gemara that it doesn't mean in the literal sense, which that Of course, there's no question if you take that approach. We-- And often we have the idea of Midrash Halukos. There's one Midrash, there's another Midrash that says differently. Another Pshat is it was in Italy, but it wasn't yet established, it wasn't yet a settlement, and later it became a settlement. The Rebbe in his letter when he talks about Mishmar Ne'eret writes that the whole

18:31 Speaker 2 area was s-swept away through an ocean based on Yerushalmi. So if that's the case, then there was a land, and the land was swept away, and there was a new land that was built again, so it really doesn't create a problem. BeChlal Pashut Pshat is we don't know that the whole entire Italy was created then. It was expanded, and it created the, the city of Rome, but we don't know that the entire Rome was developed just then. Now, this could have been in another Halachas too. If you see tall mountains, you're supposed to make a beracha oseh ma'aseh bereishit as if it was there from the beginning of creation. If Italy wasn't there in the beginning of creation, then you wouldn't make that beracha. Another discussion is there was a, a mechaber called the Ohr Yeshurah in Ein Ekol Chasam Sofer. His son was a Rebbe in Italy, and he discussed with him if he should read the Megillah in Italy, in a city which is walled, with-- has a, a walled city. Should he read it on the fourteenth of Adar or the fifteenth of Adar? And he brings because this is from the time of Yehoshua Bin Nun. He doesn't even mention the Gemara that Gabriel was the one who put a stick in the ocean and made Italy. And he brings the Rashi that we mentioned earlier, alef magdic, alef Romi, implying there was already-- Rome was already around then. And if it's a walled city from the time of Yehoshua Bin

19:41 Speaker 2 Nun, then you should read the Megillah on the fifteenth. So here, just, just to mention that all those people that are asking the questions should know all these things were already addressed earlier. Obviously, when Alter Rebbe said they went to Calabria, they went to Calabria. And how to reconcile, there's a number of different ways how to reconcile this.

19:58 Speaker 1 A brief ad, and we'll be right back to the podcast. Wanna learn Halacha in an organized, in-depth way? Machon L'man Yelmadu presents a wide range of Halacha courses with top Magidei Shiur, excellent course materials, and the option to join via Zoom from anywhere in the world. Spots fill up fast, so find the course that's right for you at lmanyelmadu.com.

20:21 Speaker 2 Let's move on to another topic altogether. I got a question this week from a Rebbe in Eretz Yisrael about a lady that was sitting shiva, and comes Shabbos, and she wants to put on makeup. And someone who's mourning is not allowed to put on makeup, but she puts on makeup every single Shabbos. Now, is she allowed on this Shabbos also? What about avelut befirhesya, mourning publicly? Now, normally, an avel is not supposed to go out of the house, so why do they need makeup? But on Shabbos, it's okay to go out of the house. Specifically because avelut befirhesya, it shouldn't look like you're mourning publicly. A person has a simcha, they're allowed to go out of the house if it's that-- if it's obvious that they're not going because of avelus. So-- And even if she wouldn't be going out of the house, a semi allowed to wear shoes on Shabbos because it's considered public mourning. Even if a lady's-- a man or a lady are staying home, they're allowed to-- and they're alone, they're allowed to wear shoes. Arguably, they should be able to wear, um, makeup as well. Now, we can make a distinction. There's different types of makeup. There's makeup that's to cover, cover up on something, or makeup which is actually to beautify. That might be a distinction generally about makeup even during the week. So as a general rule, avelut befirhesya, mourning publicly means even things that you're not gonna do something, and it'll be obvious that you're not doing

21:31 Speaker 2 it. It's not only when you do an act of mourning, when you don't do something, when you don't give Shalom to people, when you, when you don't go to shul, and it's obvious that the reason you didn't go to shul is because of avelus. When a person on Shabbos, which falls out on Tisha B'Av on the nine days, a person does not eat meat. That's mourning publicly, all those things you're not allowed to do. So if she's not gonna wear her makeup, it'll be very obvious that she's mourning. Even though there are other indications that she's not mourning because she's wearing shoes, we pasken that that's not good enough. If there's another way that indicates that she's mourning, she always puts on makeup. So there's a whole discussion about this. I don't wanna go into the lengthy halachas about this. There were some places that they had the meaning that the avel would change their place in shul on Shabbos. Other places did not have this meaning. Machlikos Mechaber and Rama. Is that called mourning publicly where you're not sitting in your normal place? Or people will say, "Okay, his place was taken," or no. S-sometimes people change places. Here, it's not only sometimes people change places, therefore it's not mourning. She always puts on makeup, and this time she's not putting on makeup. We wear Bigdei Shabbos. We're not-- We're concerned, otherwise it's considered mourning. So th-this is a very, very difficult question. And the problem here also is because the makeup has to

22:44 Speaker 2 be put on before Shabbos. So BeChlal, when people finish their shiva, when it's on a Friday, it's not so simple when they're allowed to finish their shiva because their mourning goes straight until Shabbos, or they're allowed to start a bit earlier and start getting ready for Shabbos and putting on their shoes. So a lot of people are lenient already from Licht Bentching time. Some people are lenient a bit earlier. Are we gonna allow them to put on makeup already then just because you can't put it on a Shabbos? I find it hard to accept that you should be allowed to put on the makeup. And the reason I find it hard to accept, 'cause someone can argue that they take a-- they've overgrown with hair. They wanna do in the middle of the shiva, cut their hair 'cause it looks like mourning on Shabbos. Their nails are overgrown. They wanna cut their nails in the middle of shiva 'cause it looks like they're mourning on Shabbos. Someone that shaves their beard, and people who shave their beard, which we're not gonna talk about the issue of shaving the beard, that's an independent discussion. But if they don't shave their beard, they could see they didn't shave it. Pashut doesn't look nice. So they're allowed to shave their beard in the middle of shiva, nobody would say you're allowed to do that. Obviously, there's some major distinction between certain aspects of avelus and other aspects. Wear shoes is okay. Going and putting on makeup, I, I

23:50 Speaker 2 find it hard to accept that that would be okay. We have even the poskim that allowed different things on Shabbos because of avelus befirhesya put certain limitations. Makeup, after all, is not so much as a necessity. I mean, for some people it is, but generally it's not a necessity. It's not like shoes where it's very, very obvious. Some people wear makeup, some people don't wear makeup. Some people wear makeup every day, some people don't wear every day. Some people, even if they wear every day, but some days they don't wear their makeup. So I find it hard to accept that that would be permissible, and that was the psak that the person receives. Going on to another topic altogether, this is becoming relevant to a lot of people. There are people that can only hear through a cochlear implant. And the question is, if that's considered hearing for Shofar, for Shofar, the Megillah, for Kiddush Havdalah, all kind of other things. So there are something called hearing aids. Hearing aids, halachically, according to most poskim, is not considered hearing. It's considered a brand-new sound. It's something else. Like the Rebbe explains that all those that pasken min ha'ga to telephones, and which the same with these hearing aids, that it could be yoitze Kiddush Havdalah. They did not understand how a phone works. It's actually converting the original sound to a new sound. They're not hearing the person's voice. So if it's a new artificial sound, then you can't be yoitze with that. Now the

25:02 Speaker 2 question is, this is something totally different. Today, people have what we call cochlear implants, and there's an argument that maybe it should be even better than hearing aids. A hearing aid makes a new sound coming out of a speaker. What this implant does, it actually skips all of that stimulates the person's hearing ear directly straight into the brain that they can hear more natural. The problem is that this is actually backwards, because the problem with the hearing aid is not that it made a second sound, it's because you didn't hear the original sound. With a hearing aid, at least you're hearing some sound, but now you're hearing a new sound. With, uh, this implant, there's no sound whatsoever. The microphone is taking sound waves and putting it straight-- converting into electrical signals which go to the person's nerve. So actually, a cochlear implant is actually a much bigger problem. Now, glasses, it could be considered seeing. Now we all understand that, right? Because there's an obstacle, the light doesn't come to your eye, and the glasses lets it come to your eye. But over here, what we're doing is we're replacing the whole natural process of hearing through an artificial method of hearing. It's like a person would have a camera which would be connected wire to the person's nerves, so they should be able to see through a camera. Their nerves will see and not their eyes. So that wouldn't be-- you wouldn't be able to make a bracha on seeing the moon. That

26:11 Speaker 2 wouldn't be considered seeing. A person can have a ha-- pacemaker that helps their heart, but no one's gonna say that the pacemaker makes the electricity turn into blood. An implant doesn't make an electric signal to be considered real sound. Halacha is not concerned with microscopic biology. Halacha works off plain natural experience process of sound, and the re-- hearing aid does not count halacha hearing, and certainly cochlear implants also not-- it's not a regular case of hearing. It's became a big, big topic amongst contemporary poskim, but there are many poskim that say this, and certainly according to the position that's accepted, that hearing aids are not ac-acceptable and cochlear implants wouldn't be accepted either. Let's move on. We have a tiny bit more time left to one or two other topics, depending on how much time we have over here. Someone asked me the following question. They-- Their father has a name, and he has a nickname. The nickname is not a very common, well-known nickname. Now they're in camp, and there's someone else that has the exact same nickname, which is very unusual. We have a halacha brought down in Shulchan Aruch, if somebody has a shem plo'i, a shem pele, a wondrous, unusual name that other people don't nor-normally use this name. So you're now gonna call other people using your father's name. So now he's in camp, he wants to know, can he use-- Seemingly, he shouldn't be able to call this other person in camp using a nickname which is his father's

27:37 Speaker 2 nickname because it's a very unusual name. Pashut, the Shulchan Aruch implies that you shouldn't call other people even if it's not in the presence of your father. Other mefarshim learn pshat, no. In the presence of your father, when you're talking to another person and the same name as your father and it's an unusual name, then it's a problem. So we have this machloket, which one does the Shu-Shulchan Aruch refer to? So in addition to the fact that we have this machloket, we also have the Bach that says the whole thing is not even a regular isur. It's a form of kavod. If the Rambam says, "Yi-zoher," doesn't say you're not allowed to, it's a, a menshleche thing, kavod thing, respectful thing. Don't call other people with the name of your father if it's an unusual name. So now we have, first of all, it's a machloket if it applies, if it's not in the presence of the father. Second of all, it could even be it's not an isur altogether. The Dvar Sha'ul says it's only in the presence of the f-person's father, and this position of the Dvar Sha'ul is brought in many, many poskim. We're not talking about something which is a isur De'oraita, because although it is a mitzvah of kibbud av va'em, but this is not something which is mamash not giving kavod to father and mother. It just looks like the person's degrading the kavod of the father and mother. So since this is a, it's a derabanan, and it's

28:51 Speaker 2 a sfeik sfeika, there's a number of doubts, but b'klal, this whole idea is not even brought in the Gemara. So there are poskim that say that b'klal, that according to other shitas, it's not an isur to begin with. Even according to the Rambam that does bring this, some people say it's not a problem if it's not in front of him. Any in front of him, it could be it's only just an extra kavod kinda thing. Especially when it's noticeable that you're talking about someone else, you're not talking about your father, that gives much more reason to be lenient. The Rambam's lashon is that it's a name that everybody who hears this name knows you're talking about him. So that question leads us to a question, so what kind of name are we talking about? Are we talking about a name which is just not a common name, or it has to be a very, very rare name? So there's another element of leniency when we're not talking about something which is extremely rare, because if it's extremely rare, it makes it much more serious. On top of all of that, we have a kol that's brought down in K'lei Yikar that probably the father is mechil. So if the father is mechil, it wouldn't be a problem to begin with. So yeah, it's a good idea to be stringent, but there's certainly room for leniency in this case as well. Okay, B'suder Savas.

30:07 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.