Miscarriage: when does the neshama enter?

00:00 Speaker 1 Welcome to the Halacha Podcast, Lemaan Yishmeu, with Harav Yosef Yeshaya Brown, Maharad da 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.

00:22 Speaker 2 The first question is a question that we've been receiving a lot lately about electric scooters or electric bikes. Parents are buying electric scooters and bikes for their young children, allowing them to have an electric scooter. Is that okay that little children are operating such things? Unfortunately, quite a few times the children have hurt someone. Are the parents liable? Is it okay to ride an electric scooter on the sidewalk? Over here in New York, this is illegal. It endangers people. Quite a few incidents which have come to our attention of people that were seriously hurt, injured via electric scooters. So the concept of these e-bikes, e-scooters, and their safety is what we want to discuss today. So of course, it's an obligation of parent to make sure that these electric scooters are not going to create a unreasonable risk. Children are sometimes not sufficiently mature, not responsible or capable of operating such a vehicle safely, and therefore would be not proper for such children to use it. Different states have different laws, and it's not our place to make an assessment of what the right age exactly for a child to be able to operate such a thing, but it obviously has to be something which is legal and 100% safe. Now, not every time a child does something does it make the parent automatically liable. If the parents are negligent, sometimes there could be grounds that the parents would be responsible. Each case has to be assessed separately. The child's age, the type of vehicle,

02:07 Speaker 2 how it was used, was it foreseeable that there will be harm? And if there was harm or injury, damage, then this is something that Dayanim would have to look at. The bottom line is that scooters and e-bikes are not toys. They're vehicles that could cause significant injury. Quite a few states are adopting laws that you need to get a license and register, and this would make a lot of sense. To ride an electric scooter on the sidewalk is against the law over here in New York. It's a hazard, and of course, it's the rider's responsibility. Now, the sources for this topic, and talking about that, I will mention that in a lot of the questions that we discuss, you can see the sources on the Ask the Rav website. So we have a Halacha that a So we see this concept over here that there's a difference between a gecheles and a sheleves, a flame versus a coal. When we talk about a, a e-scooter, it's not exactly like a shir, it's not exactly like a gecheles, it's not exactly like a flame. It's something in between. It's an object. And when you ride on it, it could later cause injury. It's not a direct injury, but either way, there's a concept of chayav bedin hashamayim. When somebody gives over to a child something that they could use later to cause injury, they could be on a heavenly account in a heavenly court, which is an absolute obligation, and the person could be responsible. And

06:52 Speaker 2 of course, we have the rules of din d'malchusa dinah, the law of the land is a law. This doesn't only apply to taxes, it applies according to many pesakim, to laws of safety associated with, with, um, transportation laws, vehicle laws, how to cross the streets, all those things which are there for s- to protect people from sakanas nefashos, which are not just a physical or financial interest of the government. To protect people is all included in this din d'malchusa dinah, the law of the land is a law. So if somebody would be riding on the sidewalk, going against the law and causes damage, a person is responsible for their damage. Adam muad la'olam, a person is responsible for whatever they do, whether it's deliberate, but even if it was accidental, certainly when there's a form of negligence.

07:40 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 horaah to receive Yadin Yadin certification. Join the Dayyanim program with the renowned Maggid Shiur, 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 lemanyilmadu.com.

08:04 Speaker 2 Let's move on to a different topic. Someone asked me the following question. They were just told that they had a missed miscarriage, and they really wanna know, was that a neshamah that came to this world? At what stage does the neshamah come to this world? And once the neshamah comes to this world, it can merit Olam Haba, or if, um, it was a miss, then there was never a neshamah there. Wh-when does this happen? So the truth is, there's a machloket in the Gemara Sanhedrin, katan me'eil mai bo lo'olam haba, at what chi-- stage has a child reached a level that it could be zocheh to Olam Haba. He doesn't have to be bar mitzvah to have Olam Haba, could have it even as a child. There's, uh, multiple opinions. One of the opinions in the Gemara is mishash u'nizra, from when the seed is implanted. The Moshe Feisch has a teshuva where he writes to someone, talking about a miscarriage, that this opinion in the Gemara is the Halakha. It's interesting that he writes about something which is purely aggadic in nature. It's not a Halakha matter. It's discussing philosophy, that we have a klal that often we say that Halakha could only be things that are practical for us. Knowing what happens in the higher worlds, we don't normally follow the regular rules of Halakha, but sometimes we have the rules of Halakha applying to that too. Rabbi Moshe says that because the last opinion in the Gemara, the more, the, the more--

09:24 Speaker 2 the latter, the one that was from a most recent generation, Ravina said, "Mishash u'nizra," when the seed is implanted, that becomes the actual Halakha. The problem, of course, with this is that in Shulchan Aruch this topic is actually brought up. Where does it come into Shulchan Aruch, the idea of when a child reaches Olam Haba? So in Siman Kuf-Chaf Dalet, when it goes through the order of Chazarat Hashatz, when a chazan davens loud and people have to answer amen, the Rama, the Alter Rebbe bring that a child, we should train our children, bring them to shul, they should be in shul, pay attention, and answer amen, 'cause a child could enter Olam Haba from the first time when he answers amen. So clearly, the Halakha follows the position that it's not from when the seed was implanted, not from when he was born, not from his bris. It's only when he's able to answer amen. Interestingly, the Rama brings this, and on the side of the Rama, it says kol bo. Although it's really in the Gemara, as mentioned earlier, there's multiple opinions in the Gemara. It could be that he brings the kol bo 'cause he wants to say that the kol bo, which is the addition, brought this down as a Halakha. It's not just a Gemara with different opinions. This is the Halakha. So here we see the Halakha is when he answers amen. Then we have an Alter Rebbe. The Alter Rebbe writes in his Maadua Tin Yona. The Alter Rebbe

10:37 Speaker 2 wrote a Shulchan Aruch twice. He st- he started rewriting the entire Shulchan Aruch, but we only have the first four chapters based more on Kabbalah, less on Halakha. In the second version of the Shulchan Aruch, the Alter Rebbe talks about in-- about when to wa-- start washing negel vasser for our kids. The Alter Rebbe says there that the-- really one has to be careful only once the child reaches the age of maturity, the age of Chinuch. But if somebody's careful from when the child had a bris, talking about a boy, kadosh sheyomo lo, he's considered holy. And he adds a line, and he says that chilulas knisas nefesh, the beginning of the entry of the neshamah into the body is when he has a bris. As the Rebbe explains it, this Alter Rebbe is consistent with the opinion that it's from the time of a bris. So now we have the time of the bris in one place in Shulchan Aruch in terms of negel vasser. In other words, there's one point of entry by the bris, and there's a later point of entry when he reaches the age of Chinuch. And then we have another in the Shulchan Aruch which is a time when he answers amen, but none of them bring the opinion that it's from when the seed is implanted. So the truth is, the Rebbe wrote about this in several places, that all the various different opinions in Gemara are not a disagreement. They talk about different levels of Olam Haba.

11:53 Speaker 2 There's a lower level of Olam Haba, there's a higher level of Olam Haba. So already on the level when the seed is implanted, there's already some level of Olam Haba. And we can reinforce this position based on the fact that elsewhere in Igrot Kodesh, the Rebbe connects this with the idea of pikuach nefesh. We protect even a little child's life- The halachah is that one of the opinions why we're allowed to even be mechallel Shabbos, desecrate Shabbos to save someone's life, that it's better to desecrate one Shabbos than in order that a person should keep many Shabbosim. But what if the person doesn't even have the chiyuv of mitzvah? So I'm desecrating Shabbos in order he should, he should keep many Shabbosim. At this stage, he doesn't even have a ch-- a mitzvah of chinuch-- uh, a mitzvah of Shabbos. Yeah, but there's a concept of chinuch. So the father at this stage has the obligation of educating him. Uh, it's a child's mitzvah that the father is, so to speak, doing for him by educating him. So that's how the Rebbe explains the idea of pikuach nefesh, that we save lives even of little children. Now, according to halachah, we save lives. We s-- we mechallel Shabbos even to save the life of a fetus, even a fetus under forty days. So clearly, already at an earlier stage, this child is already considered w-- deserving of Olam Haba, this fetus, because this is connected in that letter of the Rebbe with the idea of

13:09 Speaker 2 what's the stage when a child comes to Olam Haba. So if a woman had a miscarriage, she should know that it is already on some level a neshamah in this world which will merit Olam Haba. On a different topic altogether, I was asked the following question. There's a issur of ein na'as devarim. There's ein na'as mamon and ein na'as devarim. You're not allowed to cheat people financially, charge them, overcharge them a higher price. There's a whole set of halachas about this. And then there's a din of ein na'as devarim, tease people verbally. They're both called ein na'ah, although they really mean two different things. And the Torah repeats twice, Lo sotu ishes amito. One lo sotu is to overcharge and bother people, so to speak, financially, and one is to verbally bother people, tease people. The issur of ein na'as devarim, it's actually a lo sas in the Torah. And the question asked was, ein na'as devarim means verbally hurtful speech, verbally bothering someone. What about ignoring someone? Someone talks to you, you just ignore them. Are you violating the issur of ein na'as devarim? So as we normally do, I will go through the actual answer, then talk about the sources and the references. Normally, ein na'as devarim indeed is commonly associated with devarim. Devarim means words, hurtful speech. But the idea, the principle behind it, the idea of ein na'as devarim is not to cause emotional pain to another person. So if somebody is deliberately ignoring someone, and he's intending to hurt him,

14:41 Speaker 2 to humiliate him, to reject him, that obviously would fall under the same category of ein na'as devarim. There's a Gemara that tells us that if somebody goes and greets another person, and the person who received the greeting does not re-return the greeting, then the pasuk, gezelah sa'ani v'vateichem, the person who's not returning the greeting is considered a gazlan, is considered stealing. Withholding a response to cause someone else pain is a form of theft, but more than-- it actually fits into the idea of ein na'as devarim, which the idea of ein na'as devarim is emotional harm. If the person is distracted, he can't speak right now, he doesn't want a confrontation, he has a good reason why he's ignoring, but it's not to hurt the other person, obviously it's not ein na'as devarim. The qu-- but if it's intended or expected to cause pain, and there's no legitimate justification, that would be ein na'as devarim. Now, the question is, where do we get this from? All the cases in the Gemara, in Shulchan Aruch and Poskim of ein na'as devarim are devarim, with words. So maybe it might not fit in with the spirit-- with Ahavas Yisrael. There's a mitzvah of ahav l'reacha kamocha, only do to someone else what you want to be done to you. I understand, but who says it's actually violating ein na'as devarim? So indeed, there are Poskim that wanted to say, there's a sefer called Shulchan HaMelech from hundreds of years ago, one of the chakhamim of Sefard in Izmir.

16:04 Speaker 2 There's the Chassdei David, a pirush of David pardon, on Tosefta. They wanna say the issur is only bedibur. Bedibur, not beshtika. There's one case in the Gemara from all the different cases where it says, al yitle einav b'mekach ve'ein le'damim. Don't put your eyes, look at a purchase when you don't even have money to pay for it, implying that just the very fact that you went and looked to buy something, but you don't-- can't even afford it, is a form of ein na'as devarim. And now they were talking about looking, not about talking. So it seems to imply that it could be a issue of ein na'as devarim even without talking. So these Poskim say, no, if you actually tell the person, and it brings various proofs that it means you actually, you tell them that you wanna buy it, it's the, it's the w-words that you're using. Problem is that this goes against quite a few Rishonim. The ReIM, the Rishon, writes clearly the very fact that you're looking is a issur of ein na'as devarim. You're looking at the item to buy it without even saying words. The Ben Yoina has a sefer called the Geres HaTeshuvah, and he writes over there, the issur of ein na'as devarim is bedibur o'bama'aseh, saying or doing. So one of-- indeed, one of the Poskim, the Chakri Lev, another Sefardi posek also from Izmir, writes that the fact is most of the time ein na'ah happens through words. Chazal used the term ein na'as devarim, but

17:32 Speaker 2 it didn't mean exactly devarim. We have a principle, gibor hakaseh b'eiver, we always talk about what's common. The common case is the words, therefore they speak about ein na'as devarim. The case that he's talking about is actually more than what we were talking about till now. We were talking about saying something or looking at something. So it's words or action. What about inaction? I haven't even done an act. I just ignored the guy without doing anything. So the case that the Chakri Lev is talking about is actually someone doesn't do anything. He's just not making a mi sheberach for someone. And the very fact that he doesn't make a mi sheberach for someone with the intention, of course, to hurt him by not making mi sheberach says the Chakri Lev, that is a form of ein na'as devarim. The Chachaleiv had a grandchild called the Ginzei Chaim, Rav Chaim Palagi. We've quoted him several times because we-- recently it was discovered that the Rebbe Rashab wrote some notes on one of the Sefer of Rav Chaim Palagi. Either way, the Rav Chaim Palagi in the Sefer Ginzei Chaim proves the point of his grandfather that even if a lack of action, inaction could be a form of Oneg Kedoshim. He brings that we have from Rabbeinu Gershom Ha-Gelil going back that far, and quite a few The Shulchan Aruch, the Aruch HaShulchan, the Sefer HaManner. Quite of them mention that if there's a Kohen, a Kohen that did the wrong thing, and he became pasul

19:03 Speaker 2 to be a Kohen, but then later he did teshuva, and now we're not giving him a chance to get an Aliyah to the Torah or to go and duchan over below his own, he violates this Oneg Kedoshim. That's a pretty clear evidence that it's even when you're not doing anything. Now, you could argue that he's talking about that you verbally stop him, but it doesn't say that there. It just says that you don't give him an Aliyah to the Torah. The duchaning, I could say it maybe means he's standing there and blocking him, doing an act. But Aliyah to Torah normally requires me to call someone up, the gabbai to call someone up. In this case, I'm not calling him up. So pretty clear that it's even, even by not doing anything. Rav Chaim Palagi himself in another Sefer called Torchat Chaim writes, "If you get a letter and you don't respond to the letter," be-- again, this is-- we're not talking about the fact you have to respond to every single letter, but it is a concept of humiliating, of hurting someone. That's a form of Oneg Kedoshim. Um, Sefer Skernah, it shouldn't be confused. There are two Skernah. There's a much earlier Skernah and a later Skernah. Now I'm talking about the earlier ancient Sephardi Skernah, sometimes referred to as Skernah Ha-Sephardi. Says you give someone an Aliyah, and you don't mention in the Aliyah his father's name. Again, because the father was a rasha who did teshuva, but you don't mention him

20:24 Speaker 2 because he was a rasha. That's a form of Oneg Kedoshim. Now, there's some contemporaries that wanna really twist all of these arguments and say each one give a dre that it's not really accurate. It means this, it means that. But the simple implication seems to imply that yes, Oneg Kedoshim applies even when it's done Bemaase, even in action, and even when it's not Bedibur or Bemaase, it's Beshtika, doing nothing, intending to cause someone harm and causing them-- uh, sorry, um, to insult or offend someone, and doing so with-- even without doing an action is a problem as well.

21:10 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 Yilmedu presents a wide range of Halacha courses with top Maggidei 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 lmanyilmedu.com.

21:34 Speaker 2 To-- Back to Hilchot Shabbat. We've addressed over the last few weeks various different issues in cooking and Hilchot Shabbat. So I received the following question where someone asked, "Do you need a blech for a Sterno?" Person sets up the Sterno, these fuel cans, gel cans, set them up before Shabbat, and there's food on it. They do this a lot of times at simchas. I've just been for Shabbat in a camp where Sef-- Sephardim have done it this way. And the Halacha is that the food is supposed to be at least ideally fully cooked, but at least half cooked before Shabbat. You're not allowed to put food down on a fire before Shabbat if it's not half cooked because you might come and stoke the coals. Unless it's covered, the fire, the source of flame is covered, that's the typical blech that we normally have. So the question is if a Sterno needs a blech. So we've dealt with this question in the past on the website, and we wrote simply that it needs a blech. But this individual came and argued that he went on AI, and he checked, and he discovered that it's impossible to change the size of a flame on a Sterno. And he attached the drasha that he received from AI that it's not practical and extremely dangerous, and the only way to make the food more hot is by lighting a new Sterno. Well, that's ridiculous to argue that a person might go on Shabbat and light a new Sterno,

23:08 Speaker 2 and therefore you'll need to have a blech, a covering on the fire. Why would that be different, he argued, from a hot plate? So a hot plate is-- There's different types of hot plates, but many people have these Shabbat hot plates. A lot of them don't have-- There's no way you can actually raise the fire. Some of them have a volume, a knob, which can raise the fire higher and lower, but quite a few don't have that. And the accepted position is that a hot plate that you can't make higher or lower doesn't need a blech. So his argument was this should be exactly the same as a hot plate and really shouldn't need a blech on Shabbat. So the answer is, yes, you do need one. And I don't know-- This-- We're talking about how to rely-- We spoke in the past about relying on AI and Halacha. Sometimes it's a problem even to rely in mitziut, in gashmiut. The reality is it's very possible and actually very simple to increase the flame on a Sterno can. AI doesn't like to give that answer because they don't like to share things that are not safe, and they'll, they'll really go around in circles without telling you how you could do this. It's pretty obvious. There's-- They come often with a lid, and you could just uncover the lid, open it wider, let more, more air in, which actually makes the flame go up. You can play around with the gel, scrape it, stir it.

24:41 Speaker 2 You can add fuel to it. This is-- It's, it's, it's basic physics. This is not something hard. We have an open pool of flammable gel, and it's the same as any type of fuel that you have that you can make it larger. It's just extremely risky and extremely unsafe. So therefore, there's no reason why you wouldn't need a blech. Now, you could argue maybe it's not coals. Um, the same question we could ask about all our fires. We're not stoking the coals. In the olden days, there was coals, and we had to cover the coalsor with co-- they used to cover it with ashes. Nowadays, it's about a knob on our stove, and the only thing we can do is make it higher. And it's not exactly the same. So the first similar source to our modern-day ovens we have-- or actually even closer to the Sternos is the Shaalos of Chutz La'Aretz, Pardon Me This, which a shadow of chillul brings down that a person has a cup of spirit, uh, spirits, and that's how he has a flame. And when you mix the spirits, you mix the liquid, the flame becomes more. And he says that's indeed the whole issue of Shemeechata B'cholam. So that's the closest to our Sterno cans with gel, where you could actually mix the gel, which again is not safe. One of the most more recent places, the Marashag asks if there's a problem not only with coals but also with spirits, how come in Halakha it

26:07 Speaker 2 says the difference if it was made with straw, if the, the stove was heated up with straw, which they used to use in the olden days, or with wood? That straw, there's no concern it's gonna stoke the coals. Why not? You could just mix it. Even though there's no real obvious coals, you could just mix it and move it around. The Marashag asks this question, but the Marashag, Chas V'shalom, would not argue in the Pardon Me This, and he says there's still the issue of Shemeechata B'cholam applies to the spirits too. Quite a few contemporaries have pointed out that we have one of the Rishonim already, the Tzed L'Derech, who writes that the issue of Shemeechata B'cholam is Shemeechata or Shemeyarbe. You might add more coals. So the idea that people argue that today, I'm-- well, I'm, I'm actually turning the knob higher, I'm not stoking the coals. That's like bringing in a new flame. Well, the Tzed L'Derech says that is the issue. When somebody uses straw, it's very, very different. If you use straw, there's no coals. If there's no coals, we're not worried you're gonna bring more coals. When he uses wood, and there is coals, Gefas Ve'etzem, so a word, he might add more coals. Also, when you use straw, you chitzila wanna have a low flame. You-- The very fact that you use straw. So quite a few of the Rishonim say that. The-there's another concern. You might fan the flame. You might even blow on it. I don't know

27:25 Speaker 2 why Chazal did not mention Shemeeinapeach. They wrote Shemeechata B'cholam. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein interestingly says a massive Chiddush that the whole issue was maybe gonna blow on it, not you're gonna stoke with your hands 'cause no one would do that on Shabbos, do an action. They were concerned you're gonna blow on it. It's very difficult to understand what he says. It actually says Shemeechata. It doesn't say Shemeeinapeach. Indeed, the translation of Yechata comes from the word Machah. It means actually physically stoking, using a pan to stoke it. This is what it says in the Shulchan Aruch. It translates the word Yechata. The Alter Rebbe writes, clearly, Yechata means Bemachah, using a pan, something to actually physically stoke the coals. I don't know why he says they were concerned it's gonna blow the fire. Um, the reason why they didn't write they're gonna blow the fire probably 'cause the coals are all the way on the bottom, and you don't blow it. You actually put a stick or something to it. But it could be that it is included in the idea. There's also the idea of, of fanning the flame. I'm not sure about that point. Regarding the point of the hot plate, that is indeed the consensus of most Poskim, that something that you can make go higher and lower depends what because, for example, if you turn the flame to the highest, you can't make it higher either, and still many Poskim, including Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, write, Lo Plug, we don't make a distinction.

28:41 Speaker 2 There's a issue on leaving something on the fire, even if you turn it up to the highest. But we don't say a blanket Lo Plug that is never a distinction. Something that you can't make higher or lower, it just, just has one level constantly, that Poskim accept is not an issue. I wanna mention another question that I received, which is an interesting point. A child is becoming Bar Mitzvah on a Shabbos, and they're davening early Shabbos. Can he make Kiddush in the early Shabbos, or that won't work for him 'cause when Shabbos comes, he'll be Bar Mitzvah, and now the Kiddush he wants to be Yotzer was a Kiddush that he made when he was a child. Sounds like a funny topic, but there's quite a few Poskim mentioned very clearly this is a problem. He should really wait until it becomes definitely night to make Kiddush. Maariv, there's a clear din in Shulchan Aruch and Rama and Ralbach, they talk about the thing about coming Bar Mitzvah by night to daven Maariv for the Amud. And all they talk about is whether they let him daven Maariv for the Amud and say Berchu on behalf of all the other people and be Motzi all the people. Clearly, davening Maariv themselves is not a problem. But-- And Krishna, anyhow, you can't say Krishna before it's night. You have to say again the Shema. But our question is about Kiddush. We can't bring proof from the din of Maariv. Maariv is only a Derabanan. And a

30:00 Speaker 2 child's Chiyuv is Derabanan, is rabbinical. Kiddush is a mitzvah Min HaTorah. So the Kiddush that he said earlier, davenning is also a form of Kiddush. But that he wouldn't fulfill the mitzvah Min HaTorah if he said it when it was not yet night. He turned Bar Mitzvah only at night. Shabbos came in early, but he's only became Bar Mitzvah at night. And indeed, he actually is supposed to wait until it becomes certainly night for a Kiddush. If he made Kiddush by day, he shouldn't make again Kiddush by night. He should hear Kiddush from someone else. And finally, one more last question for this year. There are these travel tallis bags. These travel tallis bags you have-- it's very tiny, and there's a pair of Tefillin right on top of it, a tallis, or two pairs of Tefillin, on top of it a tallis. The old-fashioned tallis bags used to have Tefillin, and in front, not on top, in front of it was the tallis. Is there an issue of putting the tallis on top of the Tefillin? Some say it's a problem. The common custom, however, is that it's not a problem. You're allowed to put the tallis on top of the Tefillin if there's no other place The reason why it would be a problem, because the tefillin is a much whole-- higher level of kedusha. The Sefer Shaar Metzius writes, "I don't know why people are lenient about this. Why is it okay to put tallit on top of tefillin? Tallit is a

31:16 Speaker 2 low level of kedusha." So some people say if you're doing it as a protection for the tefillin, it's okay. You're not supposed to put tefillin on top of tallit. That says clearly in Shulchan Aruch because you might take out a tefillin first, and we put on tallit first. But that doesn't mean you should put a tallit on the tefillin. So the Shaar Metzius said it was a problem, but it's not clear what he's talking about. He could be talking about tallit and tefillin without a-- Our tefillin comes in a tefillin bag, so it's not tallit directly on tefillin. The, the Munkatcher Rebbe in his Sefer Ha'is Chaim, and others as well, brings from his grandfather, the Bnei Yisaskar, that he said-- wrote a comment on this in his handwriting, "I don't know what could be wrong putting something on top of tefillin that actually protects them." It seems from his language, it doesn't make a difference if you put it as a protection or you didn't. It is a protection. That's the fact. It is a protection. But if we look in the source of the din of putting the tallit on tefillin, that not to put the tefillin on top of the tallit, the Rama in Darkei Moshe Ha'aruch writes, "Don't put the tefillin on the tallit. Be careful. Put the tallit al ha-tefillin," clearly implying that that's how you're supposed to do it. You put the tallit on top, so you should see the tallit first. You could say al does not mean

32:26 Speaker 2 on top. It means nearby. It means in front of it. But the, the Sechemot in a Sefer Sha'ar HaTshuva early brings-- He doesn't bring the Ra-Rama, interestingly, he brings the Chayei Adam, that the Chayei Adam says to put it al ha-tefillin, and he says that Chayei Adam was talking about the tefillin has a separate bag. So there's no evidence when it says you could put the tallit al ha-tefillin because maybe it's talking about tefillin as a second-- a separate bag. He then writes that he saw that there's hagahos on Sefer Reuv Dagan, probably from the Chida. It's actually probably not from the Chida because Reuv Dagan was printed many years after the Chida passed away. And the Chida writes a comment on the Reuv Dagan that in all cases, you shouldn't-- the Chida or whoever it was, you shouldn't put a tallit on top of tefillin whether it is a separate bag or not a separate bag. So the custom is people are lenient. Let's understand why. So there's a few reasons why we-- Melamed Chassidus in the current travel bags. First of all, we mentioned a lot of people don't know about this whole problem to begin with putting tallit on tefillin, especially tefillin that's in a, in its own bag, especially is there to protect it. In this case, the tallit is protecting the tefillin when you're traveling with it. It's an extra layer of protection. Our tefillin is found in a box and on top of that, a bag. It's not found

33:53 Speaker 2 tefillin in a bag. Especially we're not trying to do it to show one thing is more respectful than the other. It's just the easy, most convenient way. They set it up in such a way that it's convenient that a tallit should be on top, and that's the most respectful way. If you're gonna move things around, it'll be much more harder to watch your tallit and tefillin clothes more tircha. It's almost impossible to do things any other way because if you'll do-- move things another way in such a small bag, then the tefillin will be first. You might put on the tefillin be-- meet the tefillin before you meet the tallit, which you're supposed to set it up in a way that tallit is before your tefillin. Even in the big tallit bags that they put the, not the tallit on the tefillin, the regular old-fashioned ones, and they put a tallit first be-- on one place and further down there's a tefillin, not on top of the tefillin, but when you pick up the tallit bag and when you hold it standing and you put it into a shelf, the tallit ends up being on top of the tefillin. Nobody seems to be worried about that, obviously because it's derech kovod. So there's no real problem with tallit on top of tefillin unless it's done bask in a way to put it on top. But if it's done with derech kovod, it doesn't seem to me to be a problem. Okay, that's the end of

34:58 Speaker 2 tonight. We'll see you again next time.

35:02 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.