May I Use a Lemon Squeezer on Shabbos?

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

00:21 Speaker 2 The following question was posed. We have a Halacha in Shulchan Aruch about not saying Shalom, not greeting someone in the morning, which could be pretty difficult and awkward and not polite sometimes. What are the parameters of this Halacha? The Halacha is that you're not gonna go to your friend's house, specifically mashkim lepischo, magdim lepesach averai, going to your friend's house in the morning in order to wish him good morning. And clearly brought down, it makes no difference if you use the word Shalom or you say tzafri demare tav, which means good morning. If you're meeting your friend in shul, and then it's perfectly fine to tell him good morning after you said already B'richas Hashachar. So some people have the minhag that they say B'richas Hashachar, the brachos, the morning brachos in shul. That's where it could become difficult. It is the Chabad minhag as it is for multiple reasons that we say the B'richas Hashachar right away in the morning at home. So once we said already B'richas Hashachar, it's not a big deal if you're seeing him in shul and saying good morning, that's perfectly fine. Even before saying brachos, if you make a variation in the way you wish him, and you don't u-use the normal expression of wishing him, then it's perfectly fine as long as you don't say the word Shalom. So let's, let's examine this Halacha in detail. The reason why it's okay when you tell him tzafri demare tav, good morning, well, that's, that's not the normal way

01:49 Speaker 2 of talking. The issue, of course, is, which poskim already have addressed, that nowadays, good morning is a very normal way how to wish people when you see them in the morning. And if the whole idea is because you wanna make a shinui, a variation, so what have we accomplished? So some people-- Actually, you'll notice there are some people that have this thing in the morning when they see people, they don't tell them good morning or gute morgen, and they actually use the Aramaic tzafri demare tav. For some reason, they think if you say it in Aramaic, it's better, which makes sense because they're making some type of variation. But there could be another justification for saying good morning because the Rabbeinu Manoach explains that when you say the words tzafri demare tav, which means good morning, it's very different than Shalom. You don't need a bendan, you don't need to give a hand. It's different than greeting Shalom. So that itself is a, is a variation. Shalom is you're asking people how they are. When you say tzafri demare, you're wishing him. The very fact that you're not asking him how he's doing, you're wishing him, is a form of variations. Even if you normally would say good morning, it wouldn't be a problem either. Certainly, if a person said already brachos, once brachos has been said, it's already-- the severity is not-- The severity is less severe, I was about to say. It's not as serious. It's actually only in of a minhag. We

03:08 Speaker 2 also have the position which is not mainstream, but the Ish El Avraham, talmid of the Ba'er Heitev wants to say that if you don't say who you're wishing, it's to begin with not a problem. When you say tzafri demare tav, which you're not gonna say that when you're going to a person's house, is because you say the morning of the master. But if you just say good morning per se, it's not a problem. So that's-- That could be included. You could also say it quickly, not in a normal way. It's a form of a shinui. But b'chalal, if you normally say hello, you say hi. Sometimes you say good morning, that itself could be a form of a variation. There is a Zohar that's very, very stringent about not greeting people before davening, but there's no reason to assume that the Zohar is more strict than the Shulchan Aruch in this regard. So if it's already after brachos, it's more lenient according to the Zohar, too. And especially could very well be that the Zohar is only talking about in those days when they greeted using Hashem's name. We're talking about something over here which is kavod habriyot, being respectful to people. There's a mitzvah to greet people. Having magdim shalom kol Adam is even an in to greet even non-Jews. So being extra machmir in this case and perhaps being over, um, the opposite of Ahavas Yisrael wouldn't make sense. Indeed, we find the Kav HaYashar, early Musar Sefer says that we muhrach, we

04:25 Speaker 2 have no choice. We have to greet people before davening. What is he trying to say? Of course, we do it in a-- he's talking about in a permissible way, but we try to do it as quick as possible and not make a big issue out of it. So the question I was asked in this context was, what about calling someone? We have a Halacha that when you're going to someone's house, that's very, very different. So if you're calling someone, is that the same as going to someone's house? So it really depends. Are you calling him in order to say hi? That would be the same as going to his house. But if you're calling him for something else, and as you're calling him, you're greeting him, it's the same as meeting a person in the street. In other words, we have two ways of greeting people: when we meet them, or we go over to their house and greet them. When you call someone, if you're calling him for a particular purpose, not for greeting them, and once you call him, you greet them, that's like meeting them in the street. If you're calling him specifically to say hi and see how they're doing, that's the same as mashkim lepischo, magdim lepesach averai. And the proof that this is the case is because the poskim bring-- The Avedraham already brings this. It's not so straightforward, but quite a few poskim say that even if you're going to his house, but you're going for a certain

05:35 Speaker 2 reason, not to greet him would be okay. So the same thing would be if you're calling a person not to greet him, it also would be okay. If you're calling him specifically to greet him, then we could-- It's, it's-- Then we could argue there could be a problem, and even then, it's not exactly the same as going to someone's house. Imagine you're standing in your house and you're screaming to someone in a different house and screaming and saying Shalom, hello to him. Which is technically what we're doing when we're using the phone. I wanna just mention over here that we do find, um, a, arizal, Rab Ham Vital, more correctly, a Talmud of the Arizal that writes that the whole Isar is only if you say Shalom Bekol Ram. Massive Chidesh, the Rebbe in, in one of his Haris on the Friediger Rebbe's letters points this out. He writes it in a very shorthand writing, but that's what he's pretty much saying. This is something which could also-- It's not mainstream Halacha, but could also be combined to, to-- as another lenient factor. So to summarize, going to someone's house is very severe. You can't even say good morning. Meeting him or calling-- or going to his house for something else, or calling him for something else, calling him for something that's even better than meeting, going to his house for something else, you could greet him once you, once you call him already for something else. But if you're calling specifically to say hi,

07:04 Speaker 2 then it would be a problem. And all these things after Birkat Hashachar, it's much more lenient. I'm going to move on to another topic altogether. A question that I received from a Rav in Israel, a Man Chabad Rav, about a common custom in other circles. When it comes to Levaya, in Chabad, the custom is that we do not eulogize by a Levaya. We do not say Hespedim. And the reason for that is, one of the reasons, 'cause once you start saying, and if you say the wrong thing, that becomes a problem. You're not supposed to overdo and say too much positive about the person that passed away if it's not accurate, because that's not healthy for his neshamah. So we rather just cut it out completely not to go into the problem with that. The Rebbe mentioned at the time when the previous Rebbe, the Friediger Rebbe, was nostalgic, when he passed away, the Rebbe said that I'm bothered by this idea that a Gemara says that the first three days you're supposed to cry, and throughout the seven days you're supposed to eulogize. But our custom is we don't eulogize. If instead I'll say stories. So the Rebbe didn't eulogize. We'd rather said stories. What was the question I received? That there's certain days in the year when there's an Isur, you're not allowed to give Hespedim, like Chol Hamoed, Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah, Purim. So if anybody's been ever to a Levaya, and we shouldn't have to go to such Levayas, you'll find that

08:21 Speaker 2 people say, "You're not allowed to give a Hesped. I'll just say some words of inspiration." So they sometimes smartly, cleverly get out of the problem. They don't eulogize. They say Divrei Etsoros. Now we have to questionable that itself. Is that called eulogizing? Is it a play on words? But there's a much more bigger problem, and that is that there's a Din in Shulchan Aruch that says on Halachas Chol Hamoed, they're not allowed to keep the bed, the Mita, the Aran, the coffin of the person who passed away in the street on Chol Hamoed because they might come to eulogize him. So if you're not allowed to put the coffin in a place where they normally eulogize, what does it help you standing there? People are standing in the-- at the Beis HaChoim, or they're standing in the chapel, and someone is giving a speech, an inspirational speech, and they do that in many circles. And in Chabad too sometimes where there's-- if it's not in a Chabad Kehillah, in a Chabad house, they need to say some words of inspiration, and this is an opportunity where, where, where you can inspire people to tell you their mitzvahs. But it's a day where you're not allowed to give a Hesped, so that you're not allowed to even keep the Aran there because you might come to give the Hesped. So what would be the Ptor for that? And so, so many people are lenient about that was the question that was asked. So there's a few

09:35 Speaker 2 approaches to this question. Well, first we'll start with the general idea. Is Divrei Etsoros okay? We have-- Is that different than Hesped? So we have a Magen Avram that actually says on Halachas Chol Hamoed that you shouldn't speak Pas-- Beshvach Lashon Meis. You shouldn't talk praises about the Meis because that brings you to give a Hesped, to eulogize. So those who are saying Divrei Etsoros have to be very careful. It's a very fine line. Is it Divrei Etsoros, words of inspiration, or they're talking positively, praise about the Niftar, about the deceased, 'cause talking Divrei Etsoros says the Magen Avram leads to Hesped. You could argue-- So talking-- Rephrase that. Talking Divrei Shevach, praise about the deceased, leads to Hesped, to eulogizing. Talking words of inspiration might not lead you, but again, it's a fine line. But regarding the issue that you're not allowed to keep the bed, the coffin over there. So there's a bit of a history over here. In Teiman, in Yemen, there was one of the, the, the Gedolim of Yemen, of Tzena. His name was Rabbi Yechia Abedichi. He passed away, I believe it was on Chol Hamoed in the year Taf Resh Bet Ches, Terachim. And there was a Levaya, and they spoke, uh, and it became a whole controversy. Rabbonim of Tvaria were involved, and there was a lot of literature written about this fight. And part of the issue also was that you have the meaning of moving around the bed from one place to another and stopping

11:01 Speaker 2 and saying Tehillim and Ma'amadis. Was that permissible? Was that not permissible? So they bring up different arguments. One of their arguments was a controversy. One of the arguments is that the Isur of putting the Mita Birchoiv, putting it down on the street on Chol Hamoed is Lahaspida, in order to give a Hesped. If you're putting it in a place in order to give a Hesped, you will end up giving a Hesped. Over here, they're not doing it in order to give a Hesped. They're doing it in order to speak words of inspiration. It's hard to understand what that means. They're putting it there in order to give a Hesped, so we're worried they're going to give a Hesped. We're talking about people that are going to do the wrong thing, and therefore we're worried they'll end up doing the wrong thing. It's a bit hard to understand that. But Rashi says on this Mishnah, "Eyman Mash Manich Nesamita Birchoiv Lahaspida." You can't put it there in order to give a Hesped. I think the Pshat is according to Rashi, there's a bit of a Hesped that you could give, and there's a lot-- big Hesped. There's a small Hesped and a big Hesped. Big Hesped makes people cry very, very much. A small Hesped means saying a few words. You're not allowed to put it in order to say a small Hesped 'cause you might end up, end up giving a big Hesped. That's what I think Rashi means to say. But other mefarshim don't

12:08 Speaker 2 make this distinction, and they just say, "Now let's put it there." We find that you're not supposed to say Tzidkat HaDin, which is a prayer of accepting Hashem's judgment on Chol Hamoed, because you can't keep the mitzvah standing. So if you can't keep the mitzvah standing, because you'll come to give a hesped, and if you can't even say Tzidkat Din, how could you say words of inspiration? Now, some poskim hold you're allowed to say Tzidkat Din. Either you say it while you're walking so that you don't hold the mitzvah there. Others say that bechalal. No, it's-- the problem of saying Tzidkat Din is 'cause it leads to hesped, but not because you're holding the mitzvah there. So this is all part of the discussion about this. We find that Shulchan Aruch says that you're not supposed to take the meis to the Beis Hakeveres until the kever is ready. Why? Because you're holding things up, and they might end up giving a hesped. So if you-- that means waiting and keeping the mitzvah in a certain place causes a concern you might come to a hesped, which seems to imply against the theory that we're saying over here. It seems to imply that saying words of inspiration is a problem, even though that your intention is not for hesped. There's a sevarah that Ramah Shefaish wanted to say that the aval itself, one that is mourning, he has a special mitzvah to cry, and he's allowed to give a hesped even these days. I have

13:23 Speaker 2 a lot of difficulty with what the Ramah says. I found a clear pisuka here that says it's-- that the halacha of not keeping the mitzvah in the street is in order not to get the mourners to give a hesped. Clearly talking about the mourners. The other way to justify this, that maybe there's a special issur only in the street. There's-- in that mission itself, there's something else about hesped in the street and specifically talking in the street. So in the street, it's a problem. In the shul, in the chapel, who says it's a problem? The Aruch HaShulchan says in the yard of the shul is also a problem. The yard is also a street. And it could be the street is where they're taking them to the kevura. When you take them to the kevura, that's where the, that's where the chashas chimon, that's where people get heated up, and they start crying and becoming emotional. And this is what it says in Shulchan Aruch, "Don't take out the bed until the kever is ready, because that's when people get emotional and might start giving hespedim." In the house, it's not such an issue. Poskim bring that nowadays, that they do hespedim in the house, they on the contrary take them out as soon as possible, so there shouldn't be hes-hesped. But they don't say you have to. They say it's a good idea. So the house is not as serious. Point number one. Point number two is that Tzlach argues with the Magneiv HaRam

14:36 Speaker 2 and says, "You're not allowed to praise the meis." I mean, 'cause you might give a hesped, so maybe you shouldn't give a levaya also. Says anything that you're saying to respect the meis is not a problem. Anything which is not there to respect the meis is a problem. Tzidkat Din, which is saying to justify Hashem's behavior, is not something which is for respect of the meis. So if you're doing something which is to respect the meis, wouldn't be a problem. Leaving the mitzvah there in the street is not a respect for the meis, right? You can't do. But if it's something which is for kavod hameis, and that could be if you rely on this shitah of the Tzlach, unlike the Magneiv HaRam says you're not allowed to praise the meis, Tzlach says you're allowed to, so the divrei heys eides that we're saying is also for the kavod of the meis. One more point that I wanna mention is that it's not very clear this issur of putting the mitzvah in the street is that a issur for Chol Hamoed specifically, or it's also for Chanukah and Purim. There's proof one way, proof another way. I don't wanna go into this over here, but as mentioned several times, we have all the references on the astera on the website, and you can look it up on the website. The podcast comes along with references, and you can look them up. There's a whole arichas of a discussion if this applies on Chanukah and Purim

15:46 Speaker 2 as well. So it comes out we have a few reasons for leniency. Number one, it's only according to some sevarah of Chachmei Teiman in Yemen, if you're keeping it in order-- the mitzvah, holding it up in order to give a hesped. Could be it's only a problem in the street, and could be if it's respect for the meis, you're allowed to. The big issue is that the divrei heys eides themselves, it's not just because you're keeping the mitzvah for the divrei heys eides, it's because the divrei heys eides, the words of inspiration themselves could be a form of a, of a hesped. The Sefer Shlomé Zalmen Auerbach said that people try to be smart. It's a shini ashendros playing a game with-- a name game, changing the word, not calling it a hesped. And it really-- it's a, a use- a useless exercise. But those who are lenient will rely on the fact that they're saying words of inspiration, which after all is not too many times you can inspire people as much, and you wanna inspire them to Torah and mitzvahs as much as during a levaya, and that's the hetter what people rely on.

16:44 Speaker 1 A brief ad, and we'll be right back to the podcast. Wanna learn Halakha in an organized, in-depth way? Machon L'man Yilmedu presents a wide range of Halakha 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 lmanyilmedu.com.

17:07 Speaker 2 Let me move on to another topic altogether, which is the issue of Bishvas Hamanin. We mentioned this in one of the earlier episodes. We spoke about this, but a very unknown shitah of the Rashba. Poskim actually say that this is unknown. Although it's brought in Rama, in Shulchan Aruch, it's brought in, in Bis Yosef, it's brought in the Alter Rebbe, but it's not very well known. In fact, there's someone, uh, I've recently seen someone put out a whole sefer called Din of the Rashba on this position of the Rashba. And what is the Rashba's position? The Rashba says that when you make a berakha on a food, it doesn't automatically exempt other foods, even though the other foods have the same exact berakha, and even if the other food is in front of you, if the other food is more important. When you make a berakha on a less important food, it doesn't cover a more important foods. So in the earlier episode, we spoke about that, what's considered more important, less important. I'm not gonna go into that right now. But one of the examples is shivas Haminim. You make a berakha on a regular fruit Now, it won't cover the Sheva Saminim, which are more Chashuve fruits. So you always-- when you have foods, you need to know if it's more important or less important. The Alter Rebbe's example is you make a Bracha on a regular Mizaynes, you won't cover a Mizaynes which could turn into Amoretz if you have a Kviyus

18:23 Speaker 2 Sudah. Practical case, you made a Bracha Mizaynes on pasta, even if, if you had cake in front of you, it won't cover the cake, even if you plant-- even if you have the cake in front of you. So the question that I want to talk about is, the Lashon is that if you clearly have in mind to exempt the more Chashuve, the more important food, it's covered. Do you need to clearly have in mind to exempt it with your Bracha, or the fact that when you were eating it, when you were making the Bracha on the first one, you knew you're going to have the other food. Does that cover also? So there's proof one way and there's proof another way, and I've been in a serious debate with quite a few Rabbanim this week on this topic. The Magen Avram-- The Rashba, who's the author of this Halacha, the Magen Avram and Alter Rebbe seem to clearly imply that the idea is you have to have in mind when you're making the Bracha that you're going to exempt other foods. Bistama, it doesn't cover it. Bistama means Bistama, so it won't cover it. And even if you had a mind to eat it, it won't cover it. But if you had a mind to exempt it, it will cover it. But this leads us to another interesting question. The Ginas Veradim said a big Chiddush, which Rav Kivaiaga brings, that we have a Halacha that sometimes we say that the guest always relies on

19:42 Speaker 2 what the Baal Habayis will bring him. So I don't know what they're gonna bring. Whatever they bring is included in my original intentions. So the Ginas Veradim says same with this Halacha. If I make a Bracha on a non-important food, included in my Bracha is all the food that the guest-- the, the host will bring, or the hostess, in-- even foods that are much more Chashuve. But if we say, listen carefully over here, if we say that the idea is that it's not enough to have in mind I'm going to eat it, I need to have in mind that I want to exempt it, true, granted that a guest is considered that his mind is fully Butal, secondary to the host's mind. Whatever the host plans is included in my plan, but that doesn't mean I had it in mind that it should be exempted with the Bracha. It means at most it's as if as i-I was planning on eating it. If we say that the word is you have to have Kavana Lifter, not Daas Lecho, intention to exempt it, it wouldn't work with a guest. So that means the Alter Rebbe and all these Poskim won't hold this Chiddush of the Ginas Veradim. Indeed, Rav Chaim Noah writes this, that the Alter Rebbe brings this Din of-- brings two Halachas one after another, and he brings the Din of Ha'orech in one Halacha, not in the other Halacha when we're talking about the Shitah of the Rashba, implying that the Alter Rebbe

21:01 Speaker 2 does not hold that with a guest it will work, 'cause the Alter Rebbe holds you need to have Kavana Lifter. Rav Kivaiaga himself brought a Ginas Veradim. Why'd he have to bring a Ginas Veradim? Isn't it pretty obvious? Because it's not so obvious. And indeed, quite a few Poskim that say that it actually doesn't work with a guest. So, I mean, it's very hard to say that a guest, when he's eating, h-his mind is totally subservient to the Baal Habas, and it's considered not only that he had a mind to eat it, as if he had a mind to exempt it. That, that would be very, very, very, very far-fetched. So there's quite a few proofs that it actually means Kavana Lifter, but, um, the, the biggest thing is that we have a Prima Gadol which talks about Halachah Tzitzis, about a person who had different pairs of Tzitzis. They wanted one Tzitzis which was less important to cover a more important Tzitzis. And we have also a Tzemach Tzedek clearly, which implies very, very clearly on this topic that the idea is Kavana Lifter. So Halacha L'maaseh, the Alter Rebbe brings a second opinion that we don't necessarily follow the Rashba, that there's those who disagree with the Rashba. And I've written elsewhere to try to find out, identify who are those that, uh, Alter Rebbe is referring to when he says there are those who disagree with the Rashba. And therefore, B'di Eved, after the fact that it's a whole different story, we're

22:23 Speaker 2 not gonna make a new Bracha. But certainly L'chatchilah, the mainstream view is the Rashba's view. When it comes to making a new Bracha, Safek Brachos L'hakel, we rely even on a far-fetched view sometimes. But L'chatch-- L'chatchilah, when you make a Bracha on a food, it won't cover another food which is more important, unless not, not that you had a mind to eat other food. That you clearly had a mind that you want to exempt it with your Bracha. So I-- of course, you weren't planning to eat without a Bracha, but did you have in mind that the Bracha should cover the other food? That's really the big issue over here. And according to Pashut Peshat in the Rashba, that's what you have to have in mind, and that's a very, very important Halacha L'maaseh B'poel. Different topic, different question, moving to a Hilchah Shabbos question. Someone wants to squeeze lemon on Shabbos, lemons on Shabbos. You're not allowed to squeeze on Shabbos, but if you're squeezing onto food, certainly if it's lemons onto food, then it's not a problem whatsoever. So this person wants to s-- take a lemon and squeeze it onto food, and we have a Klal, Mashke Habal Ochel K'ochel Chashuv. Drink that goes into food is considered food. So the lemon juice that's going into the gefilte fish is considered like gefilte fish. The reason why you're not allowed to squeeze on Shabbos is because you're separating liquid from solid. That's a form of extraction, Mefarek, Toldah DeDosh. Dosh is threshing,

23:46 Speaker 2 and a, a derivative of that is extra-extracting. Anytime you do any form of extraction on Shabbos could be a problem of Achiyut Chatas. Squeezing is a form of extracting. You're extracting liquid from solid. But when you're squeezing the lemon onto your gefilte fish, I didn't take juice from lemon. I took gefilte fish out of lemon. That's solid from solid and not liquid from solid. That's the principle. Be that as it may, I'm not discussing this principle right now. The question I was asked is a different question altogether. There are these lemon squeezers. Are you allowed to use a lemon squeezer? Simple question. Or are you allowed to squeeze a lemon with your hands? Well, not with a beautiful, fancy, designated lemon squeezer. So let me give you the short answer and then the Arichs of the explanation. The short answer is, if the lemon squeezer is made for large amounts, you want-- it's made to make a lot of lemon juice, that is certainly a problem. If the lemon squeezer is made, like, to squeeze lemon into salad in small amounts, there's definitely room for leniency. There's room to be lenient. I'll explain why I'm saying room for leniency specifically. But o-often some of these lemon squeezer, the seeds stay in the squeezer, and if the seeds stay in the squeezer, we have a whole different issue altogether, the issue of Boer, 'cause now we're doing-- we're separating the lemon pits, the lemon seeds from the lemon juice, and that's a-- that's for sure an

25:08 Speaker 2 issue. Why would be a problem using a special lemon squeezer? So Rabbi Avraham Chaim Noah, Alav Hasalom,in his sefer Ekesei Ha-Shulchan suggests that that's a problem. He's not the only one. There's Shmiras Shabbos K'Halacha, Be'er Moshe, a lot of contemporaries mention this. And what's their reason? They say it's a weekday type of activity to use a lemon squeezer. What does a weekday activity have to do with lemon squeezers? So we have a similar principle in Halcha Shabbos when it comes to grating cheese. Cheese is no isrof tocheh of grating because cheese doesn't grow from the ground. But the Rivash writes that you can't grate cheese with a מריג חרות בעל טפיות שכר 리באיזן with an official grater because that's-- one of the explanations is because it's a weekday activity. Using a formal grater is a weekday activity, so using a formal squeezer is a weekday activity. The question is why it's a weekday activity. That's really the question over here. And the question is-- There's a lot of questions that are similar. Do-- Are you allowed to take sugar, and you wanna s-s-s-- take a sifter, a sieve, which is used for flour, and you wanna spread out sugar on a cake or whatever it is. You want it to come equal and smooth. But I'm using it now, a, a, a sifter, which is used to sieve flour, and now I'm using it for, for sugar. Would that be okay? We have a halacha that you're allowed to take a keili sheha'lecha l'eso.

26:41 Speaker 2 You're allowed to take a hammer and knock open a, a coconut. We don't say taking a hammer is a weekday type of activity. You're allowed to take a keili sheha'lecha l'eso as long as you're not using it לאסור, you're using it לצורך, right, to do something permissible. So why can't I take the cheese and grate it with a grater? What, what, what's the difference? So this-- Th-th-the lamdus has to be understood very, very well. Um, we're short on time, but the basic idea is a gr-- a, a-- You're allowed to grate and grind something with an ax. An ax is not made for grinding. It's made for wood. It's not made for food. Something which is made for melacha is specifically made for this melacha that you wanna do. This food, there's no problem, but this is made for grating, for grinding, therefore, I can't use it. That's the principle of the Rivash. Let's go now back to our lemon squeezer. The argument is a lemon squeezer is made for squeezing. Squeezing is a melacha, but that's not exactly accurate. The lemon squeezer is not made for forbidden squeezing. It's made for squeezing. Squeezing could be done on salad, and if it's done on salad, it's not forbidden. So when are you doing it for a large amount of-- something which is made for a large amount, it's a whole different level of עובדin דחול. It's a different type of weekday activity. This concept of weekday activity in this context is using a keili which

27:55 Speaker 2 is made for melacha and using it now for a permissible fashion of that melacha. The argument here is, I think it's a very strong argument, that is, a lemon squeezer is not made for melacha. It's not designated for melacha. It's designated for squeezing. Squeezing is a permissible act when done, done on food. It's actually primarily made probably to squeeze lemons on, on food, not necessarily for lemon juice. So if that's the case, that's a strong reason why it should be mutar. I don't wanna go into the rest of the arikhes. It's all found in the Ma'areh Makomois. And last, I wanna touch on a different topic altogether. I was in a shul, in a not Lubavitch shul, and someone came over to me and asked me the following question. He said, "Do you know why Lubavitchers, when wearing tefillin, tefillin shel yad, they don't cover their elbows while they're wearing tefillin shel yad?" That was the question. I said, "Well, tell me why you're asking. I can answer your question." There's so many aspects to the question, and we got into a whole heavy, heavy discussion, and I wanna share some of that discussion with you. There's a few reasons why it should be a problem. It's actually obviously not a problem. There's a rule in Halacha Tefillin. There's a Kabbalistic matter. There's a tznius matter, and there's a rule in terms of how you're supposed to daven for Hashem. And I'll take one at a time. Some people often argue there's a din of

29:12 Speaker 2 לכל עויס ולאחרים עויס. It says in Tefillin ויהיו שרתי לעיניך ויהיו לך עויס על ידיך, לכל עויס. Tefillin is supposed to be a sign for you. It's not for others. It's supposed to be covered. That is not correct. According to most poskim, Tefillin shel rosh is supposed to be visible. Tefillin shel yad could be visible, could not be visible. This, that Chazal say לכל עויס means it's supposed to be in a place which is a covered place. That it's in a place which is normally covered. Meaning, if you're going to put your Tefillin on top of a garment, then it's not-- that's in a visible place 'cause on top of the garment is visible. But if it's in the place which is under a shirt, it doesn't have to be covered by the shirt. In a place which is normally a covered place, that's the place where Tefillin is supposed to be. As the Gemara says, not לכל עויס, but מקום לכל עויס, the place which is normally considered a covered place. So many poskim say very clearly that even l'chatchila, you don't have to-- Tefillin does not have to be covered. This לכל עויס does not mean what people think it means. But then we have another concept that is Mekubalim that say you're supposed to cover your Tefillin shel yad with your tallis. But if you look carefully, the Ari z"l writes that when you're putting on Tefillin, you cover it. And you see a lot of Chasidish Yidden, Eretz Yidden, they know

30:27 Speaker 2 about this concept. When they put on their shel yad, they make the bracha, and they keep it covered, and they put it on, the Tefillin, they put it on. It's not about the bracha. It's actually about putting on the Tefillin. They put on the Tefillin in a way that it's covered. But it doesn't say about when you're wearing the Tefillin. I don't wanna go into the whole arikhes. There's a talmid of, of, uh, talmidi talmid Ari z"l, the Ma'ari Tzemach, who sometimes comes up with his own ideas, and there's an interesting history about him. But the Ma'ari Tzemach seems to imply that it's supposed to be covered all the time. So does the Matas Shmonim, which is another Talmud, Talmud Ari Zal. Rabnason Shapiro also implies you'll be covered all the time, but it doesn't say that in that Ari Zal itself. That Ari Zal doesn't even say the reason why it should be covered when you're putting on that Tefillin, but the-- clearly the implication has to do with putting on that Tefillin and not throughout the, throughout your entire time. But either way, even if there would be an inyan that the Tefillin should be covered all the time, Al Pi Kabbalah, our Tefillin we have nowadays, which wasn't around in the past, a box that goes on top of the Shaliyad Tefillin to keep it square. The Rebbe Rashab would pull down his sleeve. The Rebbe would sometimes, yes, sometimes not. But the Rebbe Rashab didn't have this box. The Friediger Rebbe

31:38 Speaker 2 didn't have this box either. The Rebbe writes that he knows that the Friediger Rebbe didn't wear this box, even though he personally, the Rebbe writes, he does wear this box on top of the Tefillin. So we're having a box. It's already covered. We accomplished that Ari Zal stuff. The issue of Tzniut. The very fact that all the Poskim talk about, "Lechola ois ve'lo la'cherim ois," Al Pi Kabbalah. They talk about all of the reasons that should be covered, it should be covered. And no one talks about the Tzniut issue, imply this wasn't a Tzniut issue. Why? Well, if you're uncovering for the Mitzvah, obviously it's not an issue of Tzniut. And throughout while-- once you're davening, that's-- you normally throughout davening keep on checking the Tefillin is in the right place. So you're doing it for the Mitzvah reason. In fact, Poskim talk about if you touch that area on the body, do you need to wash your hands? The Ben Ish Chai writes that the hand on which you put on Tefillin, the left arm for, for right-handed, is a place where you don't have to wash your hands if you touch it because it's not considered a covered place. Why is it not a covered place? Because it's uncovered. Why is it uncovered? Because it's okay to keep it uncovered. So he writes you don't have to wash your hands if you touch it, not only during davening. Generally, if you touch it, you don't have to wash your hands. Many Achronim follow

32:40 Speaker 2 this position. The Yayvitz wants to say in general, the way we wear our shirts, it's never a problem if you touch over there to wash your hands. But I'm not even coming from that perspective. I'm coming from the perspective that the hand on which you put on Tefillin specifically is considered Makom Mitzah Megulah. Later Poskim, my grandfather and other Poskim talk about the people who have-- wear short sleeves. Is that-- if is that okay to wear short sleeves from a Tzniut point of view, and they say it's perfectly fine to wear short sleeves. Today's day and age, that's a normal way of dress. Tzniut for men certainly has to do with the way, the way people dress. So there's no real Tzniut issue. There are some people that might imply that. Again, we're talking according to the mainstream view. Last but not least, the issue is when people don't re-cover their Shel Yad, then that doesn't look respectful. How do you daven to Hashem? You have one s-sleeve is down, and one sleeve is not down. One part of your jacket is down, and one part of your jacket is not down. So the Yfeh Lev and the Kaf HaChaim say it's not respectful to daven like that in front of Hashem. Many people are not particular about it. A lot of contemporary Poskim disagree with that and say it depends when. When you're wearing Tefillin, it's respectful to stand like that. You'll stand in front of a rabbi, or in front of a, a

33:53 Speaker 2 chashuve person, or in front of a Rebbe, you'll stand like that because you're wearing Tefillin. Everybody knows that the reason why your jacket is down or your sleeve is up is because of your Tefillin. Tefillin is Peir. In certain circles, they were Davka Makpid not to put down the jacket, to always remember that Tefillin. So it shouldn't be an inyan of Hess Gedolah. So therefore, bottom line, it's perfectly fine to go like that. That's what we saw our Rebbe doing for Seder Tov.

34:15 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.