Category: Halacha

  • Halacha: Finer Points, History, and Common Misconceptions

    This article serves as a starting point for those who are new to exploring halacha beyond surface-level conclusions, with selected discussions illustrating broader patterns.

    Halacha is often encountered through brief rulings or isolated practices. Yet many areas of Jewish law cannot be properly understood without examining their historical development, underlying assumptions, and commonly misunderstood details. What appears straightforward on the surface often proves far more layered upon closer study.

    Some halachic topics require careful clarification of popular myths, while others demand historical context to make sense of contemporary debate. In still other cases, modern technology raises questions that earlier generations could never have imagined, requiring established halachic principles to be applied with both precision and intellectual honesty.

    This article serves as a starting point for those exploring halacha for the first time, linking to in-depth studies that examine sources, history, and modern application.

    Clarifying Common Misconceptions

    Certain halachic ideas are widely discussed yet poorly understood. These topics benefit from slow, source-based analysis rather than slogans, folklore, or partial quotations.

    Examples include:

    Each of these discussions illustrates how misconceptions can persist when original sources are not carefully examined.

    Halacha in Historical Context

    Many halachic practices only become clear when viewed through the lens of history. Understanding when, why, and under what conditions a practice developed often resolves debates that appear confusing or contradictory today.

    Examples include:

    History does not replace halacha — but it frequently explains it.

    Human Complexity and Halachic Analysis

    Some areas of halacha involve deeply human realities that resist simplistic categorization. These discussions require sensitivity, nuance, and a willingness to confront difficult questions honestly.

    Examples include:

    Such topics demonstrate how halacha engages with real people and lived experience.

    Technology and New Halachic Questions

    As technology advances, halacha increasingly intersects with modern innovation. While new tools do not automatically generate new law, they often raise questions that demand careful application of long-standing principles.

    Examples include:

    Here, halacha’s durability is tested not by abandoning tradition, but by understanding it deeply enough to apply it correctly.

    Rabbinic Authority and Method

    Underlying all halachic discussion is a broader question of method: how halacha is analyzed, transmitted, and applied. Examining rabbinic authority and interpretive frameworks helps explain why sincere scholars can reach different conclusions.

    Examples include:

    A Note on Scope

    This site does not aim to provide practical psak halacha. Rather, it explores halacha as a living system — rooted in classical sources, shaped by history, responsive to human complexity, and challenged by modern life.

    Each article stands on its own. Together, they form a broader conversation about how Jewish law is studied, understood, and lived.

  • Halachos of Chanukah: A Basic Guide

    Halachos of Chanukah: A Basic Guide

    Rabbi Moshe Taub, 5786

    Please call or text me with any and all questions or Shailos that may arise

    Tonight, with the commencement of the 25th of Kislev, we begin celebrating the eight days of Chanukah.

    • These eight days were designated as Yamim Tovim (festivals) by the Sages, and Hallel is recited every morning.
    • Al Hanissim is inserted in the blessing of the Shemoneh Esreh and in the second blessing of Birkas Hamazon (Grace after Meals).[1] 
    • If Al Hanissim was omitted, the Shemoneh Esreh or Birkas Hamazon need not be repeated.
    • It is customary for women to avoid certain labors (actions avoided during chol hamoed) for the first half-hour time period that the Chanukah lights must burn.

    The Lighting Obligation

    • All members of each household, who are above 12/13 years of age, share an equal obligation of lighting Chanukah lights.
    • The basic obligation is that each household kindles just one light on each night of Chanukah for all who live there.
    • Both men and women are equal in Chanukah’s lighting obligation and must make sure to light—or that Chanukah lights are lit—in their residence.
    • In this, Chanukah is no different from Shabbos whose basic law requires one to make sure that just one candle be lit in each home (chovas hadar). For Shabbos, we gift this mitzvah to women; on Chanukah, we gift this mitzvah to men. Although there is deep significance to this custom, the fact remains that men and women share the exact same obligation in both Shabbos and Chanukah candles.
    • Therefore, if there is no adult male (above the age of thirteen) in the household, the woman of the house must kindle. This is like Shabbos, where if there is no woman there, the man must still light.

    It is common practice that children kindle their own lights as well.

    • Although one candle per night suffices, for centuries, it is common practice to follow the Talmud’s ‘Mehadrin‘/Extra method: lighting according to the number of the night, starting with one candle for the first night and adding one additional candle each night.[2]

    When to Light

    • We should strive to kindle the lights about ten to twenty minutes after sunset.
    • The lights should burn for at least half an hour, but it is best if they remain lit until rush hour traffic ends, if possible, or until family dinner concludes (an hour or two).[3]

    Should one need to light LATER:

    In such cases, one should have an other member of the household light in the more-proper time. However, if this will harm shalom bayis or chinuch habanim then waiting to light later -when everyone is together-may be apt. A rav should be consulted.

    Assuming no one else is home during the proper lighting time, one may indeed light later[4].

    In extreme cases such as due to travel, etc., the lighting may be done at any point during the night, until daybreak, so long as others in the home are/will be awake. If one lives or is staying alone, or, if others in the home cannot be awakened for whatever reason, one may nevertheless light, and with the berachos.[5]

    Like with all other ‘passing mitzvos‘, one who is forced to light late must try not to eat a full meal before they light, or must at least create a shomer to remind them.

    If one needs to light EARLIER:

    • In cases of extreme need/circumstances (such as one who has to later travel by plane), one may light as early as plag ha’minchah.
    • During this time of year, plag will come out to about 40 minutes before sundown. The exact timeframe should be checked on a website like: https://www.myzmanim.com/search.aspx
    • When lighting this early, one must still make sure that there is sufficient oil/wax for the light to burn a half-hour past sundown.

    Friday/Motzai Shabbos

    • On Friday, the eve of Shabbos, one kindles the Chanukah lights prior to the kindling of the Shabbos candles.
    • One must make sure that at least one of the Chanukah lights will burn through the entire half-hour period following sundown.
    • IN SHUL: Following Shemoneh Esrah at the conclusion of Shabbos Chanukah in shul, the Chanukah lights are kindled  before Havdalah.
    • AT HOME: one may follow the same order, or he may perform Havdalah first, whichever is the minhag of that house.

    Simply put: As opposed to in a shul, at home either order is fine (the reasons behind this are fascinating, yet beyond our scope here).

    Where to Place Lights

    Chazal demand that the lights be placed at or near the outer part of the doorway facing the street. The reason for this was to publicize the miracle.

    • HOWEVER…Nowadays, the accepted custom is to kindle the lights indoors, even on one’s kitchen table (!), so long as members of the home will see it.
    • In other words, the pirsumei nisa today is fulfilled through those living in the home.
    • In fact, this is why Chanukah we later developed the minhag of Chanukah gelt –to keep the family up whilst the flames are glowing (Avnei Nezer as brought in Siach Sarfei Kodosh)
    • Nevertheless, it is appropriate to place the lights where they will be visible from the street. Specifically, if possible, on the left side of an open doorway opposite the mezuzah or at least by a window facing the public domain.[6] 

    – One should not light outdoors in America (unless one has a specific custom otherwise) [6a] –

    • Ideally, the lights should be between 12 and 33 inches above the ground.

    To Recap:

    • Leaving the menorah on one’s kitchen table, etc., is sufficient.
    • The discussions of where to place the menorah (one’s window, door, etc.) are referring to a hiddur mitzvah (an extra beautification of the mitzvah).
    • While the ancient custom is for the kindling to be increased each subsequent night – one light on the first night, two on the second, etc. – the basic mitzvah can be performed by kindling just one light each night for an entire household, and this may be relied upon in cases of extreme need.

    The Procedure for Lighting

    • On the first night, one kindles the lamp at the extreme right of the menorah.
    • One adds one extra candle each night going to their left and begins lighting starting from there (the far left) and, from there, going right.

    Facing the menorah on, say, the fourth night, the left side of the menorah will be empty, and one starts with the candle on the far left and continues to the right until the first candle is lit.

    • There are alternative views regarding the order for placement and lighting that each home must follow. What is recorded above is simply the most common custom.

    What Type of Candle//the Myth of Olive Oil:

    • One may use any stable fuel or candle for the lights
    • The Shulchan Aruch/Rema suggests that some type of oil is best, so as to recall the miracle, zecher l’ness [7]. They do not mention Olive Oil.
    • While it is true that the Talmud teaches us that for both Shabbos lights and Chanukah olive oil is the most common and best stable fuel source, this law is omitted by the Shulchan Aruch (for Chanukah; he does mention it regarding Shabbos).
    • Nevertheless, the common minhag today is to go out one’s way -when feasible – to use olive oil for Chanukah.
    • The Maharal suggests that using olive oil – and not just any oil – is an even greater zecher l’ness, although he is in the extreme minorty (see Dibros Moshe, shabbos who argues stronly against this position; See ‘Chanukah: Mysteries and Histories‘, Rabbi Moshe Taub, 2026, iy”H).
    • If olive oil is not available, any other oil which gives a steady and clear flame (that does not emit an offputting odor) may be used, due to the miracle happening through oil.[8]
    • Modern wax candles are also 100 percent permitted, so long as they will last through the times mentioned above.

    Sundry

    • As with any mitzvah that is dependent on time, once the time for kindling has arrived (around sundown), one must try to avoid excessive work, eating meals/washing, or even studying Torah before kindling the lights.
    • When lighting the menorah, the appropriate blessings are recited, with Shehecheyanu recited on the first night only.
    • Most Sefardim and Chassidim omit the word “shel” from the berachah of L’Hadlik Neir.[9]
    • Many Ashkenazim, however, keep that word as this is the version found in the gemara.
    • Each person should follow his custom. If one does not have a custom, either way of saying this berachah is fine, so long as a person remains consistent through the days of Chanukah.
    • One must light immediately following the berachos, without any talking or singing.
    • Haneiros Hallalu is recited only after the first candle is lit.
    • Some have the custom (even from the second night onward) to light all of the candles first before Haneiros Hallalu is begun. Either way, at least one candle must be lit right after the blessings, before speaking or singing.
    • The custom for close to eight hundred years is to sing Maoz Tzur following the lighting. This poem takes us on a journey through the many exiles of the Jewish People and speaks of our endurance and salvations at the hand of Hashem.
    • The period after the lighting is known as a special time for prayers, and we are encouraged to pray to Hashem for all of our needs.[10]

    If one misses a night of lighting, it can’t be made up, and one simply continues lighting the same number of lights as everyone else on the additional nights.

    • One may not derive any benefit from the burning lamps, and it is for this reason that we add the extra shamash candle, (i.e., in case we do benefit, it is considered to be from this shamash.)
    • Hallel and a special leining are recited each day of Chanukah during Shacharis.

    NOTES

    [1] See my sefer for several explanations why Chanukah is omitted from Mayan Shalosh.

    [2] This too will be discussed in detail in my forthcoming sefer, iy”H.

    [3] Kuntros Chanukah U’Megilah, in the name of the Brisker Rav, et al. Most poskim view this as merely a chumrah. Cf. Chazon Ish who would actually put out his Chanukah menorah after thirty minutes had passed (Neir Chanukah, os 17, in the name of Rav Chaim Kanievsky).

    [4] Shevet Halevi states that it is better for a person himself to light later than at the proper time through a shaliach.

    [5] See Shaarei Tzion, Orach Chaim 672:15 with Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:105:7.

    [6] See below as to why in chutz la’aretz we made this change to light indoors.

    [6a] Ohr Zaruah 133:2; Sefer Ha’itur, Aseres Hadibros,Chanukah 114:2; See also Shu”t Minchas Yitzchak 6:67; Kovetz Shulchan Melachim,Kislev, 5766; see Yerech L’Moadim, p. 112; See Darkei Moshe, siman 671:9; See Chidushei Anshei Shem to Berachos 38a; See,Aruch Hashulchan 671:24 as well as Moadim U’Zemanim, vol. 2, siman 140, fn. 1; Cf. Shu”t Yaavetz 149, who allows, although does not urge, such encasements; See Shu”t Imrei Noam 2:22; Cf. Rav Elyashiv in Shu”t Kovetz Teshuvos 1:67, pp. 98–101.

    [7] See the chapter below where the sources for this are discussed.

    [8] See Mishnah Berurah 673:4,and chapter below.

    [9] See chapter below  on this issue.

    [10] This will be discussed in detail below .

    For more on Chanukah see here: Chanukah

  • Yehudis & Latkes: Solving Two Chanukah Mysteries

    For more on Chanukah see:

    ‘Why We (still) Light the Menorah Indoors‘

    &

    ‘Chanukah’s Absence from Mishneh & Brevity in the Talmud‘

    We are all taught as children about the heroine within the story of Chanukah, Yehudis. As we will show, there is a lot more here than meets the eye.

    I. THE KARTOFFEL KERFUFFLE
    Take a poll on what is the most common Chanukah food staple, and

    latkes would come in at number one, with sufganiyot nipping at their heels. However, fried potatoes are a very recent addition to Chanukah. While most assume that potatoes were first brought to Europe either

    by the sixteenth-century conquistadors or by Sir Walter Raleigh, either way they only reached widespread use during the mid-1700s. Indeed, the fact that most of us make the berachah Ha’adamah on potatoes proves how late potatoes entered Jewish kitchens.

    Briefly, some argue that the proper berachah should be Shehakol, like mushrooms. This is due to several halachic factors, and especially the fact that close to one thousand years ago the Aruch used an odd term to refer to these truffles: “tartfulls” (which I always assumed was simply a transliteration of “truffle.”)

    Some, especially early Chassidishe poskim, asserted that the Aruch was referring to a kartoffel, a term used for the lowly potato. While there are a number of reasons that most poskim argued with Shehakol being the berachah for potatoes, an important factor was the point that the Aruch could never have been referring to a potato, as he did not even know what they were back then.

    If latkes, while a nice minhag, do not and could not have any provenance in classic minhagei Yisrael—and are certainly not brought in the Shulchan Aruch—is there any truly halachic food on Chanukah? Yes, there is!

    II. CHEESE, PLEASE

    The Rama makes an interesting aside in the Shulchan Aruch.2 While discussing the lack of an official obligation to make a seudah on Chanukah, the Rama adds that there is an inyan to be marbeh b’seudos and to eat cheese on Chanukah. We have finally found a clear minhag relating to food on Chanukah.

    The explanation for this minhag is likely familiar to many. Cheese was one of the foods Yehudis fed the enemy so as to later trap and kill him. The Mishnah Berurah fills in the rest of the story: “Yehudis was the daughter of Yochanan Kohen Gadol and there was a law…so she fed cheese to a leading general so as to tire him. She chopped off his head [causing] the enemy to flee.”3 This is no small matter, and it is more than a story.

    The Gemara teaches that women are also obligated in mitzvas neir Chanukah because “they, too, were in this miracle.”4 While many Rishonim, like the Ritva,5 understand this simply to mean that they, like the rest of Klal Yisrael, were in turmoil, Rashi understands the reasoning differently. He explains that it means that they were at the center of our salvation. Without mentioning Yehudis by name, he gives us this same story as the reason that women are obligated in Chanukah lights.

    The Ran6 goes one step further, quoting an unknown Midrash. While he, too, does not mention her name, he does add to the story by claiming the heroine was the daughter of Yochanan Kohen Gadol. A few years later, the anonymous sefer Kol Bo puts it all together as we know the story today, resulting in the heroine being identified as Yehudis the daughter of Yochanan Kohen Gadol.

    In fact, Tosafos7 takes women’s centrality to Chanukah one step further. In the name of the Rashbam, it is stated that on both Chanukah and Purim, we were only saved because of the two famous women in each story, and for this reason, all women are obligated in these days, even though they are mitzvos bound by time. Rav Eliyahu Hakohen M’Izmir, the Orah V’Simchah, even wonders why, then, it doesn’t say in Al Hanissim

    “Bimei Mattisyahu v’Yehudis”!8

    III. A CHANUKAH CHUMRA FOR WOMEN

    Because of the above, another halachah is codified. The Shulchan Aruch9 brings a minhag that women should refrain from doing melachah (accord- ing to most this only includes that which would also be forbidden on Chol Hamoed) during the first half hour that the Chanukah neiros are burning. Many wonder why this halachah/minhag is codified to apply specifically to women. While the Be’er Hagolah and many others simply explain that this is because it is more common that they are home at that time and therefore should have a reminder that they cannot benefit from these lights, others give another reason.

    The Mishnah Berurah explains: “This minhag is unique to women be- cause the neis happened through them!”10 Again, we see their centrality to this Yom Tov.11

    IV. WHO WAS YEHUDIS? WHO WAS YOCHANAN?

    If Yehudis was the daughter of Yochanan Kohen Gadol, would that not make Mattisyahu her brother? After all, we say in Al Hanissim, “Bimei Mattisyahu ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol.” In addition, which Yochanan is this? The Gemara teaches that one should not trust in himself until he dies, for Yochanan was a tzaddik and served as Kohen Gadol and then became a Tzeduki at the end of his life!12 Could this be the father of Mattisyahu, the father of Yehudis? If so, why would we mention him in a tefillah of praise? He left Toras Chazal!

    The Imrei Noam13 brings from the Vilna Gaon, and the same is brought in the Seder Hadoros, that in truth there were two Yochanans. The first is the one we mention in Al Hanissim. Mattisyahu would then have a grand- son that he would name after the baby’s great-grandfather, Yochanan. It was this second Yochanan who would go on to become a Tzeduki.14 There are still others15 who say that this Yochanan was indeed one and the same as the Tzeduki, and they each offer varying explanations as to why we still mention him by name in such a lofty tefillah recounting this neis.

    But the mystery is not yet over. Many wonder—like Rashi and others who assert that Yehudis’s story is so central to the neis—why Chazal do not mention it at all. It’s not even found in Megillas Antiochus. (Although, I would answer that the Ran indeed did seem to have a Midrash that discussed the story.)

    The Ben Ish Chai suggests that the story of Yehudis took place many years earlier and is only being remembered on Chanukah. This explana- tion requires further study, for it would make her father being named Yochanan Kohen Gadol a tremendous coincidence. It would also call into question Rashi’s view regarding the women’s obligation in mitzvas Chanukah being due to the story of Yehudis being so central to the neis. However, even the Ben Ish Chai still maintains that this story—although not during the classic Chanukah story—took place during the Greek rule over us.

    This is as opposed to Sefer Yehudis (of unclear origin, see below), which places her events in the time of Nevuchadnetzar. Indeed, Rav Yaakov Emden also states that this event took place during Bayis Rishon.16 Even if, according to other sources, this incident indeed took place during the Chanukah story, the piyut for the second Shabbos Chanukah names her Chanah, brother of Yehudah Hamacabi, continuing to add to the confusion.

    The Aruch Hashulchan combines many versions of these events and says that (as the first piyut for Shabbos Chanukah teaches) the Greek king was livid when he heard how the Jews killed his general after the wedding of the daughter of the Kohen Gadol; at a later time in the story, there was a woman named Yehudis who fed the enemy dairy. Like the Ben Ish Chai, he is asserting that these events did happen around the time of Chanukah, although not necessarily during the main events.

    In Megillas Taanis (the earliest work of Torah She’baal Peh), the story of Yehudis is recorded (by the date 17th of Elul) without her name, only describing the woman as the daughter of Yochanan Kohen Gadol. It also states that it was her brother Mattisyahu who avenged an evil act against her. This, to me, seems most authoritative and is also in line with the piyut mentioned by the Aruch Hashulchan. As for Yehudis, as he states, she must have been another woman who later took matters into her own hands.

    As we say each Chanukah and Purim when we delve into their various mysteries, there is so much more to minhag Yisrael than meets the eye. One thing is for sure: this Yom Tov, like Purim and geulas Mitzrayim, could not have ever occurred without nashim tzidkaniyos.

    NOTES

    2  Shulchan Aruch 670:2.

    3  Mishnah Berurah, ad loc., seif katan 10.

    4  Shabbos 23a.

    5  See also Tosafos to Pesachim 108b.

    6  Ad loc.  Megillah 4a.

    8  See also Yafeh L’Lev 5:682:2, as brought in Shiltei Gibborim to the Mordechai on the second perek of Shabbos.

    9  Shulchan Aruch, ad loc., seif 1.

    10  Mishnah Berurah, ad loc., seif katan 3.

    11  See also Pardes Yosef, Chanukah, pp. 149–50.12  Berachos 29a.

    13  Ibid.

    14  In a later chapter, “Chanukah’s Many Bracketed Words: Part II,” we further discuss who this Yochanan was and how his name—and perhaps more—can be included in our siddur.

    15  The B’nei Yissaschar as brought by the Klausenberger Rebbe in Divrei Yatziv, Orach Chaim 282; Divrei Shaul; Rav Sternbuch in Moadim U’Zemanim 2:137.Mor U’Ketziah 670.

    See Also:

    Chanukah’s Absence from Mishneh & Brevity in the Talmud

  • Apple Computers, Privacy, and the REAL fruit of the Garden of Eden?

    2014

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

    I was talking with an old friend recently when, out of character, he asked what I spoke about in my drasha this past Shabbos.

    After I went over what I thought was a novel idea that I shared from the pulpit, he responded with disappointment. “You didn’t mention the controversy with Apple?”

    He was of course referring to the issue presently being widely debated. The FBI is seeking access to the IPhone of the terrorist behind the San Bernardino attacks.

    Amazingly even the FBI cannot get past the 4-6-digit code that unlocks the phone for the user each time he uses it.

    It is of particular embarrassment that immediately upon descending on this killer’s home the FBI made the horrible blunder of resetting the passcode on his computer –thinking that this will gain them access to stored backup from the phone –when in reality that ended all backups, leaving the actual phone – which they can’t seem to open – the only source for the potential data they wish to discover.

    For their part, Apple Inc. is fighting a February 16 court order demanding that Apple create a program, or a window, that would bypass this encryption, thereby allowing the government to discover what may be important information. If such information indeed exists on this phone, this may prove helpful in thwarting future attacks.

    Apple contends that there is no such thing as a unique window just to gain access to this one phone, rather, Apple argues, by creating such a program they are creating a way into all phones. Such a program can then be misused and abused.

    My friend explained that people are curious as to the Torah’s perspective.

    He continued. “In my shul the rav explained that the ‘right to privacy’, at least as embraced in modern culture, is not a Torah ideal. Pikuach Nefesh certainly trumps any ‘right’ that may or may not exist”.

    One of the great challenges of rabbanus is being asked questions relating to the news of the moment. Often times, the answers to these questions need the counsel of a major posek, as they are not always so black and white.

    This rav is certainly correct that all too often we tend to put too much faith into democracy, believing that the morals upon which the United States was founded –as well intentioned and wonderful as they indeed are – are the highest form of principles.

    While it is true that it has been argued by great poskim, like Harav Babad in shu’t Chavtzolos Hashurin and the Netziv by the dor hapalgah that other forms of governance are inherently wrong, or dangerous, this does not mean that democracy is always kodosh.

    It is also true that if the argument is between pikuach nefesh and protecting our privacy from a distant and perhaps minimal threat of the government abusing this work-around, then pikuach nefesh would certainly be the victor.

    But there are other halachic matters to consider. While I am not ruling one way or the other, nor discussing all sides of this question, there are other ways to view this particular question from halacha’s perspective.

    Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple made an interesting observation about our modern times.

    If one wanted to learn about someone, from where would one glean more information?

    • Being given free unencumbered access to search their home
    • Being given free unencumbered access to their smartphone

    For the readers who, thankfully, do not use such devices, the answer is most obviously the smartphone. Users of such devices have stored credit card and banking information, passwords, correspondence regarding home mortgages, finances, work payment slips, birthdays, social security numbers, private conversations between friends, family and rabbanim. This is not to mention the tracking software that allows parents to know where their children are at all times, as well as all work-related emails to discover.

    Never before in the history of man has something so small carried this much potential to create havoc.

     In other words, it is being argued that the fear is not so much the American government getting hold of this window into all phones, but our common enemies. Recent news has made us aware that even the secretary of state may use private devices (although not private emails) to share the most sensitive of state information. Imagine if bad actors get a hold of this software that Apple is being asked to create. Would they not use it to discover secret codes to our energy infrastructure, or air traffic control data, or where the children of highly placed diplomats are?!

    Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Cook is correct, let us explore some of the halachic considerations and ramifications.

    The first question is if we risk a possible present danger (i.e. perhaps finding out, via access to this particular phone, if other plans are in place) for a future greater possible danger (i.e. the dangers of creating an access to all phones)?

    Rav Chaim Ozer in his shu’t Achiezar, for example, rules that if a patient is in a possible life threatening situation and a procedure can be performed that will possibly cure him, but also may bring about his death –then one may not perform this procedure. Such a view may support Apple’s position.

    Of course, how we weigh different levels of risk is beyond the scope of this column. The curious reader can start with “Dangerous Disease & Dangerous Therapy” by Akiva Tatz where this issue is delved into.

    A second halachic consideration goes back to something once mentioned a few years ago in these pages. The Chazon Ish wondered about the case of an arrow that is heading toward a group of people and will certainly kill them. Let’s say that one has the opportunity to divert it so that it will miss this group of people –yet instead kill another, single person; what should one do?

    Much of the halachic discussion hinges upon how action is defined. As we know from hilchos Shabbos, not all actions are equal. There are gramas, garmis, psik reisha, and others—various forms of indirect or noncommittal action, not all of which are actually deemed actions by Torah law.

    The Chazon Ish suggests that one who diverts the arrow can consider this not as an act of killing someone but of saving of many.

    Yet, for a number of reasons, the Chazon Ish was hesitant and did not rule.

    The Tzitz Eliezer is more certain. He proves that inaction, the principle of “Shev v’al taaseh (sit and do nothing),” is better, implying that in such a case, an “error” of omission is always safer than one of commission.

    So that here, perhaps, when considering the risks of action (creating this access point) and risks of non-action (not knowing if we are lacking information from this particular phone) shev v’al taaseh may just be the better path.

    A third halachic issue related to this case might be the question of an immediate versus a later (potential) risk. Rav Ovadia Yosef dealt with this issue regarding the release of potentially dangerous prisoners in order to save lives. He rules that the immediate concern should come first. While this would support the FBI in our case, many prominent poskim disagree with Rav Yosef in this regard and argue for the greater risk of the two –whichever it may be –winning out.

    In short, this current debate seems complex from a halachic perspective.

    In the spirit of Adar, let’s end on a lighter note. Perhaps we can explain why, according to recent polls, over half the country supports Apple in trying to block the action of the FBI.

    There is a myth found uniquely in the non-Jewish world that what was eaten from the eitz hadaas was an apple. In truth, while Chazal offer many suggested items, an apple is never among them. Rather it is likely that the ‘apple myth’ came from confusing the Latin word for evil, malum, with that of for apple, mālum.

    Perhaps it is therefore ingrained in so many of our fellow citizens to keep away from Apple Inc.!

  • Exploring the History of ‘Dvai Haser’ & Other Sheva Brachos Mysteries

    Exploring the History of ‘Dvai Haser’ & Other Sheva Brachos Mysteries

    – Who Composed Dvei Haser?

    – Is it ‘Chami Mori’, or ‘Mori Chami’?

    – Why is Hagafen Sometimes the First and Sometimes the Last Beracha?

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

    September, 2023

    I. Chami Mori, or, Mori Chami?

    Since I am a kohen, I was asked to lead bentching at a recent simchah on my wife’s side of the family. My father-in-law was sitting to my left, so I began by saying, “B’reshus rabbanan v’rabbosai v’chami mori (my father-in-law and rebbi)…” 

    After bentching, my brother-in-law’s brother, Reb Moshe Wilhelm, a talmid chacham and reknowned mechanech in Lakewood, said to me, “The minhag is to mention your shver differently than the way you did it. ‘Chami mori’ sounds too much like chamor [donkey], so the minhag is to reverse it and say, ‘Mori chami.’”

    What do I know? Maybe I had lived in out-of-town communities for too long and never heard of this practice, or perhaps I just hadn’t paid enough attention.

    But was his assertion true? Indeed, for one’s father, one says “avi mori”—my father, my rebbi—the same order that I had used for my father-in-law.  

    When I arrived home, I did a little digging. I found that in the Rishonim, both orders were used; sometimes they called a father-in-law “mori chami” and sometimes “chami mori.” I found variations for fathers, too. Some gave the honorific “avi mori,” while others said “mori avi” (see shu”t Tashbeitz 2:129 and shu”t Maharam Shick, Orach Chaim, hosafah 5; cf. Daas Zekeinim, Bereishis 37:15, inter alia).

    Interestingly, I once saw a nice explanation for why the order for a father is reversed for a father-in-law—an idea that has nothing to do with a donkey!

    In the natural order of events, one’s father is his father first and only later becomes his rebbi. But a father-in-law is first a rebbi—either literally or through learning about him and his family—and only later becomes a father-in-law, which is why the order is reversed.

    Truthfully, it is always nerve-racking to perform a ritual aloud because you never know when you may be walking into a minefield.

    I often repeat the story of an individual who approached Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky, zt”l, at the Viennese table at a wedding and asked the rosh yeshivah what brachah he should make on a complex dessert that contained many ingredients; he was also concerned about whether it was considered pas haba b’kisnin. Rav Yaakov is purported to have smiled and answered, “Which brachah? A quiet one!”

    But there are times when we can’t be quiet, when we need to make a public choice. This certainly comes up at sheva brachos, as we shall see.

    II. Hagefen: First or Last Beracha of Sheva Berachos?

    I have been at many sheva brachos where the person who is given the honor of reciting the first brachah makes a Hagefen. This is, of course, an error, since we end with that brachah. (If this mistake occurs, the halachah is that we simply continue from there, with no Hagefen at the end.)

    But who can blame a person for this error? Under the chuppah, sheva brachos does open with Hagefen, and that is what people have in mind (see Rosh on Pesachim, ch. 10:8, and Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha’ezer 62:9).

    Why do we start shevah brachos under the chuppah with Hagefen but close with this brachah the rest of the week?

    Many cite an obvious reason for this switch (see the Mordechai on Pesachim ad loc, in the name of Rav Nissim Gaon, and the Magen Avraham, siman 190:1). During the year, we often bentch over a cup of wine even when there is no simchah (see Shulchan Aruch, siman 182 at length). 

    Therefore, if the Hagefen at shevah brachos is made immediately following bentching, it would not be apparent that it is being recited for the chasan and kallah. This concern doesn’t exist at a chuppah, where bentching is not recited.

    It should be pointed out that although it is standard practice to make the Hagefen at the end during the week of sheva brachos, some do have the custom of reciting it at the beginning (see, e.g., Shulchan Hatahor 190).

    I once heard another explanation al pi drush (good material for a speech if needed). Chazal state that a marriage is invei hagefen b’invei hagefen (Pesachim, 49b). Why do they compare it to grapevines? 

    We know that all matter in the physical world weakens with age. This is known as the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy. 

    But it is not the case with grapes. 

    If grapes are not taken care of properly, they turn into vinegar. But if they are processed in a special way, they will turn into wine—which is unique in that it improves with age!

    Under the chuppah, two grapevines— two families—come together. Once the couple begin their life together, the wine begins to age, becoming more precious. In order to symbolize this, we “age” the wine brachah as well, leaving the Hagefen until the end.

    III. The To’ameha Challenge

    In preparing for Shabbos sheva brachos, in addition to all the seudos, we had to arrange a catered to’ameha in our home on Erev Shabbos. When many people are coming in from out of town, the minhag is to have hot food available for them before they change for shul on Erev Shabbos.

    I was reluctant to do this, however, because eating on Erev Shabbos is a serious issue, and I was concerned that people would find fault with it (of course, I also wanted to save some money).

    The Shulchan Aruch rules (249:2) that we must limit what we eat on Friday as we go into Shabbos. However, I then thought that perhaps this is more applicable to those who are traveling with children, who may be hungry and cranky after a long trip. If that’s the case, then even if a parent sampled some of the food, there would be a basis for relying on the practice. 

    After more thought, I came up with what I thought was a brilliant idea—turning the to’ameha into a sheva brachos! 

    How would this help? We have all heard of a seudas mitzvah. But have you ever wondered what halachic difference it makes whether a meal is a mitzvah or not? The truth is that it does make a difference, and one ramification is that such a meal may be allowed even on Erev Shabbos (see Shulchan Aruch Harav 249:8; cf. Ketzos Hashulchan 69:7).

    But I ran into two issues with this scheme. For one thing, how would we be sure that everyone would arrive at the same time? And secondly, could we really inconvenience the chasan and kallah before Shabbos, as well as the many people who would need to come in and leave quickly? 

    On top of that, I remembered that not all poskim agree that a sheva brachos is considered a seudas mitzvah (see Pri Megadim 444:9 and 38:7).

    I approached my wife with all of my findings. She gave me a funny look and said, “Um…Erev Shabbos is Asarah B’Teves.”

    IV. The History of ‘Dvei Haser‘

    One Erev Shabbos I was walking to my shul in Buffalo when I saw a teenage boy on the steps strumming on his guitar.

    “Can I help you?” I asked.

    He explained that although he was not religious, he would be attending an NCSY kiruv Shabbaton and had been told to wait here to be picked up.

    He then shared a frustration. “The rabbi there claims I can’t play my guitar on Shabbat. This is very upsetting—I would have hoped that Judaism appreciated music. Instead, it stifles it!”

    I asked him to wait a minute, and I ran inside and grabbed a Tanach. Then I returned and sat down next to him.

    “Did you have a bar mitzvah where you read from the Torah?” I asked. 

    “Yes.” 

    “Okay, so let’s look inside this volume, which contains all of our holy writings.” 

    Leafing through the pages, I asked him if he noticed that all of the text in every book of Tanach had something in common. 

    “Well, it’s all in Hebrew,” he replied.

    “True. But look more closely,” I challenged him.

    It took him a moment, but then he answered, “Oh, the trop!”

    “Exactly,” I said. “Far from not appreciating music and song, Yiddishkeit places musical notes under every single letter of the Tanach! In fact, the reason we do not play music or do certain other music-related acts on Shabbat is because of this very passion for song. We fear that the excitement may cause a person to get so lost in melody that he may come to transgress one of the Shabbat prohibitions. 

    “Our history is full of music, from King David’s harp awakening him at midnight each night to the song our people sang at the Yam Suf. And there are many other songs as well. Regarding Shabbos, we proudly declare, ‘Mizmor shir l’yom haShabbos.’ Although we do not use musical accompaniment on Shabbos, song and melody are Shabbos essentials.”

    The power of music—and its ability to sway a person in a good or bad direction—may help us unravel the mysterious minhag of Dvei Haser, recited at the beginning of sheva brachos in many communities.

    This piyut was composed by Rav Donesh Halevi ben Berat (d. 990). Rav Donesh was a talmid of Rav Saadia Gaon and is often cited. Like many paytanim, he was also an expert grammarian and an authority in Lashon Hakodesh.

    In fact, his disputes with Rav Menechem ben Saruk (often quoted by Rashi) over Hebrew grammar remain unsettled today. Rashi’s grandson, Rabbeinu Tam (d. 1171), wrote a treatise defending Rav Menachem against in these debates, while Rav Yosef Kimchi (d. 1170) defended Rav Donesh. {Rav Donesh is quoted by Rashi to Devarim 28:28 and other places}

    One can find the signature “Donesh” in the first four stanzas of “Dror Yikra,” the popular Shabbos zemer that he composed.

    Perhaps his most often recited composition is Dvei Haser, in which his initials are encoded as well (Shulchan Ha’ezer 9:4).

    Many explanations are offered for the reason he composed this piyut and why it is placed before the zimun during the week of sheva brachos. 

    The Mateh Moshe suggests an interesting approach. It is based on a ban on certain types of music that was instituted by Chazal while we are in galus because of our year-round mourning for the Churban. This halachah is in the Shulchan Aruch (siman 560:3).

    The Rema and others point out, however, that not all music is considered equal, and not at all times. Indeed, many follow a lenient approach in regard to music (cf. Igros Moshe Orach Chaim 1:166, 2:137, 3:87; shu”t Yechaveh Daas 1:45). The Meiri explains (Gittin 7a) that the ban was enacted not only because of the Churban but because of the loss of the central focus that the Beis Hamikdash provided. Without a Sanhedrin and other crucial elements of our national base, Chazal feared that we would become lost—and that music might become a force to sway some people toward evil.

    However, so long as one is singing or listening to songs of dveikus, he does not violate this injunction (see also shu”t Shevet HaLevi 6:69). 

    The Mateh Yehudah explains that since music is played at weddings and during the week of sheva brachos, people might come to do the same during other more mundane celebratory events. Therefore, we begin bentching with a reminder of the Churban and the other securities we have lost in galus so that we do not take the unique gift of music outside the realm of divrei mitzvah (see also Taamei Haminhagim #986).

    This explanation fits nicely with the opening of Dvei Haser: “Remove pain and also wrath, and then the mute will revel in song…” 

    Other suggestions for the purpose of this piyut abound.

    The sixteenth-century Mizbei’ach Hazahav suggests that Dvei Haser is simply a brachah for the new couple that they should not know any pain. This fits nicely with the words “Sh’ei birchas bnei Yeshurun”; Yeshurun refers to Aharon, who loved and pursued peace, and it advises the couple to follow the path of shalom. 

    The plea to “remove distress” also blends well with the theory of some that Rav Donesh initially composed these words when his daughter suddenly passed away before her marriage to the son of Rav Nissim Gaon.

    Others suggest that this is a tefillah for peace everywhere. It is unrelated to the music that is played, or even to the chasan and kallah. Rather, we wish to take advantage of the simchah, which is an eis ratzon, by offering extra bakashos (see Kitzur Nachalas Shivah, 447, note 745 at length).

    Still others suggest that Dvei Haser was never intended for sheva brachos at all. Rather, it was supposed to be a stanza at the end of “Dror Yikra”! 

    Others posit that these lines were written as a piyut for Birchas Kohanim (Tarbitz, 1970, p. 38, “chikrei piyut v’shirah”; see also the article “Pirkei Donesh” by Dr. Ezra Fleischer). This would also explain the mention of birchas Aharon at the end.

    Some of those who argue that the entire piyut was created especially for bentching are of the opinion that the last line should only be recited if there are kohanim in the room. Otherwise, it should be replaced with the words “bnei Yeshurun”!

    If this piyut was indeed composed for the chasan and kallah, why is it said at the beginning of bentching and not with the sheva brachos? 

    There are some who do place it after bentching (see Taz, Yoreh Dei’ah 62:7), but that is not the custom. 

    But for this reason (among others), there are those who do not recite this piyut at a sheva brachos because it seems to be a hefsek, a break between mayim acharonim and bentching, when talking is generally not sanctioned.

    Let’s conclude with Shabbos. At our recent Shabbos sheva brachos, Dvei Haser was recited at one of the meals—another example of a common public mishap that can take place during a simchah. 

    However, in this case, there was no need for shame! Many say that this piyut is recited on Shabbos as well. In fact, the Maharil writes, “I do not know where this mistake of the people comes from not to say it [on Shabbos]” (see ibid. #1008; this was also the view of Rav Moshe Feinstein; see Rav Felder, Ohalei Yeshurun).

    Others urge us to omit the piyut on Shabbos (Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach et al.), either because it speaks of sadness or because we generally do not add extra tefillos and bakashos on Shabbos that are not a standard part of the siddur. (The weekday Shemoneh Esrei is not recited for a different reason, and indeed, the requests of Sim Shalom and Elokai Netzor remain.)

    As you can see, the answers to the many sh’eilos that arise in regard to this beautiful piyut depend on its history and purpose.

    It is amazing, as always, to discover the history of why we do and say the things we do and say! ●

  • Copyright in Halacha: A Historical Review

    Copyright in Halacha: A Historical Review

    – A Tale in Four Parts –

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

    Spring 2012

    Part I

    The halachos of copyright begin with England’s current Prime Minister, David Cameron, a matter we shall return to at the end of this section.

    The lack of clarity on the subject of copyrighting in halachah became obvious to me one day in shul. “What are you listening to?” I asked a bachur in the beis midresh one day.

    Showing me his device, he demonstrated to me that virtually every song by every major Jewish singer in the past 30 years was contained on an object about the size of a credit card.

    I wondered, “How long did it take you to put this together, and at what cost?”

    He laughed. “I copied them straight from a friend’s device,” he explained nonchalantly.

    This has become a common practice. One person uploads from his own CD collection, say, all of his Mordechai Ben David albums. So far so good (according to almost all poskim). He then passes them on to a friend. The friend adds his own favorite tracks and passes them on, until this young man in the beis midrash possessed—for free!—the entire repository of Jewish music, no doubt valued in the thousands of dollars.

    Is this practice halachically sanctioned?

    The challenge for rabbanim in seeking to convince the masses of this problem—which has only grown with the widespread use of the Internet—boils down to this: “Burning” music does not feel like theft. No one is pulling a mask over his face and holding up Eichler’s, chalilah. All he is doing is pressing a button.

    “How bad could it be?” he may think to himself.

    So why all the controversy? Is this not obviously theft?

    While we will show that it is theft, or that it falls into other categories of issurim, it is by no means a simple matter.

    The writers of the United States Constitution (1:8), l’havdil, were very careful in choosing their words when it came to this matter: “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” Beginning in 1978, copyright law became a federal statute that the states could augment if they wished.

    While the United States has every right to create its own set of laws—thereby fulfilling one of the Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach—poskim cannot arbitrarily create laws. Short of a new takanah,they can’t decide on their own what is considered right and wrong; they must find a precedent in halachah, sources and/or comparisons, in order to say that something is forbidden.

    Until the 1500s, issues such as copyrighting were not relevant for obvious reasons. Before the printing press, although one could steal an actual item—say, a book—there was no way to reproduce it except to copy it by hand. With the invention of the printing press, it suddenly became possible for someone to rip off years of hard work by selling the exact same product, with no time invested. Today, we all have a veritable printing press at our disposal.

    Still, you may be wondering, wouldn’t that be a clear case of theft too?

    Well, consider this: If one purchases a CD, a tangible item, fairly, how could anything he does with it be considered stealing? True, a great deal of work went into composing and recording the songs, which indeed gives it its value and is the reason the person purchased it in the first place. But once the CD is sold, doesn’t the purchaser retain the full right to do with it as he pleases?

    The underlying question is this: While a person can sell an idea or a concept, does he actually own it? And if so, does he retain it even after selling a tangible item that contains that idea?

    Rav Nathenson, the great gaon and rav of Lemberg, deals with this justification in his Shu”t Shoel U’meishiv. A case was brought to him by Person A, who expended great effort to compile a new edition of the Shulchan Aruch, adding commentaries like the Pischei Teshuvah to the page. Then another person bought this new Shulchan Aruch—andstarted publishing it himself.

    Seeking to defend his actions, Person B explained to the Shoel U’meishiv that when he purchased these volumes, he purchased a tangible item, with which he then had the right to do whatever he wished…even copying them for sale!

    Person B argued further that whereas the original publisher had only printed small editions of his work, he printed large volumes. Now, most people had large editions of the Shulchan Aruch in any case and were not about to buy a second set just for the added commentaries. Therefore, he argued, Person A had suffered no proven loss. (Oy, everybody turns into a groisse lamdan when defending themselves!)

    Rav Nathenson was less than impressed. He states that a work’s original author maintains full rights over his original ideas or work even after the sale of that item. To treat his work otherwise would be at minimum hasagas gvul (encroachment). At most, the original author maintains ownership to the extent that he need not even claim damages in order to stop another from using his concept, just as I could tell someone not to use my jacket even though I can’t prove that he may damage it in the future.

    Rav Nathenson goes on to explain that even though we find some sefarim limiting their own rights for ten or 20 years, this is not due to the halachah sanctioning “theft” after a particular date. It is because the author of such a work has decided voluntarily to forgo his rights so that his work will live on after he has earned his money back. He has chosen limited ownership in order to make sure his work will continue to be published after his death. If he held on to his rights indefinitely, who would publish his sefarim again, especially if he did not have children who were interested in undertaking the project?

    This logic that Rav Nathenson brings to the decisions of past rabbanim in choosing to allow their works to be copied at some future point, is bolstered by a recent article in the New Yorker (October 24; ‘Are Copyright Laws Too Strict’). There they explain that nowadays many secular books and songs have languished, never to be reissued due to the fact that no one can figure out who the heirs are to these works. Fearing a lawsuit, publishing houses dare not risk reintroducing these sometimes-celebrated works to the public. Our chachamim, as Rav Nathenson explained, had the foresight to solve this problem by limiting their copyright.

    The Chofetz Chaim’s wife, Rebbetzin Freida Kagan, wrote in her Yiddishintroduction to her husband sefer Ahavas Chesed that even after his death, only she and the family would retain the right to publish his sefarim in any country. (It should be noted that the Chofetz Chaim did state in his tzavaah that the Mishnah Berurah could be published by others if they followed certain conditions, but this allowance seems to have been unique to that work; see Rav Weifish’s Mishnas Zechuyos Hayotzer.)

    The Shoel U’Meishiv is far from the only person to discuss this issue. Many have tackled this subject as it has always been a matter of controversy.

    It is likely that the practice of giving a haskamah (rabbinical approbation) to a sefer, which began in the fifteenth century, arose due to the fact that rival publishing houses often put out a first edition of a sefer only to reprint it and sell it themselves. (Others point out that the use of haskamos became a widespread practice because—due again to the printing press—it was now easy for anyone, even the unworthy, to publish works.)

    Some assert that the first time the word “haskamah”was used in the context of copyright protection was around 1600, a few decades after the death of Harav Yosef Karo, in a letter written by rabbanim on his posthumously published Bedek Habayis. In the letter, they forbade others to publish his works.

     However, the first known copyright warning– then titled as a “ksav das” – on a sefer that expressly placed a cherem on any individual who unfairly reproduced it came some 80 years earlier to a sefer written by Rav Eliyahu Bachur for his dikduk trilogy. Signed by three rabbanim, it declares a “cherem against one who extends his hand into the expenditures and hard work of his fellow man…”

    And in case the reader thinks I have forgotten the opening line, or ‘hook’, of this section…David Cameron is the great, great, great grandson of Rav Bachur.

    All this is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Part II

    The halachos of copyrighting begin with Bill Gates, a matter we shall return to at the end of this section.

    One of the most important works on the Gemara written in the past century was the Kehillas Yaakov, authored by the Steipler Gaon, zt”l. So clear were his methods of questioning and answering and so enjoyable his approach that some people used his work to prepare shiurim—not always making proper attribution.

    A close talmid of the Steipler was visiting another city when he heard a local maggid shiur deliver a wonderful shiur on a certain Talmudic passage. Everyone marveled at this maggid shiur’sbrilliance. Well, everyone except this student, who knew that every word had been taken directly from the Steipler’s work. The student was incensed. How could someone blatantly steal and use the Torah insights of others?

    The student approached the Steipler and told him what he had heard. The Steipler smiled and said, “I don’t mind if he takes what I write and says it in his name, so long as he doesn’t take what he writes and say it in my name!”

    When we began the subject of copyrighting in halachah in the first section, we mentioned that Chazal do not openly discuss the issue. However, when it comes to the discussion of Torah ideas, we have a braisa at the end of Pirkei Avos1 that urges us to state Torah thoughts in the name of the originator.

    While the Tosefta2 seems to allow the surreptitious discovery, e.g. hiding behind someone who speaking privately in learning, of another’s Torah thoughts and ideas for the benefit of the multitude, it never sanctioned false attribution.3 Nevertheless, many poskim argue that when it comes to the copyrighting of divrei Torah, we must take a more lenient approach.

    For instance, the Chasam Sofer,4 who generally took a strong position on copyrighting, argues that since one mustn’t charge for a mitzvah, once he has recouped his original investment for the publication of his Torah thoughts, he should not be strict about enforcing his proprietary rights. As the Gemara notes, “Just as I was taught the Torah for free, so shall you teach it for free.”5

    This is a great illustration of just how confusing this issue can be. For while the Chasam Sofer was generally strict about copyrighting—due either to a special takanah or to encroachment—he was quite lenient about the use of original Torah material.

    At the opposite end, the Beis Yitzchak, the Netziv and others were more hesitant when it came to establishing guidelines for copyrighting in halachah; their understanding of the treatment of spiritual material such as chiddushei Torah was more stringentwhich they felt should have special protection.6

    The general concept of copyrighting in halachah is no less confounding; with various works once again offering opposing views. One of the outstanding works on this topic is a sefer titled Mishnas Zechuyos Hayotzer (“The Laws of Intellectual Property Rights”) by Rav Nachum MenashaWeifish, who urges a strict policy on copyrighting. Then there is another work, playfully titled Lo Kol Hazechuyos Shemuros (“All Rights Not Reserved”), which presents a more lenient position. In fact, in a fitting tribute to the latter author’s views, I found his entire sefer online for free!

    The confusion doesn’t stop there. Even the classic modern-day works on Choshen Mishpat (monetary law) have different takes on this subject—for example, Pischei Hachoshen (Vol. 5, ch. 9) and Emek Hamishpat (Vol. 4).

    Rashi7 tells us that there is virtually no topic in halachah withoutmachlokes, and the issue of copyrighting is a classic example of this truth. As we explained in the last section, until the invention of the printing press, copyright issues were apparently not discussed, either in the Gemara or in the Rishonim. The creation of the printing press opened the door for the many halachicopinions, suggestions and proofs that followed.

    Secular law had a similar struggle. It was not until 1710 that England issued what is known as the Statute of Anne, the first official governmental copyright law. Until that time there were only agreements made between publishers, a laissez-faire free-market solution to the problem.

    While even some poskim found the free-market solution a viable one,8 in the case of England, the policy protected publishers at the expense of authors. It was for this reason that the English Parliament intervened.

    All this makes copyrighting, and copyright infringement, a most interesting historical study, where we can actually follow the development of secular law along with, l’havdil, halachah. For example, right now there is a debate developing in both the secular legal world and the halachicworld regarding digital and Internet copyright.

    In fact, using the term “l’havdil” may be inapt in this instance, for, as we shall see, many poskim9 argue that there is no concept of copyrighting and intellectual property in halachah and that the only avenue of enforcement available from a halachicperspective is dina d’malchusa dina, the principle that we follow the law of the land. This means, in effect, that England’s 1709 Statute of Anne and America’s Copyright Act of 1976 would both be halachicdevelopments, or at least have an impact on halachah.

    This concept is not lost on frum lawyers who have a vested interest in this topic from the perspectives of both secular law and halachah. The journal Intellectual Property Quarterly (Issue 1, 2011) had a wonderful article by Daniel Unger titled “Copyright Enforcement by Praise and Curse: The Colourful Development of Jewish Intellectual Property.” And the bi-annual Theoretical Inquiries in Law published a fascinating discussion of this topic, “Is Copyright Property? The Debate in Jewish Law,” by Neil W. Netanel and David Nimmer. The authors reference a forthcoming book about the history of copyright in halachah, whose working title is From Maimonides to Microsoft.

    Microsoft?! Not too long ago Microsoft petitioned a beis din in Bnei Brak, requesting a ruling on how halachah views copyrighting. The information was needed for a case before an Israeli court; Israel presently enforces copyright laws based on an amalgam of British and American laws.

    Why did Bill Gates’ company care what a beis din had to say, and why is this matter at the crux of copyrighting in halachah? The answer will have to wait until the next section, when we will go back to the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries and recount two fascinating stories that helped form copyright halachah today: the printing of the Maharam Padua’s Rambam, and the Slavuta Shas vs. the Vilna Shas, respectively. We will, iy”H, return to the Microsoft case at the end of this monograph,.

    NOTES

    1. The sixth chapter of Pirkei Avos is not part of the masechta proper but is a later addition taken from chapter 6 of Kallah and chapter 17 of Tanna d’Bei Eliyahu.
    2. Bava Kama, ch. 7.
    3. Rabbi Bleich, Contemporary Halachic Problems vol. II, p. 122.
    4. Shu”t choshen mishpat 79.
    5. Bechoros 29.
    6. See Emek Hamishpat, Vol. 4, simanim 17-23.
    7.  Shabbos 139b.
    8. See Parshas Mordechai and Bava Basra 22; cf. Chasam Sofer,who rejects the idea that the invisible hand of the market will solve the issue of copyrighting.
    9. The Netziv, Beis Yitzchak, Rav Mordechai Benet in various haskamos and in his Parashas Mordechai.

    Part III

    The halachos of copyrighting begin with a Christian man named Marc Antonio Giustiniani, a matter we shall return to at the end of this section.

    Before we get into that story, it would be helpful to take a chronological look at how copyrighting has been dealt with through the ages, as our vast halachic history will play a critical role even in how secular jurists may view these questions.

    A. The Gemara

    Many seek to prove that copyright protection exists naturally and implicitly within halachah based on preexisting halachic categories into which it fits, like gezel or hasagas gevul.1 Yet all point out that an explicit case of copyrighting per se is not discussed anywhere in Chazal.

    To my mind, however, there is one incident that comes awfully close. The Gemara in Yoma 84 tells us of a disease that strikes one in the teeth and ends, sometimes fatally, in the stomach.2 Rav Yochanan was struck with this malady and went to a non-Jewish noblewoman who knew how to effect a cure. After paying for and receiving her tonic one Erev Shabbos, he asked her for the ingredients so that he could make it on Shabbos himself. She explained that she would not reveal this information because she would risk losing business if the secret became known to others. Rav Yochanan swore that he would safeguard the secret, and so she consented and revealed it to him.

    Rav Yochanan then explained to her (for reasons we will not go into here) why he was not bound by his vow, and he immediately announced the formula for this secret concoction to his entire yeshivah.

    Now, as it relates to copyright infringement (if it exists), it is worthwhile to consider that while the Gemarahere, and in the Yerushalmi version, questions Rav Yochanan’s course of action in terms of his apparent false oath, it never mentions the fact that he stole, meaning that he stole the income she would have earned had her secret not been revealed money—which is essentially a violation of copyright!

    While in modern parlance this was a (possibly permissible?) breach of “trade secret” protection and not a breach of copyright,6 in terms of a halachicbasis they both share the same root (this may be true in secular law as well; see Duke Law Review,“Protecting Trade Secrets Through Copyright”).

    The Gemara’ssilence on this issue3 may support the many poskim who contend that halachah does not recognize copyright law (to be discussed, iy”H, in the next section). In fact, the Yerushalmi4 suggests that the noblewoman was inspired by what Rav Yochanan did with her secret formula and converted!

    Now, one may say that little can be proven by this episode as far as copyrighting is concerned because, in the first place, a life was at risk; and in the second place, we are seeking a source for copyright guidelines between Jews, and this case involved Rav Yochanan, who was bound by halachah, and a noblewoman who was bound by other laws. Perhaps copyrighting, should it exist in halachah, would not affect our dealings with gentiles, in which case secular law would be the binding force.

    Both of these points, however, are easily refuted. As for the first, the Shulchan Aruch5 rules that while one may steal to save a life, he must have in mind that he is obligated to pay the person back at a later time. Once again, in our gemara,while Rav Yochanan’s action is challenged for other reasons, the fact that he stole proprietary information, as well as the noblewoman’s future potential business—if indeed a halachic concern—was ignored!

    As for the second point, if violating a copyright is, as some say, gezel,7 then why would the fact that this woman was not Jewish make any difference? Halachah is clear that stealing from a non-Jew is forbidden.8

    B. Rav Yitzchak Alfasi (Rif)

    The early rishon Rav Yitzchak Alfasi (d. 1033) tells the story of a man who stole his friend’s Torah notes, assuring him that he would return them as soon as he copied all of them!9 This sh’eilah is often cited as the first teshuvah relating to copyright law. While the Rif sides with the writer of the notes, there are any number of reasons to see this teshuvah as outside the purview of copyright.

    As noted in Part 1, stealing a CD is different from copying one that one already owns. In this case, Person B actually stole a notebook belonging to Person A.

    In addition, Rav Moshe Feinstein10 posits that when it comes to words of Torah, one has the right to say that his words—in this case notes—were not meant for public consumption since they might contain errors, or that they were meant for a particular audience. Rav Moshe himself did not allow his teshuvos to be translated out of concern that they would become accessible to those who would misinterpret them.

    C. The Maharam Padua, Alvise Bragadiniand Marc Antonio Giustiniani

    Rav Meir ben Isaac Katzenellenbogen (d. 1565), known as the Maharam Padua,was one of the geonim of his time. Seeking to take advantage of the newly invented printing press, he decided to publish a new edition of the Rambam’s Yad Hachazakah that would include, among other additions, his own notes.

    Most of the major publishers at that time were Christians11 who had served the Jews well with their publishing houses. Initially, the Maharam wanted the major publishing house of Marc Antonio Giustiniani to put out his Rambam. Before a deal was finalized, the Maharamdecided that another non-Jewish publishing house, that of Alvise Bragadini, offered a better deal.

    Giustiniani was none too pleased and responded by publishing his own edition of the Rambam, at a cheaper price…including the Maharam’s commentary!

    Rav Moshe Isserles, the Rama,was asked to decide the case.12 In a much-celebrated teshuvah that discusses issues ranging from the relationship between the prohibition against stealing as one of the sheva mitzvos Bnei Noach’sand its prohibition in halachah,as well as halachicrulings that may result in animosity toward the Jewish nation, the Rama sides with the Maharam. He explains that even as a non-Jew, Giustiniani violated halachic fair business practices.

    The suggestion that, say, hasagas gevul can be applied to non-Jews was challenged by the Rama’s contemporary the Maharshal.13

    Eventually this famous protest of the Maharam led to the proliferation of haskamos and cheramim found in many sefarim that were published over the next few hundred years. Indeed, the Maharamled the charge for these haskamos, although it is unclear if this was before or after his Rambam went to print.

    But all of the above pales in comparison to the painful battle over copyrighting that was to come—the nineteenth-century dispute over halachiccopyright, a mêlée that hit the frum world like a storm.

    This story will be shared in the next, and final, section.

    NOTES

    1. Chasam Sofer, Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg in Techumin Vol. 6, Noda B’Yehudah, et al.
    2. See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 328.
    3. A common tool among poskim in deciding halachah; see, for example, Igros Moshe, Chosen Mishpat 2:66.
    4. Shabbos, Shemoneh Sheratzim.
    5. (Siman 359.
    6. As pointed out to me by Professor Nimmer of UCLA.
    7. See Igros Moshe 4:44:19, end.
    8. See Bava Kama 113.
    9. In his Shu”t HaRif,133.
    10. Ibid.
    11. See my feature on the history of the chapter divisions in the Torah in Ami’s Shavuos 5774 issue.
    12. shu”t Rama, siman 10.
    13. Shu”t 36.

    Part IV

    The halachos of copyright begin with the battles of the chassidim and the misnagdim, something we shall return to momentarily.

    It is now time for us to return to and conclude the subject of copyrighting in halachah.

    But first, a brief recap of some of the important material we have covered thus far.

    • While the Torah forbids stealing and certain business practices deemed unfair, once a buyer purchases something, he retains full ownership. This means that he can, for example, lend his purchased sefer to a friend although the friend never paid any money to the author.

    This all seemed simple enough, however after the invention of the printing press it suddenly became possible to copy and mass-produce a purchased sefer in a matter of days, apparently depriving the original author or publisher of untold profits.

    Does one really have the right to do anything he wishes with an item once he has purchased it? Does halachah recognize copyright law?

    In previous sections we gave some background on some of the famous cases surrounding this issue, as well as some of the sources marshaled to address it. We also discussed how the secular world is dealing with these same issues.

    One result of this problem was the practice of giving a haskamah, or rabbinic approbation, for a sefer, which served, among other purposes, to defend the copyright of the author.

    In this final section we will turn to one of the more famous copyright battles, and we will also revisit the story of Microsoft asking a beis din in Bnei Brak for a ruling on how the Torah sees copyright law.

    By the turn of the nineteenth century, the Talmud had been printed several times since the early Bamburg edition, largely unchanged. Most of the changes that did occur from one edition to the next had to do with comparative texts, commentaries and censorship. For example, many were so fearful of arousing the ire of non-Jewish censors that in some editions, every occurrence of the word “goy” or “min” (“nonbeliever”) was changed to “akum”—an acronym for “ovdei kochavim u’mazalos.” This term seemed far less likely to offend the neighbors because it referred to pagan beliefs and worship of the stars, which the gentiles of the time did not practice.

    Remarkably, however, even the term “akum” was not a perfect shield; some Christians believed it stood for “ovdei Yushke u’Miriam” [Mary]!

    Some censorship efforts led to bizarre readings. For instance, the word “min,” in addition to meaning “nonbeliever,” can also mean “type” or “species.” It has been reported that some editions of Shas1 were so imprudent about censorship guidelines that they would change “min kitniyos” (meaning “a type of legume”) to “akum kitniyos”! And sometimes entire sections of the Gemara were removed so as not to offend.2

    At that time, it was forbidden even to own a Talmud in many cities, and when Rav Yonasan Eibishitz received permission to print one, he could not use the title “Gemara” or “Talmud.” Tractate Brachos, for example, was titled Hilchos Brachos. In Akiva Aaronson’s excellent People of the Book (Feldheim), he states that Rav Eibishitz received this permission in 1734, while he was in Prague. We should point out, however, that he did not arrive in Prague until some 20 years later. Indeed, 1734 was the year Rav Eibishitz, then 21 years old, assumed his first role as dayan in Brody, some 500 miles west of Prague. Most likely it was some time later when this edition was published.

    Because of these difficulties in printing newer editions of Shas, there was widespread excitement when the Slavuta publishing house began printing its new editions of Gemara between 1801 and 1817. Although the Slavuta edition was not immune to some strange editorial decisions, the work that went into it was impressive.

    The Slavuta publishing house was founded by the son of the holy Rav Pinchas of Koritz, who was a student of the Baal Shem Tov. His son, Reb Moshe Shapiro, along with his two children, Reb Shmuel and Reb Pinchos, built up a well-respected establishment that published many holy works to great acclaim. However, nothing they worked on was as daunting as printing the entire Shas.

    Because of this, in addition to receiving blessings from some of the great Rebbes, such as the Baal HaTanya and Rav Levi Yitzchak of Berdicthuv, Slavuta also received haskamos that gave it a 25-year copyright protection. This meant that no one could print a newer edition of Shas until the Slavuta Shas had been on the market for 25 years. This was not simply a copyright on the work of Slavuta itself but covered anyone seeking to publish a full Talmud of his own.

    So holy were these men that it is said they would dip their tools and the printing press in the mikvah before using them to publish pages of the Talmud!

    But soon this printing, and the rival edition to follow, would reignite the battle between some chasidim and misnagdim, a battle that had largely faded. The new machlokes not only reawakened old conflicts but, as we shall see, served as perhaps the most important catalyst for teshuvos and opinions on copyrighting in halachah, drawing the attention of the greatest poskim of the generation.

    In 1835, a few years before the Slavuta copyright would officially end, the Romm Publishing House (later, Romm Widow and Sons Publishing), headed by Reb Menachem Mann Romm, began printing its own edition of the Talmud in Vilna, which is known to this day as the Vilna Shas. It had even more improvements than the Slavuta Shas—for example, on the pages of the Rif—and began selling fast.

    The Shapiros pointed out to the major poskim of the day that the Slavuta Shas was still protected by its 25-year copyright and that the Romm brothers had no right to publish a competing edition. Scores of teshuvos were written on this issue, which caused great rifts in the community.

    The teshuvos discuss matters such as copyrighting and the right to prevent a publisher from working independently on similar material (Romm, after all, had not copied the Slavuta Shas). One of the Romm brothers’ arguments was that the Slavuta’s 25-year ban was intended only to protect its own first edition, which had already sold out; it was now 1835, and the Slavuta Shas was already in its third printing.

    While the Chasam Sofer and others defended the Romms, it was only after Rav Akiva Eiger agreed that they had the right to publish their own edition of Shas that the initial machlokes was laid to rest.

    Sadly, however, bitterness ensued. The Slavuta publishing house came to a tragic end, and the Vilna Shas, which became the more popular one, is still the standard edition used today.

    And far from solving the complexities of copyright law, the issue only became more ambiguous. Notably, the Chasam Sofer (Shu’t 57 and79, etc.) and Rav Mordechai Benet (d. 1830, Parashas Mordechai 7, 8) were strongly divided on the issue. Rav Benet rejected the theory that certain copyright infringements are in violation of hasagas gvul. He further argued regarding how far copyright protection, if it exists at all, should extend. Rav Benet advocated for a laissez-faire system, such as Ezra Hasofer’s allowance of free trade among merchants (Bava Basra 22), which would allow publishers to work out this issue among themselves. The Chasam Sofer (depending on which of his many teshuvos one reads –compare his teshuvos regarding the Vilna Shas to those regarding the Wolf Heidenheim siddurim; see Daniel Unger in ‘Intellectual Property Quarterly’), is much stricter, arguing that without some type of official protection, no one would invest the time and effort to publish sefarim (or, for that matter, musical albums).

    Several years ago Microsoft wanted to put out Pashkivillim [(posters, often glued to the walls , and found most frequently today in charedi neighborhoods in Israel) forbidding the copying of its computer programs for free, thinking that this would stop what it believed to be mass infringement of its copyright protection among chareidim. The company turned to a beis din in Bnei Brak seeking the Torah view on copyrighting.

    Amazingly, the beis din stated that until Microsoft showed that it represented Jewish interests, it would not issue a ruling. Steve Ballmer, the CEO of Microsoft until this year, and a Jew, was therefore named the disputant so that the beis din would hear the case! It is my understanding that the beis din did not respond as strongly on the matter as Microsoft had hoped. (See the forthcoming work, From Maimonides to Microsoft: The Jewish Law of Copyright Since the Birth of Print, Netanel/Nimmer, Oxford Press)

    This monograph has been intended only to inform but not to give a comprehensive review of copyright law in halachah, about which entire sefarim have been written. One thing is certain, however—no one should think about copying intellectual property without first speaking to a moreh horaah, and without considering how he would feel if he were the producer of the work rather than the consumer.

    NOTES

    1. See ArtScroll/Mesorah publication Avraham Yagel Yitzchak Yeranen.
    2. For example, Bava Kama 113b; see ibid.

  • Fingernail Halacha: Insights & Mystical Significance

    Fingernail Halacha: Insights & Mystical Significance

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

    December, 2024

         I was recently by a friend’s home, when he showed me a newly purchased two-volume set titled Otzar HaKippah, an encyclopedic work on the history, halacha, and hashkafa of the yarmulka.

        It seems that there is no shortage today of sefarim on specialized topics that scattered throughout halacha.

        If there is a mechaber looking for a muse, searching for a fascinating-yet-specialized topic on which to write, and whose tentacles reach into so many areas of halacha, machshava, and even kaballa, I would recommend: tzipornaim/fingernails.

        From Shabbos, to adam harishon, to the danger of leaving fingernails laying around, chatzitza/mikveh, aveilus, rosh chodesh, havdala, chol hamoed, etc. this topic is found scattered throughout the Shulchan Aruch. In fact, I would not be shocked if some type of Otzar HaTzipornaim already exits!

    1. Shabbos

         I was in 11th grade when this topic was first impressed upon me. Our –Nachalas Tzvi in Toronto – arranged that we spend tamuz in the legendary Camp Ohr Shraga.

         Many gedolim of the last generation spent their summers on those grounds and on the first day there, someone pointed to a gazebo remarking, “This is where Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky would learn”.

        Our grade’s shiur that summer was given by Rav Nesanel Quinn, zt”l. Born in 1910, Rav Quinn attended the very first class of Torah V’Daas, and soon became a towering talmud chacham and celebrated rebbe at the yeshiva. Along with Rav Zelik Epstein, Rav Quinn helped found the camp and, in his younger days, I was told, he would often be seen on a ladder or upon a bunk’s roof with his tool set. 

         That first day of shiur, Rav Quinn told us that he may have trouble remembering all of our names at first, so he asked permission to give us nicknames by which to remember us. Mine was ‘Modzitz’. Although not related, ‘Taub’ is the last name of many of their rebbes, making it an easy choice.

        He came up with sometimes funny and often brilliant nicknames for each bochur. Going through each bochur that forst day, he came to a boy who happened to be biting his nails at the time. This is when he shared that he would call this boy ‘Shabbos’.

        This was long before Shabbos Kestenbaum came onto the scene, so we all chuckled at such an odd name.

       He explained:

       “I have a mesorah that anyone who bites their nails during the week is b’chezkas chilul Shabbos. Such a habit becomes routine, is done without thinking, therefore, one who practices it during the week will almost certainly – and without thinking – also do so on Shabbos kodesh, thereby violating the melacha of gozez. If I call him ‘Shabbos’, the kedusha of that word will perhaps alert him to stop”.

        Gozez is the melacha of shearing, and applies to the removal, cutting, or uprooting of any growing part of a living creature, alive or dead. The Shulchan Aruch rules that when hair or nails are removed with a designed tool it is a Torah violation (siman 340:1). Removing them with one’s hand or mouth would be a shvus/dereabanan. If you have this nasty habit, maybe this story alone will be the catalyst to stop.

    1. Erev Shabbos

        I was reminded of this story the other day when I received a fascinating shailah from Yerushalaim where one of my daughters is in seminary for the year. She was curious if I could help her find a source. She shared that in one of the classes, the rav was reviewing the halacha that we should be cutting our nails in honor of Shabbos (Shulchan Aruch siman 260:1).

        Aside for the general logic in entering Shabbos in a fresh and clean state, there are more mystical significances attached to this (see, e.g., Elyah Rabba here, siif 4). There is a much complexity to this halacha. The poskim debate if this is a mitzvah each-and-every week, and, if Friday is the only day to do so.

        Some, like the Taz, posit that the reason we do not cut nails on a Thursday is specific to that day – as the third day after such cutting -i.e. Shabbos- is when the new growth starts or will becomes noticeable. The achronim explain that his concern is therefore for a type of adjacent melacha/zilzul Shabbos (see shu”t Eretz Tzvi 1:109 and shu”t Shevet HaLevi 6:21;2).

        However, many others explain that the reason to avoid cutting nails on a Thursday is simply because by doing so it is less apparent that this action is l’kavod Shabbos (see, e.g. Mishneh Berrurah siif 5). Rav Nissim Karelitz takes this ideal to also mean we should not cut nails even on Thursday night. Even though that is halachicly Friday, it is not seen as an action performed uniquely for Shabbos (Chut Shani, 1:5;1).

        As for other days of the week, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Magen Avraham and many others share concerns based on kaballa, and say it should be avoided (halachicly too-as all the more so would this negate kavod Shabbos).

    1. Men vs. Women

       As my daughter was being taught these halachos, the rav shared with the class the concern of cutting one’s nails in order. The Rema mentions this concern and gives us a suggested order in which to cut them.

         The Mishneh Berrura comments that many -including the Ari’zal -were not concerned about this, and allowed nails being cut in order, but the Chofetz Chaim concludes that we should still be careful regarding this. 

         “My teacher than shared that in any event this concern does not apply to women. Do you know his source?” she asked me.

        We raise our children never to question the Torah taught by their holy teachers, and her request was one of curiosity not challenge. “I won’t have this teacher for another week or so, and was curious to know now”.

        My initial reaction was shared curiosity. The Mishneh Berrura makes a point earlier to inform us that bathing erev Shabbos applies to women as well (siif 2), so why would he not mention women exclusion here a few siifim later?

          But I trusted this amazing seminary and its rebbeim. After a little digging, I found something amazing.

          While many lofty and kabbalistic reasons given to not cut nails in order, there was one reason that was purely halachic in nature, and would indeed explain this rav’s words.

         The Elef L’Magen and others bring from earlier sources that the concern here is for lo silbosh-acting in a cross-gender fashion. Women, when cutting their nails, do so with purpose, make sure they are all even and the same length, and facilitate this goal by cutting them in order. This is why men -and only men-are told to avoid such an effeminate action!

    (See Alef L’magen to siman 606:18, Agudas Shmuel to Rashi sefer daniel, 8:15; see Piskei Teshuvos, siman 260 note 76 in the new editions).

         But we have only scratched the surface!

        Just last motzai Shabbos my wife commented that for twenty years she saw me do something with my nails by the beracha of morei haeish -that most don’t do. “I always thought it was a mistake, so I didn’t say anything. But now I just need to ask…”.

        What do I do with my nails at that time, and, many other fingernail halacha and history when we return to this topic at some later date, iy”H.

    1. Adam’s Clothes and Halacha

        The idea that Adam harishon and Chava were clothed in skins of fingernails is one we have all heard since childhood. Its source, however, is a little murky.

       The pasuk states “Hashem made Adam garments of skin (‘uhr’) and clothed them” (3:21). While the midrash (Rabbah, 20:12) brings a number of views as to the meaning of this word ‘uhr’ (with an ayin), Rashi only brings two of them: Either this simply refers to furs/hides taken from other animals that kept them warm, or, in the name of Rav Yitzchak Ravya, that their skin was smooth like fingernails and shown like jewels.

       While Rashi never quotes it, the meforshim on this midrash draw our attention to another, related, midrash, which states: “What was the clothing of Adam? It was a skin of/like fingernails and the Cloud of Glory upon him. When he sinned, this fell off and the Cloud departed, and this is what it means by Adam being ‘naked’ (Pirkei D’ Rav Eliezar 14:3)”.

        Meforshim to this last midrash marshal the words of the Zohar, which may be the source to the commonly repeated ‘fingernail/Adam cimnection’: “…When Adam sinned, the original special garment -given to him upon entering Eden – was removed, causing him to now wear a different garment. The first garment was…called ‘levushei tziporon/nail clothing’…once he sinned, this was removed…but a remnant remains on mankind as fingernails…” (Zohar, vaykehl, 282).

    How did this mystical information become so well known, and how does it relate to halacha? This is likely due to the Shelah Hakodosh, who brings from the sefer Tola’as Yaakov what he calls the ‘great secret of nails’. {Many may not be familiar with this sefer or its author. It was written by Rav Meir ben Yechezkel ibn Gabbai (d. circa 1540). After escaping the inquisition, he would go on to become one of the earliest mekubalim of the achronim, slightly preceding the Ari’zal and others}

        Rav ibn Gabbai begins by quoting the Zohar, including where he says that this skin of nails was protected from the mirkavah before the sin, but after the sin became susceptible to great tumah. He then concludes by stating that for this reason do we cut our nails before Shabbos, as we mustn’t enter kedusha with growth of potential tumah.

        We will now soon see how others bring this idea to other halachos as well.

    1. Nails and Havdala

    How does this all relate to my wife’s curiosity?

    The Shulchan Aruch states that we are to look at our fingernails by Havdala (as well as the back of our fingers, the creases). While steeped in kabbala, he does not mention Adam. Rather, on the contrary, he says this is because fingernails are a siman beracha because they are constantly growing (siman 298:3).

        Rather it is the Pri Megadim (d. 1792) who quotes the Tola’as Yaakov and then states that for this reason do we look at our nails at this time (Eshel Avraham 298:5). But how does this connect to havdala? I would suggest the following: Pri Megadim concludes this short comment with the seemingly unrelated reminder of the danger that cut nails can be for pregent women. Since we can’t cut nails on Shabbos (as discussed in part 1), now after Shabbos we wish to remind everyone again of this concern.

        Amazingly, long before the dispersion of the Zohar, we find the Rav Mordechai ben Hillel, hy”d (murdered 1298) discussing this custom by havdala (Mordechai, yoma, at the beginning). He was asked why this is not a concern for nichush/divining. He explains that we do this for a specific purpose: to recall what Adam had as skin before the sin. Seemingly, he is suggesting that before the work week we remind ourselves that there was and will be a time of kulo Shabbos, as well as the danger and impact of sin.

         All of this led to my wife wondering why I first look at my nails, then make the beracha, and only after look again and at the skin lines below them. “I always wanted to ask you why you benefit from the fire before the beracha”.

         A beracha on pleasure is always recited before the pleasure, while a beracha of praise (e.g. lightning) is typically said after witnessing the subject of our praise. What is me’orei ha’eish? If it’s for the pleasure of light/fire then it makes sense to do like most and first make the beracha and only after to look at one’s nails.  

       Suprisingly, while some it is a beracha of pleasure, most rule it is praise (see, e.g., Biur Halacha, siman 296, et al.). This means one can enjoy it without a beracha, and certainly one can make a beracha after. I try to accomplish both views.

        Well, we still didn’t discuss which nails to look at by havdala, and on which hand, nor the issue of danger of cut nails for pregnant women, and why the word for nails is so simaler to that for birds, and even Moshe’s wife.

       We will return to this vast topic from time to time iy’H, but don’t expect it to be soon!

  • Simanim: A Deeper Understanding to Our Rosh Hashanah Customs of Symbolism Through Food

    Simanim: A Deeper Understanding to Our Rosh Hashanah Customs of Symbolism Through Food

    September, 2024

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

         Chazal tell us, simanah milsa hi, that simanim can carry weight and portend somehow toward the upcoming year (horios 12a; krisos 5b-6a).

      From all the halachos codified in the Shulchan Aruch, and the myriad minhagim and hanahgos urged by chazal, I can think of none that are as openly pondered and deliberated as is the simanim of Rosh Hashana. It is among those subjects that often leads to confusion, is open to more errors, and brings more shailos to rabbanim over these Days.

        For many, the Rosh Hashana simanim is their earliest mitzvah memory, which may cause the reader to be surprised to learn of the mountains of ink spilled trying to ascertain not just their significance, but even their allowance as, at first blush, the concept seems to run counter to the prohibition of nichush/divination (see below).

         I will seek to not only clarify this issue for the reader, but to also answer some common questions that arise in many homes each year.

         We will not be focusing on all the untold of halachos involved in the simanim – e.g. when to make the berachos, in what order, when to say the yehi ratzon, issues of hefesk, etc.

       Those should be left to one’s personal rav and family minhag.

    1. Only On the First Night?

        “What did we do last year?” is a common shailah in many homes as some struggle to follow minhag avoseihem. In my home, this question is always asked regarding if we serve chrayn and pickles on the yom hadin.

        A most common quandary in homes is if they are to also put out simanim on the second night of Rosh Hashana.  

        On its face, any second night of yom tov should mirror the first, as its whole point is in case this is the true day/date. Indeed, many poskim opine that this is true for the simanim as well, and this was the minhag of the Ben Ish Chai, Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach (see Shaarei Teshuva, 583:1; see further sources in Simanim U’Minhagim, p. 161, footnote 25).

         On the other hand, others, such as Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, posit that the simanim are unique to the first night of Rosh Hashana only. The Esehel Avraham further explains that the simanim are for the very start of the year, hence we serve it at night, and only the first night at that. The Bnei Yisashchar goes further, seeking to prove directly from the words of chazal that the simanim are only for the first night.

        Rav Shmuel Kamenetzky is quoted in Kovetz Halachos that there is certainly no harm if someone wishes to say a yehi ratzon, eat, and daven for a good year on the second night as well. In other words, no matter one’s minhag, according to him there is no concern in having simanim on the second night as well.

       The Bnei Yisaschar brings a fascinating mystical reason as to why some only have simanim on the first night (tishrei, 2:11).

        The sifrei kabbalah teach how the first night of Rosh Hashana corresponds to Leah and the second to Rachel (Pri Eitz Chaim, 324:1). Now, we all know how Rachel gave the ‘simanim/the secret signs which Rachel and Yaakov agreed upon to Leah so as to protect her dignity when she married Yaakov. So that on the second night- Rachel’s night -we no longer have the ‘simanim’, as we already gave them away!

        We can find further allusion to this in chazal where we are taught that one of the items remembered by Hashem on Rosh Hashana is Rachel’s chesed in giving over the simanim to her sister (see rosh hashana 11a).

    II. Shehechiyanu-On Which Night?

        Another area where both days of a yom tov may not exactly mirror each other relates to the shehechiyanu-fruit where all agree that this requirement is unique to the second night only.

        To rabbanim, this is most obvious, but many otherwise informed holy Jews may not be aware.

       Let me explain:

    The new-fruit is due to the view that the two days of Rosh Hashana are seen as a yoma arichta/one long day. Based on this approach, kiddush’s shehechiyanu on the first night covers the entire yom tov, and to make it again on the second night would be a beracha l’vatala. To satisfy this concern, we have a new fruit or an article of clothing present by the second night’s kiddush and have in mind that the beracha by kiddush is either like any other second night of yom tov, or, according to the above concern, is for this new item.

        Nevertheless, and perhaps causing the confusion, some have a separate and independent minhag of having a new fruit on the first night of Rosh Hashana as well, but for a unconnected reason: as a good sign that the year should bring good and new things, as alluded to by the Tur and others. Should one follow this minhag, they must make sure that the new fruit for the second night is one they have not yet enjoyed on the first!

    III. Davening or Divining?

        Chazal teach that if bread falls out of one’s mouth, or a stick from one’s hand, and he sees this is as a ‘bad sign’ they have thereby transgressed the Torah prohibition of nichush (sanhedrin 85b with vayikra 19:26).

        If so, how can chazal elsewhere support the concept of simanim on Rosh Hashana?

        In fact, the Meiri explains the gemaros relating to the simanim of Rosh Hashana as informing us that such simanim are in fact forbidden! While the Rambam omits the simanim minhag (see shu”t Maharsham 9:34 that was due to similar reading to the Meiri), almost all other rishonim disagree with the Meiri -as does halachic practice and minhag.    

         The Marharsha explains that there is no concern for nichush by the simanim, for only when one seen a siman as a bad sign does it become forbidden, as opposed to the simanim of Rosh Hashana that portend to the positive.

         Many other explanations have been offered over the centuries.

        I will conclude with an idea I shared with my shul that can be a source of growth:

    IV. Becoming a Vessel For Beracha

         Notice how there is no brisket, or steak among the simanim. They are instead a mix of poor man’s food, sometimes smelly (a sheep’s head!), and otherwise common (e.g. tzimus) foods.

    • Simanim are not magic, but rather a practice session.

     In what way?

    • We want Hashem to give us beracha this yearm yet Hashemis aware how so many of us, regrettably, and far too often, only allow ourselves to see or search for the negative side of things.

    “One who has 100 are sad they don’t have 200”.

    One may have health, live in a beautiful home, etc., yet… can’t sleep because their friends have pools, better vacation etc.

    • On Rosh Hashanah, can we first assure Hashem that we will be able to even notice when He provides us with blessing this year?

       So, perhaps, therfore, on Rosh Hashana, we train our eyes to see the value, the beauty and the blessing in even the most mundane items.

    • We used to clean shechted animals, and then salt them, at home. The wife may say: “The blood, sinews, and body parts of the animal you shechted for yom tov have not been disposed of or cleaned-up! Its head is still sitting out on the table!!”. Instead, she will say, “Wow! How fortunate are we to have meat for yom tov!”
    • Instead of the husband arriving home from shul, complaining, “Tzimus?! That’s what you made for hayom haras olam?!”, he will say, “Wow! Tzimus, mehrin, this is such a wonderful vegetable. May our merits be mehr!” Beets and cabbage, as well, were from the most common, pedestrian of vegetables for centuries, and yet, we will see the good in them.

    This can be seen even when it comes to the names of the simanim we use: specifically choosing items that can have either positive or negative connotations; e.g. ‘dug‘/fish, which can also allude to the word for worry (daageh). Demonstrating to Gd, that we shall only see the positive side of things!

    No more will we suffer through negativity of our own invention, Rather we will search for, and discover, the good, the positive, the light, in everything.

        And then…

    …If we can practice seeing the positive in even our small frustrations…

    Maybe, juts maybe, we will be able to see all the beracha in larger and more important things that Hashem wishes to give to us this year.

    Thereby becoming a worthy receptacle for Gd’s bounty.

       V’chen Yehi Ratzon….

  • Dip the ‘Apple’ In the Honey?

    Dip the ‘Apple’ In the Honey?

    Is the ‘Tapuach’ Really an Apple?

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

    September, 2024

        In a shiur a few weeks ago, I mentioned a fascinating shailah I had received concerning lashon hara.

         I opened by reminiscing about a book our rebbeim in Eitz Chaim Toronto had once given us in elementary school, titled ‘Apples of Gold’, which is on the laws and power of shemiras halashon (Rav Dovid Berstein, Torah U’Mesorah publications).

        “The book’s name was taken from a pasuk that describes well proper communication as tapuchei zahav, meaning ‘golden apples’ (mishlei, 25:11)”.

       Simple enough, right?

        Not to one member, who yelled out:

    “Rabbi, that is incorrect. Tapuach means orange, or perhaps som other citrus fruit!”

        “Excuse me?” I said, genuinely confused.

    The man, one of our wonderful gebbeim, replied by adding, “In fact, tapuach may likely refers to an esrog”!

         There went my planned shiur, as instead we had a geshmak-and very public – beautiful argument about this issue.

         Defending himself, he continued:

    “Chazal say we are to add some tapuach to our seder’s chorases because it will add tartness/sourness to it, and, because it reminds us of the tapuach trees under which Jewish women gave birth in mitzraim (pesachim 116a).”

    Concluding his point, “Citrus fruit are tart, not apples! More, there were no apple trees at the time in Egypt.”

    He further supported his arguments -sharing later he had first heard them from his rebbeim –, by marshaling a Tosefos that posits that ‘tapuach’ mentioned in a pasuk was referring to an esrog. I later found that Tosefos (shabbos 88a), and that particular pasuk (shir hashirim 2:2). I would assert that Tosefos only meant such a transation to tapuach in this one pasuk because, elsewhere, chazal list tapuach and esrog as two separate entities (e.g. the fourth mishneh in maaseros)!

        After maariv, I privately shared with him that while delighted he spoke up, I think offering his comments under the guise of a ‘correction’ was a little extreme, as he was not simply ‘correcting’’ me. “After all, ‘puk chazi mah d’amah devar-go out and observe minhag yisroel’, we must respect the understandings and actions of our holy nation. Perhaps a better method would be to say, ‘I once heard…’ or ‘Have you ever heard…’ or ‘But this seems difficult to understand…’, or the like”.

        More saliently, I shared, “Leaving aside if anthropologists, botanists and other secular chokrim have yet to confirm the existence of contemperanous apple trees in mitzraim, anachronistic arguments are hardly a challenge to the Exodus story when we begin to consider the sextuplets born under those same trees and the melachim who raised them. This is not to mention the ten makkos, the splitting of the sea, and the myriad of wondrous nissim that are either explicit in chumash or mentioned by chazal during our exile in and exodus from mitzraim.

     “Of all these extraordinary events in mitzraim, are you really bothered by apple trees?!”

          As for the ‘tartness/charoses’ proof, apples too can be acerbic. In fact, Rav Yaakov Kamanetzky rules that on Rosh Hashana one should make sure “not to use a tart apple, rather a sweet one” (Emes LYaakov, siman 188). In other words, the gemara regarding choroses may simply be referring to Granny Smith or other more bitter apples, while on Rosh Hashana we are to use Big Red Delicious (my personal favorite).

        Nevertheless, he piqued my interest. I later found that Rav Moshe Shternbuch agrees that we are indeed unsure if our apples are the tapuach of chazal or tanach. He brings some of the same proofs mentioned above (shu”t Teshuvos V’Hanhagos 5:183; see also Kaf Hachaim, siman 583:18 and shabbos 88).

         Nevertheless, Rav Shternbuch does not suggest forgoing apples on Rosh Hashanah.

      So as not to leave the reader with doubts, I will offer four proofs to our use of apples for ‘tapuach’:

    -One of the earliest sources for the minhag of apples dipped in honey on the night of Rosh Hashanah is the Tur (d. 1340). In that same siman, after mentioning this minhag, he mentions that some use ‘esrogim’ as one of the simanim. Clearly, he saw these as two separate entities. (siman 583; cf. Knesses Gedolah who says that the Tur’s use of the word ‘esrog’ was a misprint!).

    -The 11th century Rabbeinu Simcha ben Shmuel, in his Machzor Vitry (siman 323) states: “In France the custom is to eat on Rosh Hashana tapuchim edomim [red ‘tapuchim’]…all foods that are either new, light and good [sweet]…”. I doubt he was referring to blood oranges. Rather, this very early source seems to support apples and, like Rav Yaakov, specifically red/sweet ones.

    -The Pardes Yosef (hachadash, rosh hashana, p. 196) suggests that many of the simanim listed in the gemara were not commonly available in Europe, Russia, Spain, etc.. So, we chose the ubiquitous apple precisely because of its commonality. The uncommon esrog would certainly not assuage their concern for availability.

    -Finally, even if our translation of tapuach is inaccurate, it would still be ‘correct’ to use apples, and not just because of the vitality of mimetic practice. My proof? The Alef L’Magen (d. 1828) brings an amazing ruling of the Pri Megadim (d. 1792): What should one do if he does not have a ‘tapuach’ [whatever a tapuach may be!] for the night of Rosh Hashanah?

         He writes that in replacement, they should eat with honey,…tapuach adama/potatoes, as has the term “tapuach” in its name!

       “Dip the Potatoes In The Honey, Make A Beracha Loud And Clear…” doesn’t seem to have the same ring to it!

         Now, potatoes were certainly unknown to chazal, only making their worldwide debut after Columbus’ discovery of the Americas! Clearly then, what matters is not so much which fruit (or tuber!) we dip in honey, rather that is an entity for which we colloquially choose to use the term ‘tapuach’.

        This seems to be because more important than whichever food this term is used for, it’s the name which carries the significance, in that it has the same numerical value as pru ‘urevu (see, e.g. Imrei Noam, moadim, 2, likutim, ois 9, et al.).

        We should note that the Sdei Chemed and many others do bring a separate minhag of eating an esrog as one of the simanim. Many reasons are offered for this, one being that chazal tell us (berachos 57) that seeing an esrog in a dream is a sign of being special in the eyes of Hashem, thus this is a good sign for Rosh Hashanah.  

      In addition to surrendering to our mesorah, and what our own parents and rebbeim have done, there is further significance to an apple (or a potato) and honey:

       An apple slice will turn brown after time. Historically, they would protect such fruits from oxidation by securing it in honey or sugar; hence the name for jam, ‘preserves’, as in to preserve. That is the lesson of the tapuach in honey on this night:

       It is as if we are saying: “Hashem, without You and Your Torah we will, chalila, naturally wilt away”! (see Pardes Yosef p. 194).

    This lesson certainly works with an apple, honey…and a tear.

    See here regarding the Simanim in general.

    See here regarding the myth of the ‘Apple’ in the Garden of Eden.

  • Radio & T.V. on Shabbos During Wartime

    Radio & T.V. on Shabbos During Wartime

    & Other Sh’eilos Related to Wartime

    June, 2025

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

    Torah vs. Tehillim?

    Rav Mechel Dalezman, a talmid of Rav Moshe Feinstein, once told the following story. It was a humid summer day and Rav Moshe was in the midst of a complex shiur when the sky suddenly blackened, and a downpour ensued. The room was shaken by thunder and illuminated by bright flashes of lightning. Rav Mechel and his chaveirim began to whisper to each other, wondering if they should pause and say the brachos.But their rebbi continued to learn, and they decided to follow his example.

    Soon afterward, the sky cleared and the shiur concluded. As Rav Moshe was leaving, they asked him why he had not recited the brachos on thunder and lightning. Was it because of bittul Torah?

    Rav Moshe was puzzled and asked, “What thunder and lightning?”

    My response to this story made him chuckle. “What’s amazing,” I said, “is not just that Rav Moshe didn’t even notice the storm because of his intense concentration. We’ve all had moments of deep focus… What astounds me even more is that a rebbi can be so focused on his Torah that he doesn’t even notice that all of his students were having a separate discussion. Now, that is superhuman!”

    This past Thursday night, I was speaking between Minchah and Maariv at a shivah house. I usually try to connect the mishnayos we are learning with hilchos aveilus and the life of the niftar, hoping to engage people in the discussion. But there was an abrupt change in the room, and suddenly, no one was listening to me. They were murmuring and sharing their phones, and some even left the room to make phone calls.

    I pretended not to notice, until someone announced, “Rabbosai, Israel just attacked Iran. I think we should close our mishnayos and say Tehillim.”

    All eyes turned to me. It was a fragile moment.

    “There is a famous Midrash Tehillim (Shocher Tov)in which David Hamelech prays to Hashem that when the Jews recite Tehillim,it should be considered as if they are studying the complex mishnayos of Nega’im and Ohalos,” I told them. “Although reciting Tehillim is beyond powerful, mishnayos are the yardstick by which such power is measured [see Nefesh Hachaim 4:1]. Perhaps, then, since we are in the middle of learning mishnayos, we should finish.”

    I quickly finished the mishnah we were learning and concluded, “I once read that Rabbi Soloveitchik used to say that one of the famed Litvish masmidim in his town would complain that the Selichos of Elul caused bittul Torah, and that even the drawn-out tefillos of Yom Kippur took time from his Torah study. After all, he would say, talmud Torah is considered keneged kulam, the greatest mitzvah, and it also gave him a much deeper connection to Hashem.

    “Rabbi Soloveitchik would then smile and say, ‘I never had the courage to remind this man that when I was a little boy, I once looked under his tallis during selichos and saw that his hands were trembling and he was crying.’

    “If our one constant sh’eilah during this war is when to say Tehillim and when to learn Torah, we can be confident of yeshuos!”

    How to Respond?

    That night, I had a weekly Gemara shiur in Taanis. Although we were still rattled by the news, we all assembled.

    “Okay, we left off on 21b, 14 lines from the bottom…”

    This is a discussion of fasting and teshuvah at a time of famine, disease, war, or other calamity. As we began to learn, we were astounded. The Gemara stated that we don’t often decree a fast for tzaros in other cities, only in Eretz Yisrael. Eretz Yisrael is different because “when the giverta (the woman of the house) is struck, her maidservant is struck along with her!”

    The meaning is that the suffering of Eretz Yisrael affects Jews everywhere, and the halachah is codified in the Shulchan Aruch (576:2).

    One participant approached me after the shiur and broke down in tears. “My nephew is in the IDF, and most of my relatives live in Israel,” he told me. “I wasn’t sure how I would even sleep tonight. But Hakadosh Baruch Hu was meitzitz min hacharakim [cf. Shir Hashirim 1], ‘winking’ at the lomdei Torah through the veil of galus [see Drashos Chasam Sofer, Sukkos, p.52, and Melech B’yofiuv, p. 5].”

    Every rav’s phone was kept busy that night by calls from shul members stuck in Israel, children learning there, and concerned parents.

    The next morning, I sent out an email: “During an eis milchamah, we must come together as a shul in ruach, tefillah, chesed, and Torah. Shiurim should be added to all of our schedules, and we should volunteer for chesed organizations. As for tefillah,our siddurim must be moistened with tears.

    “However, that is the easy part.

    “The more substantial challenge, the one mountain that Hashem most desires to see us climb (see Rav Chaim Vital), is chesed at home, Torah at our tables, kindness to those dearest to us, and benevolence toward those who live or work closest tous. To leave one’s wife with the dishes and kids in order to visit the sick is, at times, an error. To enjoy kiddush with friends, although it can be a beautiful part of Shabbos, must never be at the expense of the energy we need to delight with our children and spouses at our own Shabbos tables.

    “L’fum tzaara agra—and the mere fact that chesed and Torah inside the home are so often a greater challenge is proof positive of their extra spiritual value.”

    I concluded with some maamarei Chazal relating to Iran and warin general, along with some pertinent halachos. If I had known that I would receive the following three sh’eilos, I would have included them as well.

    News on Shabbos

    On ErevShabbos I received a call from someone watching the Israeli news. “This broadcaster is certainly not shomer Shabbos, and it’s already Shabbos in Eretz Yisrael. Is it an issue to watch?”

    This question may fall under a concern about benefiting from chillul Shabbos (see siman 318, with Pri Megadim, mshb”z siif 7; relating to broadcasts, see shu”t Har Tzvi 1:183 at length; see also Shemiras Shabbos K’hilchasah, 31:72, and shu”t Minchas Yitzchak, 1:107;3).

    However, if the reporter is giving information that is critical for those in Israel, it would be a case of pikuach nefesh for the broadcaster. In America, however, unless there is a to’eles harabbim, a rav should be consulted.

    Another caller that Friday asked, “Can I call my daughter in Israel just to leave a positive message that she will hear after Shabbos? Am I violating Shabbos in their time zone?”

    For this sh’eilah, I would like you to imagine a boy in Lakewood who has a string so long that it crosses the Atlantic, passes through the Mediterranean, and ends in the hands of a Yerushalmi boy in Meah Shearim. The boy ties his end of the string to his dining-room light switch.

    At 3 p.m. each Friday afternoon in Lakewood, the American boy pulls the string so that the Israeli family can sleep.

    Would this be allowed?

    Many poskim would allow it (see Shemiras Shabbos ibid. #26 and Rav Ribiat in his footnote, pp. 573-576, in Volume 1 of his 39 Melachos). However, one certainly can’t call a non-frum Jew in Israel when it is Shabbos there (assuming there’s no pikuach nefesh involved).

    Sending a fax, making a call or booking a ticket from Brooklyn, for example, to an overseas airline, with no concern that there would be a Jew on the other end, would be fine according to this view (see also shu”t Oneg Yom Tov for how this applies to other Shabbos concerns, such as shivis beheimah). Again, a rav should be consulted.

    The third sh’eilah was whether it is permissible to leave a radio news channel on over Shabbos to find out what is happening in the war (see M’orei Eish HaShaleim, p. 576ff).

    Before going into the halachah, one must ask himself what his goal is, for if he hears bad news, chalilah, there’s nothing that can be done, and his Shabboswould be ruined. Sharing bad news itself is to be avoided on Shabbos (see Mishnah Brurah, 307:3). The Shaarei Teshuvah (288:1) even forbids one to tell another person that he had a negative dream on Shabbos if that person figured prominently in it!

    Perhaps one might argue that his goal in keeping the radio on is yishuv hadaas, to calm the nerves, and that’s assuming that the news is positive. Although it is true that the Rema allows crying on Shabbos if it settles one’s nerves (288:1), we also avoid information that could have the opposite effect.

    However, during a time of war, certain dispensations are given. For instance, the Shulchan Aruch rules (576:10) that although we don’t cry out in tefillah on Shabbos, we may do so for specific concerns. When the Nazis took power, some kehillos even recited the special Yehi Ratzons said on Mondays and Thursdays (shu”t Tiferes Adam 3:18). As for wars in modern-day Israel, the Steipler allowed the recitation of Tehillim on Shabbos during such times (Orchos Rabbeinu, p. 124; see also Piskei Teshuvos, siman 288).

    If one gets around this first concern, he is then faced with another. Chazal mention, and the Rema rules (252:5), regarding noisy or noticeable melachah that is begun before Shabbos starts and that will continue into Shabbos. This halacha is known as ‘avvsha milsa’ and must often be avoided.

    The reason why we allow lighting candles before Shabbos, turning on the lights, air conditioners, etc. is because the concern for avvsha milsa is not applicable to melachos that are typically done in advance (see Igros Moshe, oh”ch 4:84;3).

    Now, no non-Jew turns on his television in advance so that it will be on when he comes home! Such devices would then indeed fall under this category and would be forbidden; some poskim even wonder if there is some halachic method to shut them off on Shabbos (see Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s letter in M’orei Eish HaShaleim, vol. 1, top of p. 595, siman 5, and shu”t Minchas Shlomo, mehadurah kamma, 1:9).

    Avvsha milsa applies even if the melacha is only noticeable to those in the home.

    Generally speaking, therefore, keeping the news on over Shabbos would fall under this issur (see shu”t Har Tzvi above discussing radios on Shabbos).

    Nevertheless, in certain situations, such as one whose chronic depression is alleviated by music, some poskim consider the possibility of certain allowances (see Rav Shlomo Zalman ad loc., shu”t Chelkas Yaakov, Orach Chaim 63 and 64).

    But even in the rare case where on is granted an allowance, certain protections will be asked of him so as to secure kevod Shabbos, such as putting the device behind a locked door or in a closet and keeping the volume low (cf. M’orei Eish HaShaleim, vol. 1, p. 669, top of second column).

    Nothing written here should be used as a final psak.

    May our discussion of these sh’eilos be a zechus to bring a mighty yeshuah to klal Yisrael!

    See HERE for more on ‘Wartime Segulos and Zechusim‘