Too Tired to Daven Maariv – Can You Make It Up?

00:00 Speaker 1 Welcome to the Halacha Podcast, Laman Yishmu, with Harav Yosef Yeshaya Brown, Marah D'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.

00:22 Speaker 2 Welcome to our next installment of Laman Yishmu. This promises to be an exciting program with a lot of interesting questions. Reminder again, Laman Yishmu is in partnership with Ask the Rav, and many of the questions that we discussed you could find on the Ask the Rav website with detailed and extensive Maram Akunis and references. So the question I was asked, first question is as follows. Someone asked me that he discovered many times there's pairs of tefillin that the shade or the cover that exists on top of the shaliach tefillin is so strong that it's very hard to remove it from the bias unless you use a lot of force. And sometimes even with a lot of force, it's hard to do that. The-- I'm told, continues the person, that there's a certain batim maker that makes it this way. He doesn't want people to take off the cover of the shaliach because he wants it to protect the batim, so the batim shouldn't-- should stay always square, and there shouldn't be any damage. The question is, isn't there something that you're supposed to take off the mugging, the shade or this cover when you put on tefillin? Perhaps it might even become puzzle if it's so strong that you can't take it off. Is this a problem? Do we need to tell pe-people who have such tefillin that there's a problem with the kashrus of their tefillin until they take it off? The answer is that there's no concern with the kashrus of such tefillin.

01:53 Speaker 2 However, the right thing still is to take it off. Let's discuss what could be the problems. There's a concept called bias she'eini roeh et ha'avir, that the bias of the tefillin needs to be able to see the avir, the airspace. Now, that concept does not apply according to Tosfos writes this very clearly. This does not apply only in tefillin shel rosh. So if you attach another bias, there's four batim in a tefillin shel rosh, you attach, and we're talking about really attach or sewed another bias in a tefillin shel rosh, then that would be a problem. If you're talking about something which is purely a protection, it also has holes. It's not covered on all sides. This really shouldn't be a problem. Now, Tosfos brings a bunch of different approaches, and one of the approaches is that shema perhaps in a tefillin shel yad this won't be a problem, but the Rash and other Rishonim don't have the word shema. Um, the opinion that's been brought down Halacha in the Bet Yosef is that this Halacha only applies in tefillin shel rosh, and therefore, this really shouldn't be a problem. The reality is we know that the Rebbe had a cover on his tefillin. The Friediger Rebbe did not have a cover on his tefillin. The Rebbe writes this clearly in the letter that this is my minhag, and he knows that the Friediger Rebbe didn't have a cover on his tefillin because he saw the cover that comes with the tefillin is not cut

03:25 Speaker 2 out. We know that according to Halacha, we're supposed to make sure that the Yud of the tefillin touches always the bias. Our modern-day batim are designed such that the Yud actually touches the bias because there's a cut, there's a hole, there's a-- it sliced the cover in a way that it's-- the Yud is always touching the bias, and it's done that way that even touches the bias even when you're not wearing it, when it's in its bag, in its, in its, uh, tefillin zakl. But the Rebbe writes that he noticed that the Friediger Rebbe, there's no cut over there, and therefore, the cover that's on the tefillin obviously was never worn. We're not talking about the small cover. We're talking about the bigger outer cover. The Rebbe would many years wear that bigger outer cover used to come red. So you would notice it was red that it used to wear on top of the tefillin as during davening. So-- and many years it was actually closed on all sides, and the only opening was by the place of the kesher. The Rebbe was not particularly makpid there should be a hole in it. So it-- we know also that there used to be a minhag that people used to protect the tefillin's saliad with a piece of-- with leather. It's brought down in the Alter Rebbe Shulchan Aruch. Poskim do mention that you're supposed to make sure that this cover is not too tight and should be taken off for the beracha. The Poskim

04:49 Speaker 2 that say that do not necessarily say that this makes it puzzle if you don't do it otherwise. It's for the kavod of the beracha, for the chiba. You cherish the beracha. You cherish the mitzvah. People shouldn't think the mitzvah is the weird tefillin with a box on it. If you're gonna worry about chatzitza, chatzitza applies when the straps of the tefillin or the bias of the tefillin is not touching the flesh. So there's no chatzitza. It's not bal tosif. It's not adding something else. It's made to protect the tefillin. It's batel to the tefillin. It actually helps the tefillin stay square. Now, some of what they suggest, oh, maybe it's the tefillin is not square anymore 'cause there's a cover on the tefillin, so that takes away from the squ-squareness of the tefillin. But that doesn't make sense. This is not part of the tefillin. It's an outside material. It's not called putting a foreign thing atop a tefillin. It's a protection for the tefillin. If it would be a problem of putting a foreign thing on the tefillin, it would be a problem doing it throughout the entire day. It would only be a problem of the beracha. There is a hidur chatchilah to take it off when you put on tefillin. And in our modern-day covers of the tefillin which have holes around them, could be you wouldn't even have to take it off when you're putting on tefillin. Uh, some people actually prefer to have a tefillin cover that doesn't come off

06:02 Speaker 2 easily because the ones that come off easily eventually fall off, and eventually the tefillin doesn't protect The squareness of the tefillin. But since there are parts that do clearly say we should take a revit and a bracha, that is the minhag. People say that the Rebbe did so too. Don't know if that was throughout all the years or not. I don't know if people know how they know this or not. But either way, it does say that if it's the right thing to do, l'chatchilah, but to say that tefillin is pasul and there's a problem with the tefillin, it has Mishan to say so. Moving on from this question, here's a question which I received. And I have to tell you the truth, this is something that could be relevant to many people, unfortunately. But yet, I haven't found any clear evidence of a minhag one way or another. And what is the subject matter? A person whose wife passes away, now he's starting to bench Shabbos candles, light candles himself. Does he light two candles as the halacha is that candle lighting for Shabbos is supposed to be two? There's an exception that we have that the girls before the marriage do only one, but the primary halacha is that it's supposed to be two candles, zachar and shamir. Or if the wife always lit a certain amount based on the amount of children, which is the common custom nowadays, that we light according to the amount of children, does the husband have to

07:16 Speaker 2 continue that custom too? So as we always like to do, I'll tell you first the answer and then the explanation behind it. The answer is the husband is obligated to light only two candles. Still, even though the obligation itself is two candles, there's a good reason that he should light the same number that she lit. She lit the amount of candles that correspond to the amount of children. He should continue doing that. If she lit extra because she made a mistake once and she forgot to light, and we know this halacha that is a penalty. If a woman does not light one week, she's supposed to from then onwards always add another candle. Or if she's taken upon herself for whatever reason to light an extra candle, there's no reason that the husband has to continue that. But if they're lighting a certain amount of children, it makes a lot of sense that the husband should do that, although it's not an obligation. And the reason it makes a lot of sense, because the same reason why it makes sense that she did it. Why is there a minhag which, to be honest, the Sefer She'eres Yehuda writes he doesn't know the source of a missim. Another She'eres Yehuda, Al Trebe's brother, a different She'eres Yehuda, Bloom was the name of the author, writes he doesn't know any source for this minhag to light according to the amount of children. It says to light two. There's other numbers that are brought down. The Ramah writes

08:28 Speaker 2 on this actual halacha. This is one of the sources that we know that you're allowed to add to a number. You're supposed to light two. It says the Ramah, whenever there's a precise number, you're always allowed to add to the number. So it's two, you're allowed to light three. And there's different numbers. There's three, there's seven, there's 36. Probably not six million. According to the amount of Eden that were killed in the Holocaust. Never heard of that minhag. But there's different numbers that are brought. A minhag developed to do according to the amount of children. And later poets can grapple to find the source where did this come from. But that is the common minhag today that we know of. What's the reason? One of the reasons is because the idea of lighting Shabbos candles is a bracha to have children and son-in-laws that are talmidy chachamim. So per child makes a lot of sense. The Rebbe brings this minhag of lighting per child. And he writes the purpose is because lighting Shabbos candles is to light up the mazel. The Rebbe would often write to people that lighting Shabbos candles yoir mazalem, their mazel will shine up. So the Rebbe writes to shine the mazel of each particular child. Similar idea. There could be other reasons. We have a minhag brought in Shechem Harek that we used to have a minhag for Yom Kippur to light a candle per child in the family. Every kid got his own candle. Today the minhag is that

09:40 Speaker 2 there's only a married person lights what we call the levitic light. Both opinions are brought in Shechem Harek about that. But it wasn't a minhag to light for every single child. We see a similar thing when it gets to Hanukkah. Hanukkah there's different ways of keeping the mitzvah. There's mahadrim and mahadrim min ha-mahadrim. Mahadrim would be to light according to the members of the household. So there is such a concept of doing according to the members of the household. And according to a It seems to be from a prat of Toisvus in Mesech the Shabbos that it was a person that in their family they lit two candles for the husband and for the wife and therefore they had two children talmidy chacham that came out of it. So if you're lighting for the children that gives extra bracha. So those are the reasons there's no real distinction between a husband and a wife. If she's lighting she's lighting for her children. Why shouldn't the husband take on the same minhag for the same very good reasons? Some people want to suggest that the whole minhag of lighting an extra candle per child was because there's a minhag brought down in Halacha that the very first week the wife After birth the wife doesn't light candles, the husband lights candles. And the reason for that minhag was because the wife couldn't get out of bed after birth and there's a problem with bringing the candles to her and then moving it. It's supposed to light

10:56 Speaker 2 the candles where they will be. And therefore the husband She couldn't get out of the bed. Those days was very hard after childbirth. Therefore the husband would light. So some people want to suggest since she didn't light one week you always add an extra candle when you miss out a week. That's the proposed suggestion. Now if you take that approach it doesn't make sense that the husband has to follow the same penalty. But that explanation is hard to accept. First of all if she didn't light because she couldn't so she shouldn't receive a penalty. And Oinas doesn't receive a penalty if somebody is It's beyond their control. Secondly there's no reason to penalize her that she has to light an extra candle every week because the husband lit instead of her. Thirdly nowadays the minhag is that women do light in the first week after birth. So why are they keeping this minhag of lighting one per child? And finally if a woman would have twins they light two candles even though she only missed out one week. So that can't really be the reason. Now you could argue the minhag of lighting per child is a minhag that only women have accepted but the reasons for the minhag apply equally for a man. So the widower which makes sense he should light also. But as I mentioned if she's lighting because of a knas because she missed out one week whether the psat is because it's supposed to be an atonement for her whether

12:10 Speaker 2 we want her to be more careful in the future that has no There's no reason that he should get a knas because she forgot Even though according to Halakha, if a woman has a penalty, a knas. Where's the money come from that? So according to many poskim, the husband has to pay for a knas. Paying for a knas has nothing to do with him personally becoming obligated. You also can't say that since the woman is lighting as a shliach of the husband, so therefore it's as if he was always lighting that amount. No, she's a shliach of the husband for the-- in the mitzvah of lighting candles, but not in the number of how much she lights. That has nothing to do with the particular shlichas. Likewise, if the woman is not home, and the husband is lighting instead, there's really... Even if the w-woman is not lighting at all, she can't light for whatever reason. She's in the hospital, Chas v'Shalom, she can't light. There's no reason that the husband has to go and light the amount that she, she lights normally, unless he wants to keep this particular minhag. But the fact that she's always acting as his shliach doesn't make him-- doesn't necessitate that he has to light that amount. Some people wanna say something which doesn't make sense to me, that the husband is now lighting as a shliach. That when the, when the wife is out of the house, the husband is becoming the wife's shliach. That is not correct.

13:24 Speaker 2 The-- And if, if he's becoming her shliach, it has to do with the number that she always does. He doesn't become her shliach. The mitzvah of ner Shabbos is the other way around. It's actually the husband's mitzvah. But Chazal made the woman always to become the shliach of the husband because she's the one that's more involved in matters of the house because of the story of Chava, et cetera. But really, ultimately, the mitzvah of the house is on the head of the house, which is the husband. Anyhow, this is, this is, um, in, in, in a nutshell, the various different approaches to this question. It would be interesting to examine what happens if the person remarries, and he was lighting now seven or eight candles. Now he's remarried, and she lit whatever amount of candles she lit now. Will he li-- V-now-- Does she now light double? How does that work? Do they work out a compromise? Anyhow, these, these are interesting questions. Also, if a widower now one week is eating out, and he's eating by another family, he's eating by his children, does he have to light candles now there also like a woman always does? There, there's room, ro-room to take both approaches, but if he always lights candles, it's a good idea he should continue the m-mitzvah of lighting candles. Talking about lighting candles, I wanna move on to another question about this very topic, and that's something which is not very well-known. This question came up, it was, uh, uh...

14:37 Speaker 2 There was a girl that was rushing to get to Seven Seventy and get a good place in Seven Seventy. It was right before candle lighting, and she realized she wasn't gonna get to the house where she's staying, and she needs to light Shabbos candles. And, uh, th- I've had such kind of stories, different people on shlichas. They got stuck on the way. I'm obviously not supposed to... You're supposed to give yourself enough time, you should never get stuck. And they wanted to stop in a house, a Jewish home on the way, stop there, and light candles over there. Can you just light wherever you are? I got this question about kish. I got a question about seating. Women are coming there. They're being a, they're being a counselor. They're running, they're running the program. But they're not eating there. They're not sleeping there. They're just coming, helping out with the program, and then they're going home to eat. Can they go there? It's easier for them before Shabbos, just light candles over there. Or can you only light candles in your house? House, eating, sleeping, that's another whole discussion. Don't wanna go into that, but I'll just mention that briefly. That although often it has been suggested that people should light candles where they sleep, which makes a lot of sense, in the case of Shabbos candles nowadays, it's very hard to accept the recommendation to do it where you're sleeping. So if you're eating after the meal, it really makes sense you should do

15:45 Speaker 2 it where you're eating, and the explanation is very simple. Nowadays, we all have electricity. So really, your Shabbos candles don't accomplish anything. "Sheraga v'tir, ama ya hani," what does a candle help when it's full daylight? But we do have a concept of tosefes ora. Any extra light adds simcha. That's what we do by a simcha. We light candles 'cause it adds more simcha. But this heter, which is not universal, but w-we follow it, of tosefes ora, creates more oin ge, more simcha, more pleasure and happiness, is only by the meal. We don't say that by another room. So therefore, nowadays we have electricity. You're gonna light it in your hou-- in your house, but you're not eating over there. You could light it in your house. For, for a lot of people, it's very hard to go to the host where they're eating before Shabbos, light candles over there. They're not ready yet. It's, it's a pa-- It's, it's very difficult. You could light it in your house. I'm not saying you can't. When you finish the meal, you'll come back home and have a piece of cake and a cup of tea, and you'll be eating to the light of the candles, and that will be tosefes ora, extra light, which creates oin ge and simcha, but makah machil in the place of eating. Anyway, that was a side point, don't wanna get into that at length. Wanna focus on our point right now. But a place where you're not, where you're not eating

16:56 Speaker 2 and where you're not sleeping, does that have any validity? A-actually, no, you can't light there. You need to at least eat something there. Go to your host, go to whoever it is, and, and light over there. If you're talking about after the fact, someone went and lit over there, are we gonna say they're gonna penalize them and because that as if they didn't light candles? Well, that's going a bit too far. But really the right way, it's questionable if you could be chalah light over there. But this goes into a whole long, long discussion. I don't wanna go into all the references of this topic. There's a discussion in Halakha about a woman that goes to the mikvah on Friday night, and she's stuck, and she's going to the mikvah where she can light candles. And there's bro-- an option is brought that she should light the "Beis Haknesses Shel Nashim" in the woman's shul. She could light right by the mikvah. And how does that help? Because the shamash in the shul, he'll use it for eating purposes. The Alter Rebbe says the Kitzur Shulchan, even more so, certainly if she herself uses it for eating, she uses that place for eating purposes. Now, this Kitzur Shulchan implies that if the shamash uses it, it's not that great. If she uses it, it's better. And then the Alter Rebbe continues and says that best would be if b'chlal such a case she doesn't light at all, let her husband light at home. That means

18:16 Speaker 2 there's a problem with this lighting. It's not really the right way. He doesn't explain why there's a problem It could be the problem is because we're lighting in a shul. A shul is not really candles that, that are made for, for, for hana'a, for pleasure. This is made for kavod. But if it wouldn't be made for pleasure at all, it wouldn't count at all. You can't say yoitzer tov. It's better that the husband should light. It could be that the problem is that the shamash is using it, but then it's-- Now the Rebbe says even if she's using it, still better that the husband should do it. It could be that, that-- There's a, a number of suggested explanations we can say about this, but we see it's not so clear that she could light over there. It's, it's totally not so simple. On top of that, a shul, even if there's some other head-- type of head of a shul, a shul is a place that's for everyone. It's not like someone else's home, which is not your home at all. But the biggest, um, reservation about this is why we can't bring evidence from the case that you can light in a shul in a case where you're stuck, which is not ideal, and it's best if she uses it herself for food, and she uses the light to be able to eat over there. Because we're talking about a unique thing today, as I mentioned earlier. Today's day and age, you're not

19:36 Speaker 2 getting anything out of the candles because we have electricity. You're getting what we call tosefes ohr. And when we're talking about tosefes ohr, which applies only in the place you eat, that could very well be only in the place that you eat and not in the place where someone else eats. You need to light in a place that you get the pleasure out of it, in a place where you eat. In the shul that she lit, no one else lived there. She's lighting over there. It doesn't say there's other people that live over there. It says clearly that the shamash is using the light of the candle that she lit and is gonna, based on that light, go schlep wine out of the cellar. So obviously, there was no light over there, or at least not enough light for the shamash to see. It wasn't something that is this, this aura and this atmosphere of having nice candles gives you oneg and simcha. No, we're talking about candles that actually bring light. A lighting which is for tosefes ohr, added light, doesn't work in a shul clearly. We have the-- V-very clearly about that. And we have another place where we, we-- this halakhah could be implied very clearly. There's a discussion in halakhah about a blind person lighting Shabbos candles. They don't get any benefit out of the light. And it says the reason it works, 'cause she does get benefit out of it, 'cause other people will see the light, and that will

20:49 Speaker 2 help. But it doesn't say... And that will help her, that she could see now because other people have light. But it doesn't say, "I'm lighting in a place where someone else is eating. Why doesn't that work?" Doesn't say that. It says it helps because other people could see, and that could be an assistance for her. And if she's eating with other people that lit candles already, she can't make a bracha on lighting candles if she's blind. So this halakhah of a blind person seems to imply very strongly that lighting candles in a place where someone else gets benefit, certainly if there's already candles over there-

21:29 Speaker 3 Mm-hmm

21:29 Speaker 2 ... doesn't really work. There could be a distinction if there's already some, if there's a, a-- it's a bit dark, it's very lit up. But be that as it may, the actual halakhah is you're supposed to light candles where you're gonna be eating, not where someone else is going to be eating. Following up a different topic altogether, I got the following question from a rav in Argentina, uh, who asked this question to quite a few rabbonim, and this became a heavy heated debate. A person went to bed at night, did not daven Ma'ariv. Woke up middle of the night and realized he didn't have a Ma'ariv, and he was too tired and went back to sleep. The question is, in the morning, can he make up for his Ma'ariv? The halakhah is if a person misses out davening, if it was b'mezid, deliberately, then you can't make up for the missed tefillah. If it was b'shogeg, if it was accidentally, then the following subsequent tefillah, he could daven twice, two Shemoneh Esreis. So if he missed out Ma'ariv, he could daven the Shemoneh Esrei Shacharis twice. The first one will be for Shacharis, and the second one will be for Ma'ariv. But over here, is this a mezid or a shogeg? He woke up in the middle of the night, realized that he didn't have a Ma'ariv, but he decided, "No, I'm too tired," and he went right back to sleep. So let's try to see if we can find some type of heter for

23:02 Speaker 2 this person to have a tashlumim. So firstly, if when he woke up in his tired state, he thought to himself, "No, I'm gonna try to wake up again. I, I'm still gonna wake up." People often think so, but he became so tired, he was-- fell to such a deep sleep, and he missed the time. In such a case, there could be tashlumim. He's not called a mezid. We have this clearly this Halachot Shulchan Aruch. Even though normally we say there's a concept called ones b'zman hachron. You push things off to the last minute and then circumstances beyond your control, you couldn't do what you were supposed to be doing, is not necessarily an ones. It's not called out of your control because it was negligence on your part that you pushed it off to the last minute. That's a general lesson that people should know about ones b'zman hachron. But when it comes to making up for davening, over there we're much more lenient with the halachot of ones and shogeg. Unless it's real, real absolute negligence, the fact that he thought he'll be able to daven later is-- makes him s- not a total mezid, not a total, um, deliberate-- guy that deliberately violates a halachah, and therefore he can make up his Shemoneh Esrei that he missed. So back to our case. In his sleep, he's thinking, "Yeah, yeah, I'm gonna wake up, I'm gonna wake up, I'm gonna wake up." That's point number one. Even if the case is that it's the

24:31 Speaker 2 end of the night, he knows, "If I don't wake up," his mamish mamish towards the end of the night, "If I don't wake up now, I won't be able to daven." Arguably, he would be a mezid. No, but if the guy is so tired that his mind is not operating clearly, then the tiredness itself is a good reason to say that he's not a mezid, and if he can make up his Shemoneh Esrei. If his brain is very clear, he's just very tired. He knows exactly what he's thinking, and he really decides, "No, I'm not going to daven now. I'm just in the mood of staying in bed," then he's a mezid and he can't make up his davening. The principle here is it depends if somebody was mevatal, stopped, did not daven what we call b'shat nefesh, deliberately, davka. Um, almost like saying lechaques. I mean, it's not really lechaques, but almost like saying lechaques, davka not davening. So for example, we find halakhah, if a person davened in a place where there was soiah, where there's, um, stuff they now let a daven over there, gedolim, and he's supposed to check the place, see if it's a clean place that you're allowed to daven there. But the person did not check. He was too lazy, he didn't check the area, and he davened there. Now he have to daven again. We call him a pesha, you-- the, the davening doesn't count. We also call him a pesha in this context that he can't--

25:54 Speaker 2 That if he afterwards didn't daven again, and he missed the time of davening, he can't make it up 'cause he's a meizid. I mean, this is a very interesting halakhah. This is not a meizid. That's mevatel be'shat be'nefesh davka. Davka not to daven. The-- I guess the answer to this question is, if a person knows there's a doubt if you're allowed to daven here or not, and I have to check the place, that, that's called a meizid. That's not a shogeg. Person knows I'm entering a dangerous state. Could be I'm eating treif, could be I'm not eating treif. He has two pieces of meat. One is kosher, one is treif, and he's gonna choose and eat one. That's almost like a real meizid. So on the other hand, we find a halakhah that if a person is busy with his business, he wants to buy, he wants to sell, and he missed davening because he was too busy with his business, he's called an oines because it wasn't be'shat nefesh, it wasn't davka b'meizid. Now, over there, however, it's talking about that he thought he'll have time when he finishes his business. That means if he knows he's gonna miss davening because of his business, it is considered a meizid. The reason why we're being lenient, 'cause when a person's tried-- being involved and trying to save his money, that's called an oines. And according to many poskim, it's even if we're talking about a little bit of money, even if it's just not l-

27:22 Speaker 2 not losing money, it's about making a profit, that he's involved in, uh, in, in trying to make money, and his head is-- it bothers him very much, that is-- makes him an oines. He's too busy. But that's only provided he thought he will be able to daven afterwards. In our case, if he's so tired that he can't think straight... So we have a similar case where a person fell asleep on the wheel, and he was tired, and an accident happened. Do we treat him an oines or we-- In halakhah, we say that when it comes to causing harm to people, m-m- a bazek, ad d'muad lo ileh, when a person's responsible for his actions, bein shogeg, bein meizid, deliberately, accidentally, and even an oines. But if it's an oines gomer, if it's totally beyond his control, then he's exempt. So that has a different l- bar 'cause only oines gomer is exempt. But when we're talking about making up for your davening, then a guy can make up for his davening even if it's not an oines gomer, as long as it's not a direct meizid. The real question we need to ask is decisions when people make when they're tired, does that make them negligent? So we have a question that's been asked in the Halakha Se'irah. A person during the time of the war, someone was killed because he made a decision when he was extremely tired and exhausted, and he writes there that about his kapara, he really doesn't need a kapara.

28:48 Speaker 2 In our case, only a real, real meizid needs-- can't be mashlim his davening. If there is any good reason why to, to not call him a meizid, like in this case that he's extremely tired, then it's a good enough reason to, to say that he could be mashlim his davening. By the way, a similar thing connected with Shabbos candles. If a woman goes to sleep right before Shabbos, and she fell asleep, and she missed lighting Shabbos candles, does she get a knas or does she not get a knas? Was it a pshea? Was it negligence that she went to sleep so close to Shabbos? But be that as it may, if somebody's mind was clear, and he knew what he's doing... Imagine a person's not in bed. He's in shul during the time of Shacharis, and he's tired. "Ah, I'm not going to daven now. I'm just gonna go to sleep right now." That means he made a decision that he doesn't wanna daven. That's obviously called a meizid. But here we're talking about a case where the person's mind was not so clear, and that's a good reason why he could be mashlim his davening. I'll finish off with one last question. We don't have a lot of time. We're running a bit late over here. Person asked the following question. They sang a berakhah which starts with berekhat Hashem and finishes with berekhat Hashem. Case in point, berakhah of asher yatzar. He got confused and, and he doesn't know, "Did I start his

30:14 Speaker 2 berakhah? Did I not start his berakhah? And now I'm stuck because if I continue the berakhah..." He's supposed to say asher yatzar, but he doesn't know if he started or not. Do I go back to the beginning? I'm saying berekhat Hashem in vain perhaps. Do I continue? Then I'm saying the end berekhat Hashem in vain, a berakhah levatala. What should I do? We have a similar question. A person's in a pasuk and has Hashem's name twice, and he has no idea where he's up to. Am I up to before the first time I said Hashem's name or afterwards? Do I continue the pasuk now and say Hashem's name the second time, which me- it means if I'm saying a half a pasuk, I'm not really saying a full pasuk because perhaps I didn't say it the first time? Or do I go back when I actually could be I already started the pasuk with Hashem's name? So the question with the pasuk is much easier Strictly speaking, you could go back to the beginning of the pasuk. It's not really considered saying Hashem's name in vain when you're saying a pasuk, even if it's not a complete pasuk. The right thing is not to say half a pasuk of Hashem's name. But in the case like this where he's stuck and he has no idea where he's up to, he could go back to the beginning of the pasuk, and some people follow that position even in Kiryat Sefer Torah, that Baal Koreh makes a

31:24 Speaker 2 mistake and they make him go back to the beginning of the pasuk even if he said Hashem's name there. The que-- the real question is about the person who doesn't know where he's up to in the Ashirata, that's a really difficult question. So it really depends. If we're talking about a beracha, not Shemoneh Esreh. Shemoneh Esreh has its own set of halachas about safek berachos. A regular beracha, he continues the beracha from where he's up to, and he goes to the end. This person is definitely obligated to make a beracha. The only question is what he's supposed to do right now. So the rule of safek berachos lehhakel, because there's a doubt in berachos, well, lenient doesn't say that the person shouldn't make a beracha. So whatever he's gonna be doing, he's gonna be going into a question of beracha l'vatala, and the right thing is he should continue with the beracha all the way till the end and, and say the beracha properly. It's a different case if a person has a, a question b'chalal if he has to make a beracha, and he already started saying the beracha, and now he's stuck in the middle. Like take Ha'al Michah for example. Baruch ata Hashem elokeinu melech ha'olam al Michah. Now what? Was I supposed to make Ha'al Michah or not? Now I finish the beracha, I go into a question of beracha l'vatala. I don't finish the beracha, the beginning might be a question of beracha l'vatala. That question is a different kind

32:45 Speaker 2 of question. It's a different case. And in that question, we don't let a-- there's a question b'chalal if he's supposed to be saying this beracha, so don't continue. Because if you're going to continue, you're gonna be, be in a question of beracha l'vatala in the beginning and in the end, and you actually-- you're doing an action which is creating a beracha l'vatala. That's a very different case. Anyway, we'll stop with this. Hatzlacha rabah, and we'll see you again, um, at the next podcast.

33:08 Speaker 4 Join the global Halacha learning revolution of the Lemaan Yilmedu Institute and bring increased berachos 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.