Daily Halacha by Rabbi Eli J. Mansour according the Sephardic laws and customs of Aram Soba. https://itorah.com/daily-halacha/ en-us Copyright 2026 iTorah.com Fri, 17 Jul 2026 00:01:11 GMT Fri, 17 Jul 2026 00:01:11 GMT http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss itorahwebsite@gmail.com Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha by Rabbi Eli J. Mansour - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Daily Halacha Given Daily by Rabbi Eli J. Mansour. Please check back frequently to get the latest Halacha. episodic Torah Learning Resources. itorahwebsite@gmail.com No 2c9ddcea-0445-a12c-16ab-0f278d1fa5bd As we've seen, one should avoid putting on two articles of clothing simultaneously, as this can result in forgetting one's Torah knowledge. The reason is that a special "Or Ha'makif" ("supernal light") surrounds our clothing once we put them on to protect them from the forces of impurity, and when a garment is inside another garment, this light cannot reach it to provide protection. The question was asked concerning men who leave their ties tied around the neck of their shirts. Seemingly, a man should not put on a shirt with the tie already on it, because he is then putting on two garments at the same time. Rav Yisrael Bitan writes that there is room to allow this practice, because it is questionable whether a tie, which does not cover a significant portion of the body, qualifies as a "garment" in this respect. He notes the ruling of the Yalkut Yosef that one recites the Beracha of "She'hehiyanu" upon the purchase of a new tie, which would indicate that a tie indeed is considered a "Beged" ("garment"), but he questions this conclusion, as a tie could be viewed as an accessory to the shirt, rather than an independent garment. Furthermore, Rav Bitan adds, even if a tie indeed formally qualifies as a "Beged," it is possible that a garment that does not really cover any part of the body does not require the protection of the "Or Ha'makif." Hence, there is room to permit men to put on a shirt with the tie already tied around the collar. A similar question arises for women who cover their hair with a snood and a decorative kerchief on top. Many women keep the snood and kerchief together and then put them both on at the same time. Is this allowed? Rav Bitan writes that there is room to argue that since women are exempt from the obligation of Torah study, and the entire concern of putting on two garments simultaneously relates to the retention of one's Torah knowledge, this Halacha does not apply to women at all. According to this theory, women do not need to avoid putting on two articles of clothing at the same time. Rav Bitan concludes that one should not rely on this theory, and women should, in general, avoid putting on two garments simultaneously, but this possibility may be introduced as one of several factors to permit putting on the snood with the kerchief. Another consideration is that if they are kept tied together, then they may be considered a single garment. And even if not, if this has become the normal method of putting the hair-coverings on, then this might suffice to view them as just one garment. Moreover, since the kerchief covers only part of the snood, the "Or Ha'makif" can reach the snood, such that there is no concern. While each of these possibilities on its own could be questioned, they may be combined to permit women to put on the snood and kerchief together. Incidentally, if a man wears a long-sleeve undershirt beneath his shirt, then he must ensure not to pull both sleeves over his Tefillin in the morning simultaneously. Although he may certainly cover his arm with both layers, he should pull each sleeve separately, and not pull them both over his arm together. Fri, 17 Jul 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 4c46e971-877e-e628-b9fd-af2dcfbd185d The Bet Yosef cites the ruling of the Terumat Ha'deshen (Rav Yisrael Isserlin, 1390-1460) that covering one's head with his hand does not suffice to permit praying and reciting Berachot, since the hand is part of the same body as the hand. The clear implication of this ruling, as the Bet Yosef notes, is that another person's hand is considered a legitimate head-covering to permit praying and reciting Berachot, as that hand is not part of the same body. The Bet Yosef rules accordingly in the Shulhan Aruch. There is a minority opinion – that of the Maharshal (Rav Shlomo Luria, Poland, 1510-1573) – that one's own hand can serve as a head-covering for this purpose, but the consensus does not follow this view. Although one's bare hand does not suffice as a head-covering, he may pull his sleeve over his hand, or cover his hand with some material, and then place his hand on his head, and this would qualify as a valid hair-covering. Therefore, if the wind blows someone's Kippa off his head and he needs to go retrieve it, he should pull his sleeve over his hand and then place his hand on his head so that he does not walk four Amot (cubits) with his head bare. A number of Poskim (including the Mishna Berura and Kaf Ha'haim) bring the view of the Elya Rabba (Rav Elya Spira of Prague, 1660-1712) that although covering one's head with his own hand does not suffice for prayer, it does suffice with respect to the requirement to avoid walking four Amot bareheaded. According to this opinion, one who needs to retrieve his Kippa may cover his head with his hand even without pulling down the sleeve. However, the Shulhan Aruch does not mention this distinction, and so it is best to act stringently and try in such a case to have one's sleeve or some other material in between his hand and his head. Summary: Placing one's hand on his bare head does not suffice as a hair-covering in lieu of a Kippa, unless there is something in between the hand and the head. Therefore, if someone does not have a Kippa and needs to pray or recite a Beracha, or he needs to go retrieve his Kippa which blew off his head, he should pull his sleeve over his hand and place his hand on his head. Somebody else's hand – even if the hand is bare – suffices as a head-covering. Thu, 16 Jul 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 8d6d8024-3fac-a8d1-025b-61e8c7953fc1 One's Kippa should preferably be large enough to cover the entire head or the majority of the head. If, however, one prefers a smaller Kippa, this is acceptable, as long as it can be seen from all sides. One should not wear a Kippa so small that cannot be readily discerned from all sides. This is the ruling of Hacham Ovadia Yosef. Hacham Ovadia Hedaya (1889-1969), in one of his published responsa (Yaskil Abdi, vol. 6, p. 292a), writes that he would often reprimand people for wearing very small Kippot. Even one who normally wears a smaller Kippa, that does not cover the majority of his head, should try to wear a hat or a larger Kippa – that covers the majority of the head – while praying or reciting Birkat Ha'mazon. Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 47925a2e-adb8-9f77-3cc2-6805d64ad26c As we have seen, even if wearing a Kippa cannot be defined as an outright Halachic obligation (except while praying, reciting Berachot, and eating), it is proper to ensure not to walk four Amot (cubits) with one's head uncovered. It is considered a special act of piety to avoid walking even shorter distances without a Kippa. The Maharshal (Rav Shlomo Luria, Poland, 1510-1573), surprisingly, writes that this entire concept applies only outdoors. Indoors, he writes, there is no need to wear a Kippa – even as a measure of piety – because there is a roof over one's head, and this suffices to remind him of G-d. Most later Poskim, however, including the Mishna Berura, disagreed, and maintained that one should wear a Kippa both outdoors and indoors. Is it recommended to wear a Kippa even while sleeping? From the Rambam's comments it appears, at least at first glance, that he assumed people did not wear a head-covering while sleeping. The Rambam ruled that the Birkot Ha'shahar – the series of morning blessings which we recite praising Hashem for certain phenomena we experience each morning – are recited only as we experience each phenomenon. For example, when one hears the crowing of the rooster, he recites "Ha'noten La'sechvi Bina…"; when one opens his eyes, he recites "Poke'ah Ivrim"; when one stands up from his bed, he recites, "Zokef Kefufim"; and so on. Toward the end of this sequential list of blessings, the Rambam mentions that upon putting on one's head-covering, he recites "Oter Yisrael Be'tifara." The Rambam seems to presume that people's heads were uncovered at night, and only in the morning they put on a covering. However, Rav Yisrael Bitan noted that the Rambam may have assumed that people slept with a small covering – like a Kippa – and then recited this Beracha when putting on their turban or larger hat. In any event, the Mishna Berura and others bring the teaching of the Shela (Rav Yeshaya Ha'levi Horowitz, d. 1630) that it is proper to sleep with a head-covering, though it seems clear that this was intended as a special measure of piety, and is not required. As a practical matter, it is very difficult to keep a Kippa on one's head during the night, and oftentimes it becomes difficult to find it in the morning. Certainly, if a man would end up waking up his wife early in the morning as he searches for Kippa, then he should not sleep with a Kippa. Some people avoid this problem by sleeping with a special hat that stays fastened on the head throughout the night. While this is commendable, it is certainly not required. Summary: One should wear a Kippa both indoors and outdoors. Some sources mention that one should sleep with a Kippa as a measure of special piety, though this is not required, especially given the practical difficulty entailed, though there are those who sleep with a cap that remains fastened on the head throughout the night. Tue, 14 Jul 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 794d28ce-64d9-e017-ffad-5646710b78e8 The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin (31a) tells that Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua made a point of always keeping his head covered, and he explained that since the Shechina hovered over his head at all times, it is appropriate to cover one's head as a sign of respect. This same Rav Huna is cited elsewhere (Shabbat 118b) as saying that he was worthy of reward for ensuring never to walk four Amot (cubits) with his hair uncovered. In a different context (Shabbat 156b), the Gemara teaches that wearing a hair-covering helps engender Yir'at Shamayim (fear of Heaven) and thus prevent us from sin. It tells that a woman was warned by astrologers that her infant son would be a thief as an adult. She understood this to mean that the boy was born with a natural inclination toward theft. In an effort to avoid this outcome, she saw to it that the child's head would always remain covered, so he would be cognizant of Hashem's presence at all times and thus stay away from sin. In addition, she fervently prayed to G-d that he would be righteous. Once, the Gemara says, when this boy was still a child, he was sitting beneath somebody's palm tree learning Torah, and his head covering blew off. He looked up and saw a cluster of luscious dates. Enticed, he ate the dates, which were somebody's private property – showing how a head covering helps protect a person from the Yeser Ha'ra (evil inclination). (Thanks to his mother's efforts, though, this boy grew to become Rav Nahman Bar Yishak, one of the great Sages of the Talmud.) Similarly, the Zohar (Balak 187a) teaches that one must avoid walking more than four Amot with his head uncovered, because the Shechina hovers over his head. The Zohar adds that this concept is alluded to in the verse in Kohelet (9:8), "Ve'shemen Al Roshecha al Yehsar" – "Oil shall not be lacking upon your head." The Shechina (divine presence) is compared to fire, and Misvot are the "oil," the fuel that sustains its presence in our lives. Covering our heads brings us Yir'at Shamayim so that we remain loyal to G-d's commands. The Zohar reiterates this point later (Pinhas 245b), citing the verse, "Melo Kol Ha'aretz Kebodo" (Yeshayahu 6:3) – G-d's glory fills the entire earth. We acknowledge and give honor to His presence by wearing a head covering. The Rambam, too, in his Guide for the Perplexed (3:52), emphasizes that the great Sages always ensured to cover their heads out of respect for the divine presence. However, as we know, there are many otherwise observant Jews (especially in our community) who do not wear a Kippa all the time. They make a point of wearing a Kippa when they enter the synagogue, but not throughout the day when they go about their ordinary affairs. Is this acceptable, or are these individuals failing to fulfill a Halachic obligation? This question depends on whether we regard head-covering as a strict Halachic requirement, or as a Middat Hasidut – a recommended measure of piety. The Maharam of Rothenberg (Germany, c. 1215-1293), cited by the Orhot Haim and Kolbo, maintained that Halacha does not forbid going about bareheaded, and the Sages who ensured to have their heads covered did so as a Middat Hasidut. This is also the clear implication of the Rambam, in the passage cited earlier, where he mentions that great Rabbis made a point of covering their heads – indicating that this is a recommended measure of piety, and not a binding Halachic obligation. The Maharshal (Rav Shlomo Luria, Poland, 1510-1573) drew proof to this view from a passage in the Midrash which emphasizes how Hashem deals with us far more kindly than mortal kings deal with their subjects. Normally, the Midrash comments, when a king's messenger reads to the masses a written royal decree, everyone is expected to stand, remove their hats, and listen with fear and trepidation. But when we read the Shema in fulfillment of G-d's decree, we are not required to stand and remove our head coverings. The Midrash here clearly implies that there would be nothing wrong with baring our heads – even for the recitation of Shema. The Shebut Yaakov (Rav Yaakov Reischer, 1661-1733) refutes this proof, noting that the Midrash later observes that Hashem does not demand that we hunt wild animals to bring them as sacrifices, but rather commands that we offer as sacrifices domesticated animals, which do not need to be hunted. Clearly, this does not mean that it would be acceptable to offer wild animals as sacrifices. By the same token, we cannot necessarily deduce from the Midrash that it is acceptable to recite Shema with our heads uncovered. Maran (Rav Yosef Caro, author of the Shulhan Aruch), in Bet Yosef (91), brings the aforementioned opinion of the Maharam of Rothenberg, that covering one's head is not strictly required, indicating that he concurred with this view. Elsewhere in Bet Yosef (46), however, Maran appears to imply otherwise. In discussing the blessing recited each morning, "Oter Yisrael Be'tif'ara" ("He who crowns Israel with splendor"), Maran explains that we are "crowned" in the sense that we, unlike other nations, are required to cover our heads. Maran adds that even those who maintain that this is not strictly required, agree that it is recommended as an act of piety. Here Maran clearly sides with the opinion that head-covering constitutes an outright Halachic obligation. Regardless, the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) noted that in the Shulhan Aruch, Maran takes the position that covering one's head is recommended but not strictly required. In Siman 2, the Shulhan Aruch writes that "it is forbidden" to walk about "Be'koma Zekufa" – completely upright, appearing proud and overly confident. In the same sentence, the Shulhan Aruch writes that "one should not walk four Amot with his head bare." When it comes to "Koma Zekufa," the Shulhan Aruch uses the word "Assur" ("It is forbidden"), whereas regarding walking bareheaded, he writes simply that this should not be done. It would thus appear that although it is proper to wear a head-covering, this is not strictly required. However, the Taz (Rav David Ha'levi Segal, 1586-1667) writes that even assuming that head-covering was practiced in ancient times only as a Middat Hasidut, in modern times this has become a strict Halachic obligation. The Taz explains that since the Christians are accustomed to walk about bareheaded, doing so violates the prohibition of "Hukot Ha'akum" – following gentile practices. Hence, in the view of the Taz, one is required to wear a Kippa nowadays in order to avoid transgressing the Biblical prohibition of "Hukot Ha'akum." Hacham Ovadia Yosef disputes this claim. Based on the comments of the Mahari Kolon (Rav Yosef Kolon, d. 1480), Hacham Ovadia writes that one transgresses the prohibition of "Hukot Ha'akum" only if he does something with the specific intention of imitating gentile practices and resembling a non-Jew. If a person decides to leave his head uncovered in the interest of comfort, this does not violate the prohibition. Nevertheless, in a famous responsum in Yehaveh Da'at, Hacham Ovadia writes that nowadays, one is required to wear a Kippa, for a different reason – because this has become the "badge" or symbol of an observant Jewish man. By wearing a Kippa, one identifies himself as a member of the population of G-d-fearing Jews. Conversely, one who chooses not to wear a Kippa presents himself as being non-observant, thereby inviting suspicion, and for this reason, wearing a Kippa has today become an obligation. It seems, however, that this applies only in Israel, where the decision of whether or not to cover one's head is the clear marker of one's self-identification as religious or secular. Here in the United States, however, at least in some communities, this is not the case, and it is known that not all observant Jews ensure to keep their heads covered at all times. Therefore, while it is certainly preferred and advisable to wear a Kippa – and where a person fears antisemitism, he can wear a cap instead of, or over, his Kippa – one who wishes to leave his head uncovered has a basis on which to rely. (Indeed, in the school where I work, I advise the members of the basketball team to leave their Kippot off during games, because the Kippa would interfere with their playing; since the Kippa is not required as a strict obligation, it may certainly be removed for this purpose.) Nevertheless, wearing a Kippa when eating, praying, reciting Berachot and learning Torah is strictly required. Of course, one must wear a Kippa in the synagogue. In the presence of a Rabbi, it is proper to wear a Kippa in the interest of Derech Eretz (common courtesy). When a person wishes to fulfill the requirement of a Beracha by listening to its recitation by somebody else, he must wear a Kippa even though he remains silent, because he is considered as actually reciting the Beracha by listening to his fellow. Mon, 13 Jul 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 44b2c370-986d-427c-6c94-2c3d41b26460 It is permissible to handle one's clothes and dress himself immediately upon waking in the morning, even before washing his hands, though one who is stringent in this regard, and ensures to wash Netilat Yadayim before touching his clothing, is deserving of special blessing. However, this applies only to one who went to sleep before Hasot (Halachic midnight). If one went to sleep after Hasot, then there is no reason whatsoever to avoid touching his clothes before Netilat Yadayim, not even as a measure of piety. The Kabbalists teach that the impurity which descends upon the hands while one sleeps arrives at the point of Hasot, and so if one went to sleep after that time, there is no concern at all. Sun, 12 Jul 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 02be4c16-8794-7a0f-b8ab-a74c83569c3e The Gemara (Shabbat 129a) teaches that one should ensure to purchase shoes for his feet even if this necessitates selling the "ceiling beams of his house." This might mean that the protection provided by shoes for the feet is more important than the protection provided by the roof of one's home. Elsewhere (Pesahim 113b), the Gemara warns that one who goes about barefoot is "excommunicated by G-d." Different reasons have been given for why one should not walk about without shoes. Rashi explains that walking around barefoot is undignified, and Torah Jews are obligated to conduct themselves in a dignified manner as befitting the children of the Almighty. Others explain, very simply, that walking around barefoot is dangerous, as one's feet might be bitten or stung, or might step on a sharp object. Some have noted that the Hebrew word for shoe – Na'al – may be read as an acrostic for the words "Nahash" (snake), "Akrab" (scorpion), "Lahash" ("hissing"). Similarly, some sources warn that one who walks about barefoot is more susceptible to catching a cold or some other virus. Rav Abraham Azulai (d. 1643) offered a Kabbalistic reason for this Halacha, explaining that after Adam and Hava's sin in Gan Eden, G-d placed a cursed upon the ground ("Arura Ha'adama Ba'aburecha" – Bereshit 3:17). It became the domain of the snake, which represents the Yeser Ha'ra (evil inclination) and forces of impurity, and slithers on the ground and eats the dirt. One who walks barefoot, touching the ground without any obstruction, exposes himself to the ground's impurity. Indeed, some commentators explain that the Egyptian sorcerers, who succeeded in mimicking some of the wonders that Moshe Rabbenu performed – such as changing their staffs to snakes, and transforming the water into blood – received their magical powers from the forces of impurity within the ground. For this reason, they were unable to match Moshe after he brought the third plague – the plague of Kinim (lice) – because the earth underneath Egypt was overrun by vermin (Shemot 8:13), and thus they could not access the forces of impurity. According to the Kabbalists, then, one must wear shoes in order not to connect himself to the Tum'a (impure) in the ground. In fact, some suggest that the word "Na'al" is an acrostic representing the phrase "Nahash Afar Lahmo" – "the snake's bread is dirt," alluding to the function of shoes to shield a person from the impurity of the ground, the domain of the snake. In theory, these different reasons yield interesting exceptions to this Halacha. For example, in warm climates, or during the summertime, walking about barefoot will not likely result in illness. And, in societies where walking barefoot has become accepted, it is not considered undignified. The Kabbalists teach that the ground of Eretz Yisrael does not contain the Tum'a that is present in the ground throughout the rest of the world. In practice, however, since we must concern ourselves with all these reasons, one should avoid walking about barefoot everywhere – even in warm regions, in societies where this is accepted, and in Eretz Yisrael. Inside one's home, however, none of these reasons apply: there is no concern of getting sick or being bitten or stung; there is no requirement to appear especially dignified within the privacy of one's home; and the floors are tiled such that one does not step directly on the ground. Thus, it is entirely permissible to walk about barefoot in one's home. This is the ruling of Hacham Ovadia Yosef. One should avoid walking about outside without shoes even if he wears socks. Although the socks protect the feet from the Tum'a of the ground, they do not offer protection from small creatures or sharp objects, and, in most societies, this would be considered undignified. Some sources mention the practice of going outside barefoot as a form of self-affliction for the purpose of achieving atonement for one's sins. People would intentionally endure the discomfort of walking barefoot and hurting themselves, or getting sick, so they could earn expiation for their wrongdoing. (This resembles the account of how the Arizal would roll in the snow during the winter in order to earn atonement.) Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, opposed all practices of self-affliction, including voluntary fasts. He noted the Gemara's teaching that the Nazir must bring a sin-offering to atone for his self-denial, abstaining from wine. All the more so, we are discouraged from afflicting ourselves unnecessarily by fasting and causing ourselves pain. Hashem expects us to enjoy – in moderation – the comforts and joys of our world, not to deprive ourselves of them. Moreover, voluntary fasts and other extreme measures of piety can often bring more spiritual harm than benefit, as they frequently result in arrogance. Many people who observe such practices ensure to put themselves on display, or to tell their peers about what they do, in order to earn their admiration and esteem – a kind of exhibitionism which is the diametric opposite of piety. Primarily, though, Hacham Ovadia opposed these practices because they lead a person to overlook the most important and most beneficial means of atonement – Torah study. King Shlomo teaches in Mishleh (16:6), "Be'hesed Ve'emet Yechupar Avon" – "Iniquity shall be atoned through kindness and truth," and "Emet" ("truth") refers to Torah learning. In fact, in the blessing of the Amida in which we ask Hashem to help us repent, we begin, "Hashibenu Abinu Le'Toratecha" – "Bring us back, our Father, to Your Torah." The most important and most effective way to rectify one's wrongdoing and earn atonement is through Torah study. The sanctity of Torah has the ability to purge and cleanse the soul of all impurities. I am often approached by people seeking advice for how to attain forgiveness for various sins, and my response is always to attend more Torah classes and devote more time to Torah learning. This isn't my idea – it was written explicitly by Rabbenu Yona (Spain, 1200-1263) in his famous Iggeret Teshuba – a brief guide for those seeking to repent. He says that on the day that a person decides to perform Teshuba, he should immediately commit to increase his Torah learning: if he is accustomed to learning one page, then he should learn two; if he is accustomed to learning for one hour, then he should learn for two hours. Even regarding the six weeks of Shobabim, when there is a time-honored custom to fast on Mondays and Thursdays, the Sadikim teach that spending several hours a day learning achieves more than fasting. This is especially so in today's day and age, when we are not accustomed to abstaining from food, and fasting thus causes frailty which diminishes our productivity and our ability to learn Torah and observe Misvot. It must be emphasized that Torah learning has the ability to atone for even the most grievous sins. The Gemara in Masechet Menahot (110) teaches that one who learns Torah does not need to offer sacrifices for atonement. Even the sin of Lashon Ha'ra – a sin as severe as murder, idol-worship and immorality combined – can be atoned through genuine repentance and Torah learning. Rav Chaim of Volozhin (1749-1821) related that people would ask his mentor, the Gaon of Vilna (1720-1797), how they could atone for the severe sin of Hosa'at Zera ("wasting seed"), and he would respond, "If they devote themselves to Torah study, then they have nothing to worry about." The Gaon of Vilna did not advise these individuals to observe fasts or practice forms of self-affliction or self-deprivation; instead, he urged them to devote time to Torah learning, as this is the universal remedy for all spiritual maladies. (It goes without saying that rectifying this sin also requires common-sense measures such as avoiding places and devices that trigger the Yeser Ha'ra.) We should add that reading the Zohar, too, is beneficial for achieving forgiveness. Even if one does not understand what he reads, the words themselves have inherent sanctity that spiritually cleanse a person. In fact, the Arizal had the custom of reading a section of Tikkuneh Zohar each day from Rosh Hodesh Elul through Yom Kippur, when he would complete the entire work. Clearly, then, one should avoid all measures of self-deprivation, and should instead care for his physical wellbeing so he has the strength and mental energy to devote himself to Torah learning as much as he can. Fri, 10 Jul 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 27f3aa20-7e56-3cda-e5ab-660ef98e2e92 When putting on shoes, as we have seen, one should put the right shoe on before the left shoe in order to show importance to the right side, though he should tie the laces of the left shoe before the laces of the right shoe, because the left side has greater importance with respect to tying. When removing one's shoes, one should show respect to the right side by reversing the sequence – removing the left shoe first, so that the right shoe remains on the foot for longer. Intuitively, we might assume that the entire process should be reversed, such that one first unties the right shoe, unties and removes the left shoe, and then removes the right shoe. This is, indeed, the opinion of several Poskim, and the position adopted by Hacham David Yosef in Halacha Berura. By contrast, the Az Nidberu (Rav Binyamin Zilber, 1916-2008) maintained that one unties and removes the left shoe, and then unties and removes the right shoe. He reached this conclusion on the basis of the Gemara's formulation (Shabbat 61a) – "Holetz Shel Semol" ("removes the left [first]"). The verb H.L.TZ. used here in reference to removing shoes appears also in the context of Halisa – the procedure required when a married man dies without children, and his brother chooses not to marry the widow (which would fulfill the Misva of Yibum). The Torah requires the widow to remove her brother-in-law's shoe from his foot, using the word "Ve'halsa" (Debarim 25:9). This is understood as referring to both untying the shoelaces and removing the shoe, seemingly proving that the root H.L.TZ. includes both steps of the process, and not merely the shoe's removal. By extension, then, when the Gemara requires, "Holetz Shel Semol," it means that one should first untie and remove the left shoe before untying the right shoe. As mentioned, however, other Poskim ruled that one should first untie the right shoe before removing the left shoe. Therefore, one has the option of which procedure to follow. It is told that the Sadik of Nasaud ( Rav Avraham Yehoshua Freund, 1850–1932) once needed to remove only his right shoe, to have it repaired. He made a point of first removing the left shoe, in order to observe the Halacha requiring removing the left shoe before the right shoe. This shows that at least in his opinion, even if one needs to remove only the right shoe, he should remove the left shoe first. Rav Abraham Yishak Ha'kohen Kook (1865-1935) drew an intriguing distinction between the ordinary removal of shoes, and removing shoes for a Misva purpose – such as before Yom Kippur and Tisha B'Ab, a Kohen preparing for Birkat Kohanim, or when changing into one's Shabbat shoes on Friday afternoon. Normally, one shows greater respect to the right side by leaving it on for longer. However, when the shoe's removal fulfills a Misva, then to the contrary, one shows greater respect to the right shoe by using it for the Misva first. Rav Kook thus maintained that whenever one removes his shoes for the purpose of a Misva, he should remove the right shoe first. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) fundamentally agreed with Rav Kook, though he disputed the application of this reasoning to the removal of shoes before Yom Kippur and Tisha B'Ab. On these occasions, the purpose of removing the shoe is to deprive oneself the comfort of wearing shoes. Therefore, Rav Shlomo Zalman contended, one shows greater respect to the right shoe by leaving it on and enjoying the comfort it provides for longer than the left shoe. In the other situations of a Misva, Rav Shlomo Zalman concurred with Rav Kook's position. However, Rav Yisrael Bitan noted that the earlier sources make no mention of such a distinction. Moreover, the Lebush (Rav Mordechai Yoffe, c. 1530-1612) explained the requirement to remove the left shoe first by stating that it is disrespectful for the right foot to remain bare for a few moments while the left foot is still in a shoe. According to this explanation, it would certainly seem that the purpose of the shoe's removal is not relevant as far as this Halacha is concerned, and thus in all situations, one should remove the left shoe before the right shoe. Summary: When one removes his shoes, he should remove the left shoe before the right shoe. According to some Poskim, one should first untie the right shoe before untying and removing the left shoe, whereas others maintain that one should untie and remove the left shoe, and then untie and remove the right shoe. Thu, 09 Jul 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 b83c27a1-572f-8ef7-cc0a-0707b031e66a We have seen that although one should put his right shoe on before his left shoe – because precedence is always given to the right side – nevertheless, one should tie his left shoe before his right shoe. This is because the Torah commanded tying Tefillin to one's left arm, indicating that with regard to tying, the left side has greater importance than the right. Seemingly, then, this Halacha should not apply to women, who do not wear Tefillin. For them, we might assume, the left has no special importance with regard to tying. Accordingly, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) maintained that women should tie their right shoe before the left shoe, reverting to the general principle that the right should be given precedence. Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (1873-1960) was of the opinion that women have the option of tying their shoes in whichever sequence they choose. Others, however, disagree, arguing that once the Torah lent importance to the left side with the Misva of Tefillin, the left takes precedence in this respect for all people, even women. Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, accepted this view, drawing proof from a different Halacha that applies to women despite its being based on the Misva of Tefillin. When using the restroom, a person should not clean himself with the right hand, as this is the hand used to wrap Tefillin around the left arm (and the middle finger of the left hand should not be used, as the Tefillin is wrapped around that finger). Rav Yaakov Emden (Germany, 1697-1776) maintained that this applies even to women, since a woman could wrap Tefillin around her husband's arm, and thus the significance of Tefillin is relevant also to women. By the same token, then, women should tie their left shoe before the right shoe. Hacham Yishak Yosef, in Yalkut Yosef, brings both opinions without reaching a definitive conclusion, but Hacham David, as mentioned, accepts the view that women should follow the same sequence as men. Children should be taught to put their shoes on in the proper sequence as part of their training in Halacha observance. Summary: Men should put on their right shoe before the left shoe, but should tie their left shoe before the right. The Poskim debate the question of whether women, too, should tie the left shoe first, and a woman has on whom to rely whichever sequence she chooses, though it would seem more correct for women to follow the same sequence as men and tie the left shoe first. Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 b1f02d1f-a460-7b70-41b1-925ee3dc57b5 We have seen that although the right side is always given precedence over the left, the left shoe is tied before the right shoe, because the Tefillin is tied to the left arm, showing that with regard to tying, the left is given precedence. Seemingly, this would mean that a lefthanded individual – who wears Tefillin on his right arm – should tie his right shoe first. In truth, however, the Halacha in this regard depends not on whether a person is lefthanded, but rather if he is "left-legged" – meaning, if his left leg is stronger than his right leg. If it is, then he should tie his right shoe first, regardless of whether he is righthanded or lefthanded. A "right-legged" person, however, ties his left shoe first, even if he is lefthanded. If a person is placing shoes on somebody else's feet – such as an employee in a shoe store, or an aid tending to an elderly individual – the procedure depends on the person whose shoes are being put on, and not the person who is putting on the shoes for him. Thus, if, for example, the customer at a shoe store is "right-legged," then the person putting on his shoes should tie the left shoe first, even though he – the store employee – is "left-legged." If, for whatever reason, one currently has only his left shoe available, he may put it on, and does not need to wait until his right shoe is brought so he can put it on first. Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 543f4164-c1ed-07e4-cb1d-13e822711568 The Gemara in Masechet Shabbat brings the ruling of Rabbi Yohanan that when one puts on shoes, he should put his left shoe on before his right shoe. He notes that Tefillin are worn (by righthanded people) on the left arm, indicating that the left side, at least in some respects, is given precedence over the right side. Rabbi Yosef, as the Gemara cites, disagrees, quoting a Berayta establishing that the right shoe should be placed first. The Gemara concludes that the proper thing to do is to accommodate both opinions, by placing the right shoe before the left shoe, and then tying the left shoe before the right shoe. At first glance, this "compromise" seems difficult to explain. If one places the right shoe first, but then ties the left shoe first, he does not accommodate either position. Why, then, is this the preferred sequence? The Bet Yosef brings those who explain that when Rabbi Yohanan points to the precedent of Tefillin, his intention was to show that when it comes to tying, the left side is given precedence. Tefillin is tied to the left arm, thus indicating to us that tying on the left should come before tying on the right. Therefore, even Rabbi Yohanan agrees that the right shoe should be placed before the left shoe, and his point was simply that the left shoelaces should be tied before the right shoelaces. This is the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch. It should be noted that the Tefillin are not actually "tied" around the arm; they are wrapped around the arm. It thus follows that this Halacha applies not only to tying shoelaces, but to all kinds of fastening – such as if one's shoes are closed with a zipper or Velcro. Moreover, when one wears a long-sleeve shirt, he should first button the left sleeve before buttoning the right sleeve, as this, too, is a kind of fastening. Although one should insert his right arm into his shirt when getting dressed before the left arm (as we've discussed in previous installments), the left sleeve should be buttoned before the right sleeve – or, if one wears cufflinks, the left cufflink should be closed before the right cufflink. Interestingly, the Lebush (Rav Mordechai Yaffe, c. 1530-1612) offered a different explanation for why the left shoe should be tied before the right shoe. He notes the story of Abraham Abinu rescuing the city of Sedom after it had been captured by the four kings, and when he returned from battle, the king of Sedom offered Abraham all the property which he had retrieved. Abraham refused to take any possessions of the evil city of Sedom, and he proclaimed that he would not even accept a "thread or a shoelace" ("Im Mi'hut Ve'ad Seroch Na'al" – Bereshit 14:23). The Gemara (Sota 17a) teaches that in reward for Abraham's refusing to take even a "shoelace," the Misva of Tefillin was given to his descendants. Thus, the Lebush writes, a special connection exists between shoelaces and the Misva of Tefillin, and it is for this reason that we tie our shoelaces in a manner that is based upon the Tefillin, granting precedence to the left side. According to this explanation, this procedure is required only when tying shoelaces, and not when tying or fastening anything else, such as shirtsleeves. Regardless, the commonly accepted explanation is that which the Bet Yosef cited, and therefore the left is always given precedence when tying or fastening garments, such as when buttoning shirtsleeves. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) addressed the question regarding shoes which have laces on both sides; meaning, on each foot, there are two sets of laces that must be tied, one on the right side of the shoe and one on the left side. When tying each shoe, which side should be tied first? This would depend on the question of whether Halacha requires only tying the left shoe before right shoe, or giving the left side precedence in every act of tying. According to the first perspective, the requirement is merely to tie the left shoe first, in which case for each shoe, we revert to the standard rule granting precedence to the right side, and tie the right laces of each shoe first. According to the second perspective, then even when tying each shoe, the left side is given precedence. Rav Shlomo Zalman was more inclined to accept this second possibility, that the left side should be tied before the right side. The Rama writes that if one wears shoes without laces, then he simply places the right shoe before the left shoe. Rav Haim Cohen of Aleppo (d. 1655) wrote that when wearing shoes without laces, the proper procedure is to put the right foot in the shoe but not completely, and then put the left shoe on completely and, thereafter, finishing to put on the right shoe. However, the Poskim did not bring this practice, and the accepted procedure is to simply put the right shoe on before the left shoe. (It is known that the Hafetz Haim made a point of wearing of shoes without laces, as he did not wish to waste the time it would take each time he put on or took off his shoes to tie and untie the laces.) Summary: The proper procedure when putting on shoes is to place the right shoe first, without tying it, and then place the left shoe, tie it, and, at the end, tie the right shoe. When it comes to any sort of tying or fastening, the left side is given precedence, and thus one should tie his left shirtsleeve before his right shirtsleeve, or close the left cufflink before the right cufflink. If one wears shoes without laces, then he simply puts the right shoe on before the left shoe. Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 628f8c60-6222-7ca4-d846-e5459e6d6cdd The Gemara (Shabbat 61a) teaches that if one is applying oil on his entire body, he should begin with the head, which is the "king," so-to-speak, of the body. The Rama, in Darcheh Moshe, cites Rav Abraham of Prague (d. 1542) as asserting that this applies also to bathing; when one washes his body, he should wash his head first. The Rama then proceeds to cite a passage from the Rambam which seems to imply that one may wash the rest of his body first, before the head, and that there is no need to wash the right side of one's body before the left side. However, the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939) cites those who explain that since in earlier generations people did not bathe very often, no procedure was instituted for bathing. It is only when it comes to daily activities that we are urged to give precedence to the right side to symbolize the prevailing of Hesed (which is associated with the right) over judgment (which is associated with the left). Bathing, however, was infrequent in ancient times, and so the Sages did not institute any procedure. Nowadays, we bathe regularly, and so we should follow the proper protocol – washing the head first, and then the right side of the body followed by the left side. The simple manner of bathing, then, is to first wash the hair on the head, and then the entire right side of the body – the arm, torso and legs – followed by the entire left side. The Arizal, however, taught that after washing the head, one should wash the right arm, then the left arm, the torso, the legs, the private area, and then the feet. When one washes his hands – either for Netilat Yadayim or for cleanliness – he should wash his right hand before his left hand. Likewise, when drying oneself after bathing, he should first dry the head and face, followed by the arms and then the feet. When one gets dressed after bathing, he should first put on his Kipa before his garments, as the head should be covered before the other parts of the body. When undressing, one should remove his Kipa last, after removing all his clothing. And when one removes his clothes, he should remove the left side before the right side to show importance to the right side, just like one puts his garments on his right side before the left side (as discussed in a previous installment). Sun, 05 Jul 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 df93544f-ccb7-1566-5d51-5d2c584b6a84 There is a basic rule that the right should always be given precedence over the left. The right side is associated with the divine attribute of Hesed (kindness), whereas the left is associated with judgment, and so we always strive to give precedence to the right side so that kindness shall prevail over judgment. When bathing, then, one should wash the right side before his left side. (The Kabbalists first wash their head, followed by the right side of their torso and then the left, and they conclude with the feet.) When one dresses himself in the morning, he should insert his right arm in his shirt before his left. Likewise, when putting on a sports jacket or overcoat, the right arm should be inserted first. One should preferably hold both sides of the garment with his right hand, and then transfer one side to the left so he can put his right arm through the garment first, followed by the left arm. This applies even to lefthanded individuals. When putting on a Tallit, too, one should first hold the Tallit with his right hand, and then transfer one side to his left, at which point he recites the Beracha and puts it on. When putting on a scarf, one should wrap the right side over the left side, and not vice-versa, expressing the prevailing of Hesed over judgment. Hassidic communities insist on this arrangement even for the buttons of shirts. In contemporary society, the shirts have the buttons on the right side, with the buttonholes on the left, such that the left side covers the right side. Hassidic communities therefore have shirts custom-made with the buttons and button-holes reversed, so that the right side will cover the left side. It is told that the Steipler Gaon (Rav Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky, 1899-1985) would have his buttons transferred to the left side of his garments for this reason. In any event, most communities are lenient in this regard, and wear their shirts and jackets with the left side covering the right. Interestingly, even Hassidic communities that insist on wearing shirts with the buttons on the left side wear normal pants, with the button on the right side. Some explain that there is value in leaving one area for the Kelipot (forces of impurity) to control so they will be content and not seek to inflict harm. When putting on shoes, one first puts the right shoe on before the left. Likewise, when applying hand lotion, one should first treat the right hand before the left hand. Fri, 03 Jul 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 db145264-ea0f-3ab6-e994-89c79bf2ee47 The Gemara (Horiyot 13b) warns that sleeping with one's garment under his head can cause him to forget his Torah knowledge. In airports, for example, when flights are delayed, people sometimes place their jacket beneath their head so they can rest. One should avoid doing so, as this could cause him to forget his Torah knowledge. However, this applies only if one places his head directly on the garment. If there is something in between, then there is no concern. Hence, one may lay his head on a piece of luggage even though it contains clothing. According to one opinion, the Gemara refers specifically to a person who lays his head on his own article of clothing. If one lays his head on somebody else's garment, then there is no danger. This is the view of Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868), and of the Salmat Haim (Rav Yosef Haim Sonenfeld, 1849-1932), who explains on this basis the Mishna's description (Tamid 1:1) of the Kohanim sleeping on their garments in the Bet Ha'mikdash. This was allowed, the Salmat Haim suggests, because the priestly garments were not the Kohanim's personal property, but were rather owned collectively by the entire nation. Hacham Ovadia refutes this proof, noting that perhaps the Kohanim were allowed to sleep on their garments because of the sanctity of the Bet Ha'mikdash. The Kelipot (forces of impurity) had no power in the Bet Ha'mikdash, and so there was no danger involved when sleeping there with one's clothing under his head. Hacham Ovadia concluded that as we have no definitive proof to the lenient position, it is preferable to act stringently in this regard due to the serious risk that's at stake, and refrain from sleeping directly on any garment, even one which belongs to somebody else. One who wishes to lie on a garment should ensure to place something in between his head and the garment. Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 afbfab52-dcdc-e9f2-504b-8cfa93cc45ad In earlier installments, we noted the Arizal's teaching that one should not put on two articles of clothing simultaneously – such as putting on a hat with the Kippa inside it – as this could cause a person to forget his Torah knowledge. The reason, as we discussed, is that the inner garment will be concealed and thus unable to receive the "Or Ha'makif" ("supernal light") that surrounds our clothing to protect them from harmful spiritual forces. It would seem, at first glance, that this is relevant only to putting two garments on at the same time, because it is then when we want the "Or Ha'makif" to surround the garments. When removing garments, however, there appears to be no reason not to remove two garments simultaneously – such as removing a sweatshirt together with the shirt underneath it. This is, indeed, the position taken by Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995). He writes that when it comes to behaviors which could lead a person to forget his Torah knowledge, we have no reason to be stringent beyond the restrictions mentioned in the earlier sources. Since the sources speak only of the dangers of putting two garments on at the same time, we do not need to be concerned about removing two garments at the same time. By contrast, the Yosef Ometz ruled stringently, that one should avoid also removing two garments at the same time. Hacham Ovadia Yosef concluded that although Rav Shlomo Zalman's lenient ruling seems correct, nevertheless, it is preferable to act stringently and avoid removing two garments at the same time, because one might then also put them on together. If, for example, a person removes his shirt together with his sweater, and the shirt remains inside the sweater, he might later put them both on simultaneously, and so he should preferably remove his garments one at a time. Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 4afc0e24-d1c9-696a-03ee-127334077e04 June 16 first through 5:25 As explained in an earlier installment, the Arizal warned that putting on two articles of clothing simultaneously could have an adverse effect on a person, causing him to forget his Torah knowledge. This gives rise to the question of whether one may put on his shoes when they are inside rubbers. Often, in the winter, people take off their shoes when entering the home together with the rubbers, keeping the shoes inside the rubbers. Then, when they go back out into the snow, they simply put the shoes with the rubbers on their feet. Seemingly, this should be discouraged, as one must refrain from putting on two articles of clothing at the same time. Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (Jerusalem, 1873-1960) cites a source claiming that the Arizal's teaching does not apply to garments made from rubber, in which case there is no concern in this regard. However, the Sitz Eliezer (Rav Eliezer Waldenberg, 1915-2006) questioned this theory, noting that there seems to be no reason to differentiate between rubber and other materials. The Arizal taught that when placing two articles of clothing at the same time, the inner garment does not receive the "Or Ha'makif" (supernal light) that surrounds garments to protect them from the harmful spiritual forces. This concern certainly appears to be relevant to rubbers no less than to garments made from other materials. Nevertheless, Hacham Ovadia ruled leniently in this regard, and allowed putting on shoes that are already inside rubbers. This is based on a comment of the Aruch Ha'shulhan (Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein of Nevarduk, 1829-1908) that the Arizal's teaching does not apply to shoes. The Aruch Ha'shulhan does not explain why shoes would differ from other garments in this regard, but Hacham Ovadia suggested that since the shoes touch the ground, which has impurity, they cannot be protected from impurity, and so they do not receive the "Or Ha'makif." Socks, however, are not treated as shoes. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) ruled that although one who touches shoes must then wash his hands, one does not require hand washing after touching his socks. Some Poskim disagree, but Halacha follows this view of the Ben Ish Hai. This lenient ruling yields a stringent conclusion with regard to the question of putting on two socks at the same time. Since socks are treated by Halacha differently than shoes, the Aruch Ha'shulhan's leniency does not apply. Therefore, one who wishes to wear two pairs of socks for extra warmth must put on one after the other, and may not wrap one sock in the other and then put them both on together. Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 a8b6d7ac-223c-b482-b2c8-4a0f6a1073cf A number of sources teach that if a person puts on two garments at the same time, he is likely to forget the Torah he has learned. This is mentioned in the Sha'ar Ha'kavanot, based on the teachings of the Arizal. It is brought also by the Mishna Berura. An example is placing one's Kippa in his hat, and then placing the hat on his head, such that he puts on both head coverings simultaneously. Another example is somebody who is going skiing and puts on two pairs of socks – he must put one sock on the foot at a time, rather than placing one sock inside the other and putting them together on his foot. This can also be relevant to a person wearing a shirt and a sweater; he must put on the shirt and then the sweater, rather than putting the shirt inside the sweater and then putting them on together. This applies also to those who wear two jackets; each must be put on separately. The reason for this Halacha is that according to Kabbalah, a garment is surrounded by an "Or Ha'makif" – a "supernal light." In fact, when we recite each morning the blessing "Malbish Arumim," thanking Hashem for the blessing of clothing, we refer to the special "light" that surrounds the clothes that we wear. This "light" has the effect of bringing a person Kedusha (sanctity) and warding off the Kelipot – the harmful impure forces that threaten him. If a person puts on two garments simultaneously, the inner garment does not receive the "Or Ha'makif." It must first be worn alone so it can receive this "light" before the outer layer covers it. Mon, 29 Jun 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 521a8188-54b4-1fa6-9ef2-ebecab216e4f It is incumbent upon observant Jews to always appear well-kempt and dignified. Nowadays, this applies to all observant Jews. As representatives of the Torah, we all bear the obligation to look respectable in order to reflect positively on the Torah. An observant Jew must not walk about with stained clothing, scuffed shoes, or a foul odor. People who encounter a religious Jew who appears this way lose respect for the Torah, and reach the conclusion that the Torah does not encourage self-dignity. In fact, the Sages teach (Shabbat 114a) that if a Torah scholar has "Rabab" – dirt – on his garment, then he is deserving of death, because he misrepresents the Torah. I had the privilege of knowing Rav Chaim Kreiswirth (1918-2001), the Chief Rabbi of Antwerp who frequently visited Israel. He was a towering spiritual giant, who mastered the entire Talmud. I saw him once take out a pocket mirror and comb before getting out of a car, to groom himself. He explained that the windows were open during the trip, and his hair and beard became disheveled. He therefore made sure to groom himself so he looked presentable before getting out of the car. Another example that I personally witnessed was the time when I went with a group of students to the home of Rav Chaim Brim (1922-2002) in Jerusalem, for a Torah class, after which we wanted to take a group picture with him. He did not allow the picture to be taken until he first straightened up the room and made sure he looked presentable. He wanted to ensure that people who looked at this picture would not see him unkempt or his home untidy. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in Yehaveh Da'at, addressed the question of whether or not it is acceptable for a man to use a mirror. The Gemara teaches that a man should not use a mirror, as this is something that women do, and is considered vanity for men. Nevertheless, Hacham Ovadia ruled that nowadays it is specifically a Misva for men to use a mirror to ensure that they look presentable and thereby make a Kiddush Hashem (glorification of G-d's Name). Rav Yissachar Frand (contemporary) shared that when he traveled with his Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yaakov Ruderman (1900-1987), to fundraise, and they would pass through the train station, Rav Ruderman would have his shoes shined in order that he would look presentable when meeting with the donors. Just as an observant Jew must dress in a dignified manner, he must conduct himself in a dignified manner. This includes eating neatly and patiently. Needless to say, this applies to both men and women. Women must dress not only modestly, but also respectably so they appear dignified. Earlier, we noted the Gemara's teaching that a Torah scholar with a "Rabab" – stain – on his clothing is deserving of death. An alternate reading of this teaching has been suggested, based on the Gematria of the word "Rebab" (204), which is the same Gematria as the word "Sadik." The Gemara thus perhaps refers to a scholar who "wears" piety on his clothing, who shows himself to be more righteous than he really is. Just as it is wrong to appear unkempt and undignified, so it is wrong to appear greater and holier than one actually is. One who projects a false impression of piety is also deserving of death, as he deceives people in an effort to earn their respect and admiration. Finally, a Torah scholar should wear neither very expensive clothing, nor very cheap clothing. He must appear respectable, but should not appear as though he wastes large amounts of money on costly attire. Fri, 26 Jun 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 1791ec44-781f-156c-fe0b-c03b338dd7cf The Gemara (Shabbat 114a) teaches that one of the qualities of a Talmid Hacham (Torah scholar) is that if he notices that one of his garments is inside-out, he immediately turns it around so the stitches will not be visible. It seems that long ago, the interior of garments looked very much like the exterior, except that the stitching was visible on the inside, and so it would be common to mistakenly wear a garment inside-out. A Torah scholar is obligated to ensure to wear his garments the right way, and not inside-out. The Tur writes that with respect to this Halacha, all observant Jews must consider themselves "Torah scholars." All those who observe the Torah effectively function as the "ambassadors" of Torah, since people who see us and watch how we conduct ourselves naturally interpret our behavior as reflective of the Torah's values. Therefore, all observant Jews must dress respectably, and this includes ensuring that clothing is not worn inside-out. However, if the concern was only about appearance, then this Halacha would not apply to undergarments, which are not seen. We would assume that one may wear an undershirt, for example, inside-out, since it is not visible. In truth, though, several sources teach that this Halacha is based also on Kabbalistic concepts, and it therefore applies to all garments. Even if, for example, nobody would notice if one's socks are worn inside-out, or if his Sisit are worn inside-out, nevertheless, they must not be worn this way. Beyond the need to appear presentable, clothes must be worn the right way because of Kabbalistic reasons, and so this applies to all garments. If, however, a garment is made from the outset to be reversible, and worn both ways, then one may wear it either way. Thu, 25 Jun 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 5fc20f18-d45e-ceb8-681f-a717f88bb48d As discussed in an earlier installment, men – like women – are required to dress in an appropriate manner. This includes a requirement to limit exposure to the minimum extent necessary when changing or performing one's bodily functions, and ensuring to lock the door when using the restroom. The Poskim make a point of emphasizing the requirement for parents to educate their children in this regard. Even at a young age, children should not be permitted to walk about unclothed. And, after a child is toilet-trained, the child should be taught to keep the door closed while using the restroom. While it of course might be dangerous to instruct a small child to lock the door – as an adult should when using the restroom – children should be taught to keep the door closed and maintain privacy while changing their clothes and while using the restroom. Wed, 24 Jun 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 35af5b6b-f2b2-4d54-5220-b6a2492c1ae3 People mistakenly believe that the concept of modest dress is relevant only to women, whereas men can dress in any way they like. This is incorrect. There are certain restrictions on dress that apply to men. The basic principle is that one must realize that he is constantly in the presence of G-d. Even when a person is in the privacy of his home, and even alone in his bedroom, he must be cognizant of the fact that Hashem fills the earth and accompanies him at all times. King Shaul was praised for his high standards of modesty, as he went into a dark cave to perform his bodily functions, and even inside the cave, he exposed himself only as needed, out of an awareness of G-d's presence. Accordingly, the Shulhan Aruch rules that a person must put something on before getting out of the bed in the morning. Long ago, people would sleep under their blankets unclothed, and the Shulhan Aruch writes that before a person steps out of bed, he should put his garment on under his blankets so he will not be exposed upon leaving his bed. This applies even if the room is dark, as Hashem can see even in the dark. The Poskim debate the question of whether the Shulhan Aruch intended this instruction as an actual Halachic requirement, or only as an admirable practice, a measure of piety that is recommended for the sake of demonstrating one's awareness of G-d's omnipresence. Rav Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986) maintained that there is no strict halachic obligation for a man to avoid being exposed in private, and the Shulhan Aruch's ruling was written only as a recommended practice, a proper mode of behavior for a G-d-fearing individual. By contrast, the Mishneh Halachot (Rav Menashe Klein, 1923-2011) maintained that this law constitutes an outright Halachic obligation, as the straightforward reading of the Shulhan Aruch and other sources suggests. Likewise, the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that according to some Rishonim, these laws are required on the level of Torah law, and so they should be strictly observed. Nowadays, of course, people generally wear pajamas or undergarments when sleeping, so the Shulhan Aruch's instructions would apply in our time to changing one's clothes under the blanket, so that his private parts are not exposed. Many people would naturally find this difficult. Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, accepts Rav Moshe Feinstein's lenient position, that these guidelines were not presented as actual Halachic requirements, and so he rules that they may be suspended if they would cause considerable discomfort. Thus, if somebody finds it very difficult to get dressed under the blanket, this is not necessary. Hacham David writes that this was the position taken by his father, Hacham Ovadia Yosef. In fact, Rav Moshe himself ruled leniently if dressing under the blanket would take too much time, or if one cannot dress neatly in this fashion. Nevertheless, Rav Haim Kanievsky (1928-2022) taught that one who ensures not to expose his private parts while getting changed is worthy of special blessing. Rav Moshe adds that when walking about, a man must dress in a manner in which he would not feel ashamed appearing before ordinary people. When it comes to Tefila, one must dress in a way he would when greeting a prominent figure. At all other times, Rav Moshe writes, it suffices to dress in a manner that is not embarrassing. One's private parts, however, must of course always remain covered. Rav Haim Kanievsky took a more stringent position, writing that one must ensure not to expose his arms above the elbows, or his legs above his knees. Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) wrote that since people in modern society do not walk about barefoot, one should refrain from doing so even in his home. In fact, the Mishna Berura writes that since the feet are normally covered, it is proper to put one's socks on before getting out of bed in order not to expose his feet. The Piskeh Teshubot concluded that one may walk about barefoot in his home under hot weather conditions, when covering the feet is uncomfortable. However, even the Mishna Berura conceded that in Mediterranean countries, where many people walk about barefoot, it is permissible to do so. It thus stands to reason that the guiding principle is the accepted practice in any given locale. In communities where it is not deemed acceptable to walk about with exposed feet, or in short sleeves or shorts, one should abide by the community's standards. In places where these modes of dress are acceptable, then they are allowed. Indeed, Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that one is allowed even to pray wearing very short sleeves or short pants if this mode of dress is accepted in his community (though he added that a person dressed this way should not serve as Hazan). Likewise, despite the Mishna Berura's aforementioned ruling that one should put on his socks before getting out of bed, numerous later Poskim – including the Hazon Ish, the Steipler Gaon, and Hacham Ovadia Yosef – ruled leniently in this regard. This is likely due to the fact that it has become more acceptable to walk about with sandals without socks, and thus exposing one's feet is no longer considered undignified. By the same token, a man may take off his shirt when swimming in a pool or at the beach, as this is the accepted mode of dress in these areas. However, some Poskim ruled that if one is not swimming at the beach, but is playing ball or walking, he should wear a shirt. A man who goes to the Mikveh should not walk about the Mikveh unclothed, and should instead cover himself with a towel or robe on his way to and from the water. Some Poskim allow one to be unclothed in a restroom that has a bath or shower, as such a room has the status of a Bet Ha'merhatz (bathhouse), where it is permissible to be unclothed. Others, however, rule that this is not allowed unless one is planning to bathe. Summary: Men, like women, must adhere to appropriate standards of modest dress. The basic rule is that one must dress in a manner that is deemed respectable and dignified in the place where he is. In some communities, it is inappropriate to walk about in shorts, whereas in others this is allowed. At the beach or swimming pool, a man may remove his shirt. Nowadays it is generally deemed acceptable in most communities to wear sandals without socks, so this is permitted. When one needs to expose himself – such as when dressing, when bathing, when using the restroom, or in a Mikveh – one should expose himself only to the extent necessary, remaining cognizant of G-d's presence. Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 efba3665-577b-0898-a2f2-348968d9f80d There are certain sections from the Torah that some communities have the custom of reciting each day. These include the verses in Parashat Ki-Tisa that speak of the Kiyor (the faucet in the Bet Ha'mikdash from which the Kohanim would wash); the verses in Parashat Sav that speak of the Terumat Ha'deshen (the daily removal of ashes from the top of the altar); and the verses in Parashat Tesaveh and Parashat Ki-Tisa that speak of the Ketoret (incense offering). Sephardic custom, however, following the teachings of the Arizal, is not to recite these sections from the Torah as part of the daily prayer service. Although we recite the verses of the Tamid (the daily sacrifice in the Bet Ha'mikdash), and the section from the Gemara that discusses the Ketoret, we do not recite this section. (In some communities, the Kohanim read the section of the Kiyor each day.) Many have the custom to recite the text called "Perek Shira" each day. This text speaks about the praises that the various animals sing to Hashem. Some women, in particular, recite a portion of Perek Shira each day, completing it over the course of the week, whereas others recite the entire text every day. The Sages teach that "Kol Ha'osek Be'Perek Shira" – "whoever involves himself in Perek Shira" – is guaranteed a share in the world to come, and will succeed in remembering the Torah that he studies. Notably, the Sages speak not of someone who "recites" Perek Shira, but rather of someone who "involves himself" in this text. To reap the benefits offered by Perek Shira, it does not suffice to simply mouth the words. One must understand what he is saying and reflect on the fact that even the animals give praise to Hashem – showing us that we, who recognize Hashem's greatness and kindness far more than the animals, certainly have the obligation to constantly give praise to G-d. Sun, 21 Jun 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 875bda2c-2038-9a2d-596e-64fd700a4a9e Some have the custom to recite each day the section known as "Parashat Ha'man" – the verses from Parashat Beshalah (Shemot chapter 16) which tell of the Manna, the miraculous food with which G-d sustained Beneh Yisrael in the wilderness. Reading this section reinforces our faith in Hashem as the source of our material sustenance, and is thus very significant. The Talmud Yerushalmi writes that one who recites this section each day is guaranteed that he will never lack food. Many people mistakenly think that reading this section is a Segula ("charm") that brings wealth, but it is clear from the Yerushalmi that this is not the case. The Yerushalmi guarantees that those who read it every day will never experience deprivation or shortage, not that they will become wealthy. Rav Haim Vital (1543-1620) would recite Parashat Ha'man each day until his mentor, the Arizal, told him to discontinue this practice. It is unclear whether the Arizal opposed the daily recitation altogether, or opposed only its recitation at the beginning of the prayer service. The Sefer Hasidim (Rabbenu Yehuda Ha'hasid, Germany, d. 1217) writes that one must not pray for his material needs before first beseeching G-d for assistance in his pursuit of spiritual greatness. Perhaps, then, the Arizal objected only to reciting Parashat Ha'man during the introduction to the daily prayer service, but accepted the value of reciting it each day after Shaharit. Regardless, Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, writes that Sephardic custom is not to recite Parashat Ha'man as part of the daily prayer service. Of course, there is nothing wrong with reciting it afterward. Many have the practice of reciting this section on the Tuesday before the Shabbat of Parashat Beshalah. Fri, 19 Jun 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 64deecd0-6814-6fee-c77a-1b3abd7cc1a4 The Gemara (Berachot 12) tells that some Sages considered instituting the daily recitation of the Aseret Ha'diberot (Ten Commandments), but this was not done because of the heretics. Rashi explains that there those who spread the heretical belief that only the Ten Commandments are binding, while the rest of the Torah does not need to be observed. Reciting the Aseret Ha'diberot each day would be misunderstood as reinforcing this belief, implying that only these are the obligatory laws. Therefore, the Sages decided against incorporating the Ten Commandments into the daily prayer service. Surprisingly, the Tur writes that one may recite the Aseret Ha'diberot each day if he so wishes. The Bet Yosef explains that although the Gemara concluded that this should not be done, the Gemara refers only to the congregational prayer service. If the Ten Commandments are read each day publicly as part of the congregational Tefila, this might embolden the heretics, but if someone wishes to recite this text each day privately, he may. In fact, the Bet Yosef adds, it is commendable to recite the Ten Commandments each day, to strengthen one's faith in the Revelation at Sinai. The Shulhan Aruch rules accordingly, and the Rama clarifies that this applies only to a private recitation by an individual. By contrast, the Maharshal (Rav Shlomo Luria, Poland, 1510-1573) wrote that it is permissible even to include the Ten Commandments as part of the congregational prayer, and that this was his community's practice. He explained that the Gemara discouraged reading the Aseret Ha'diberot together with Shema, but this section may be recited by the congregation at other points during the prayer service. The Maharshal said that his congregation recited it each day before Baruch She'amar. Rav Haim Vital (1543-1620) writes that he had the custom of reciting the Aseret Ha'diberot each morning before Shaharit, until his mentor, the Arizal, instructed him to discontinue this practice. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) comments that the Arizal apparently felt that even private individuals should not recite the Aseret Ha'diberot each day. Elsewhere, the Hida speculates that the Arizal may have discouraged reciting this section before Shaharit, but did not oppose its recitation after the prayer service. Regardless, our practice is not to recite the Ten Commandments at all, even privately, perhaps because of the Arizal's instruction to his disciple. (However, some Siddurim list the Ten Commandments on the margins alongside the first paragraph of Shema, as these commands are alluded to in this paragraph.) Incidentally, the Rambam, in a famous responsum, strongly opposes the practice followed in some congregations to stand when the Ten Commandments are read from the Torah (on Shabbat Parashat Yitro, Shabbat Parashat Va'et'hanan, and Shabuot). Just as the Gemara forbade the incorporation of the Aseret Ha'diberot into the prayer service, fearing that this would embolden the heretics, the Rambam felt that giving special respect to this section by standing similarly could have this effect. Indeed, our custom is to remain seated for the reading of the Aseret Ha'diberot. If the Rabbi is called for the Aliya that includes the Ten Commandments, and thus the congregation stands out of respect for the Rabbi, they should sit after the Rabbi recites the blessings, before the reading begins. A number of Poskim similarly opposed the practice to display images of the Ten Commandments on the wall in the synagogue, giving them special prominence, as this, too, could embolden the heretics who claimed that only these commands are binding. This objection appears in several works, including Zecher Yehosef (Rav Yosef Zecharia Stern, 1831-1903), and Teshurat Shai ( Rav Shlomo Yehuda Tabak, 1832–1907). This is the ruling of Rav Betzalel Stern (1911-1989), in Be'sel Ha'hochma. Others justified the practice, suggesting that an image of the Ten Commandments serves as a reminder of the fact that the entire Torah was presented at Sinai. However, Rav Yisrael Bitan challenged this explanation, noting that this image could easily be misunderstood as indicating that only these ten laws were delivered at Mount Sinai. Regardless, Rav Moshe Sternbuch (contemporary), in Teshubot Ve'hanhagot, writes that common custom allows featuring such images in the synagogues. He explains that since the commandments are not written out fully, and only one or two words of each commandments appears, there is no concern of a misunderstanding. It should be noted that many synagogues feature the Ten Commandments on tablets which are rounded on top, which is incorrect. The tablets were rectangular, and not rounded. Thu, 18 Jun 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515 505a728e-faeb-3d00-3c1e-7cc019e6a6ac When I was a young boy, the schools placed a great emphasis on Keri'a – teaching children to read properly. They insisted that youngsters must be taught all the nuances of the Hebrew language, so they know how to accurately pronounce each letter of every word. This continued the tradition that was followed by our ancestors in Syria. Indeed, a number of sources emphasize the importance of praying slowly and carefully, ensuring not to skip or mispronounce even a single word. The Sefer Misvot Katan (Rav Yosef of Corbeil, France, 13 th century) writes that one must treat each word like a precious jewel, seeing to it that not a single word is missed. And the Shelah (Rav Yeshaya Horowitz, d. 1630) writes that if one mispronounces even a single letter of the prayer text, he can end up "destroying the world." For example, when reciting in Birkat Kohanim the words "Ya'er Hashem" – "G-d shall shine," mispronouncing the word "Ya'er" could result in a words that means, "G-d shall curse," and thus the Kohen ends up cursing, Heaven forbid, instead of blessing. Another example is the word "Anenu," which means "answer us." If it is pronounced with a Dagesh (dot) in the Nun, this word means "torment us." Mispronouncing words can also result in outright blasphemy. In the verse "Nafshenu Hiketa L'Hashem" – "Our soul awaits G-d" (Tehillim 33:20), the word "Hiketa" begins with the letter Het. If one mispronounces this Het as a Heh, then the meaning of the word is "strike," as though we proclaim that we are beating the Almighty, Heaven forbid. And in the verse "L'Hashem Ha'aretz U'mlo'ah, Tebel Ve'yoshebeh Bah" – "The earth and its fulness belong to G-d; the world and those who reside in it" (Tehillim 24:1), one must recite the word "Tebel" ("world") with the emphasis on the second syllable. Otherwise, this word means "produce that has not been tithed," implying that this is all that G-d owns, Heaven forbid. Likewise, we recite each morning the blessing "Malbish Arumim" – that G-d "clothes the naked," but if we omit the Dagesh in the Mem of "Arumim," the word means "the clever ones." This blessing would thus imply that Hashem provides clothing only for those who are clever. Another common mistake is omitting the "Mapik Heh" at the end of certain words. When the Heh at the end of a word has a Dagesh, it must be pronounced in a special way, and failing to do so corrupts the word's meaning. King Shlomo warns in the Book of Mishleh (18:21), "Mavet Ve'haim Be'yad Lashon" – "Death and life are in the hand of the tongue." This is certainly true in the realm of interpersonal relations, as gossip and slander can sometimes be a matter of life or death, but additionally, as we have seen, mispronounced words in prayer can reverse the prayer's meaning, resulting, Heaven forbid, in dire consequences. Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:01:11 GMT Rabbi Eli Mansour Rabbi Eli Mansour No Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour Daily Halacha - delivered directly to your computer and/or mobile device. Halacha, Talmud, Halachaot, 643515