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 Thu, 13 Aug 2026 00:01:11 GMT Thu, 13 Aug 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 3ea9c7c8-0a15-7841-738c-3402fd7f13b9 The Torah commands in Parashat Shoftim (Debarim 23:15), "Ve'haya Mahanecha Kadosh" – "Your camp shall be sacred." The Gemara (Shabbat 150a) interprets the word "camp" in this verse as a reference to any place used for prayer or Torah study, such that the Torah here instructs us to ensure that any such place must be clean, without filth, to preserve the sanctity of our prayers and Torah learning. Accordingly, it is strictly forbidden to even silently think Torah matters in an unclean place, such as the restroom. It goes without saying that one may not speak Torah matters in the restroom. The severity of this prohibition is expressed by the Gemara elsewhere, in Masechet Berachot (24b), in regard to the prohibition against reciting Shema in a place with exposed sewage. The Gemara applies to a person who does not discontinue his reading when encountering filth a number of harsh warnings in the Prophets, condemning those who desecrate the Misvot. Conversely, the Gemara teaches, those who observe this command, and refrain from engaging in sacred matters when in the presence of filth, are rewarded with longevity. In order to avoid thinking of Torah matters in the restroom, it is proper for one to actively think about other matters, such as his finances, his business or his work responsibilities. On Shabbat, when one must avoid thoughts about such matters, as they induce stress, one should try while using the restroom to think of pleasant matters such as aesthetically pleasing things that he has recently seen, and the like. One must not think about or study in the restroom things that may evoke thoughts of Torah. Thus, for example, one must not study Hebrew grammar in the restroom, as this will invariably lead to thoughts about the Biblical origins of different words. It is likewise forbidden to read Hebrew poetry in the bathroom, as much of Hebrew poetry draws upon passages from the Tanach and rabbinic literature. One may read secular newspapers in the restroom. Religious newspapers may be read only if they do not contain words of Torah. For this reason, some religious newspapers in Israel present Torah materials in a separate insert, so the paper itself may be brought into the restroom. The Poskim debate the question of whether one may contemplate the six constant Misvot while in the restroom, such as the belief in G-d, the oneness of G-d, and the fear of G-d. The Lebusheh Mordechai (Rav Mordechai Yehuda Leib Winkler, Hungary, 1844-1932) ruled that this is forbidden. The Sitz Eliezer (Rav Eliezer Waldenberg, Jerusalem 1915-2006) agreed with this ruling, asserting that although one must certainly have these beliefs in one's mind at all times, he should not consciously think about them while in the restroom. By contrast, the Hochmat Shlomo (Rav Shlomo Kluger, 1785-1869) allowed contemplating G-d's existence while in the restroom, and Rav Haim Kanievsky concurred with this ruling, adding that one must avoid thinking about any verses or Torah texts in the process. Ideally, one should spend his time in the restroom contemplating his own lowliness. These moments are a perfect opportunity for a person to work on his humility, as he recognizes his limitations. Indeed, the Maggid – the angel that taught Torah to Maran Rav Yosef Karo, author of the Shulhan Aruch – instructed him to contemplate his lowliness while using the restroom. If one is the middle of studying a complex, intricate Torah topic when he experiences a need to use the restroom, he should go to the restroom without delay, and make an effort to avoid thinking about the material he is studying. If one enters a public restroom and sees his fellow doing something forbidden, he may tell him that he must discontinue the behavior. One example might be seeing somebody trimming his hair in the restroom during the afternoon of Ereb Pesach, when haircutting is forbidden. Telling the person to stop cutting his hair does not violate the prohibition against speaking Torah matters in the restroom. The Mishna Berura writes that in such a case, one should not state explicitly that the action is forbidden, as he would then be articulating a Halacha in the restroom. He should instead say, "This is not done," or "You must stop," etc. Other Poskim, however, allow explicitly stating that the act is forbidden, and the Mishna Berura himself brings this lenient position. One may rely on this lenient view, especially if otherwise the fellow might not understand that he is acting in a forbidden manner. When designing a synagogue, care should be taken to ensure that the restroom is not near the sanctuary or study hall, for two reasons – so that the odor from the restroom does not reach the sanctuary or study hall, and so that people using the restroom do not hear the prayers or words of Torah. If, for whatever reason, the restroom is situated near the sanctuary or study hall, a person who needs the restroom may nevertheless use it, and should make an effort to divert his attention away from the prayers or words of Torah that are being spoken nearby. This discussion is important not only for the actual Halachot that must be observed, but also because of the underlying assumption that one's mind is naturally inclined to think about Torah matters. The Poskim addressed this topic at length precisely because they deemed it natural for a person's mind to be occupied with Torah thoughts, thus necessitating a concentrated effort to avoid such thoughts in the restroom or in the presence of filth. The requirement to avoid Torah thoughts in the restroom should remind us of the requirement to keep our minds occupied with Torah the rest of the time, to make Torah study a priority in our lives and devote our free time to Torah learning, so that it is what fills our mind. Thu, 13 Aug 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 aa816e55-1263-6928-6af1-9a392a8b69a5 The Gemara (Berachot 62a) relates that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Assi would go out to the restroom alone, despite the fact that in those days, restrooms were out in the open fields, where one was exposed to harmful spirits. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Assi explained that by remaining silent and conducting themselves appropriately in the restroom, they ensured their protection from harmful spirits. Later (62b), the Gemara tells that Rabbi Abba made a noise outside to restroom to see if anyone was inside before he entered. Rav Safra was in the restroom, and responded, "Come in." Afterward, Rabbi Abba reprimanded Rav Safra for speaking while in the restroom, as he should have instead made a sound to indicate that the restroom was occupied. (It appears that Rav Safra spoke because he did not want Rabbi Abba to delay using the restroom for even a moment.) The Or Zarua (Rav Yishak of Vienna, 1200-1270), based on these stories, writes that speaking while using the restroom is inappropriate. This is cited by the Rama, in his glosses to the Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 3:1). The Rambam (Hilchot De'ot 5:6) similarly included refraining from speaking while using the restroom in his list of behaviors that Torah scholars must practice in the interest of Seniut (discretion and propriety). The Lehem Mishnah commentary (Rav Abraham di Boton, d. 1588) clarifies that although the Rambam mentioned this as a practice observed by Torah scholars, it is proper for all people to adopt this practice. Whereas these sources speak of refraining from speech as required for the purpose of Seniut, the Sefer Haredim (Rav Elazar Azikri, Sefat, 1533-1600) writes that this is required to avoid the danger posed by the harmful spirits that lurk in the restroom, as indicated by one of the aforementioned stories told in the Gemara. Hacham Ovadia Yosef was asked about a situation where one is expecting an urgent phone call, and receives a call while using the restroom. Is it permissible to answer the phone in such a case? Hacham Ovadia replied that if a considerable financial loss is potentially at stake, or if there is some other urgent matter, then there is a basis for allowing one to answer the call while using the restroom, though he should speak only the minimum amount necessary. This leniency is based on the fact that the concern for harmful spirits likely does not pertain to modern-day restrooms. Rav Yaakob Emden (Germany, 1697-1776) writes that harmful spirits lurked in the restrooms in the times when the restrooms were located out in the fields, but not in our times, when restrooms are located in the city. (Rav Yaakob Emden explained on this basis why we are not accustomed to reciting "Kabedu Mechubadim" – the declaration that a person would make before entering the restroom asking the angels that accompanied him to wait outside the restroom.) Secondly, the Maharshal (Rav Shlomo Luria, Poland, 1510-1573) wrote that Tum'a (impurity) no longer descends upon the hands as it did in ancient times. According to this opinion, we may assume that there is no longer spiritual impurity in the restroom, for the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that the impurity on the hands is more harmful than the impurity in the restroom. Hence, if we no longer need to be concerned about the impurity on the hands, we certainly do not need to worry about the impurity of the restroom. Thirdly, because of modern plumbing, the bodily waste is immediately expelled from the restroom, whereas in ancient times it remained there in the restroom, and it is thus possible that no harmful spirits lurk in modern-day bathrooms. Therefore, speaking in the restroom does not pose any danger. As mentioned, speaking in the restroom is forbidden also for a second reason – that this constitutes a breach of Seniut. Hacham Ovadia writes that nevertheless, when a considerable financial loss is at stake, we may allow one to speak, as long as he keeps the conversation as brief as possible. The Yalkut Yosef writes that it is permissible to speak in the restroom about matters related to using the restroom – such as if one needs to ask somebody to bring him more toilet paper, or to bring him water for cleaning himself. Summary: It is inappropriate to speak when in the restroom. If somebody is expecting an urgent phone call, and the phone rings when he is using the restroom, he may answer if a considerable financial loss is at stake, but he must speak as briefly as possible. It is permissible while using the restroom to ask somebody to bring more toilet paper or water that one needs for cleaning himself. Wed, 12 Aug 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 8b25b9a5-94af-8782-c8c0-75fb27f63ba7 The Gemara in Masechet Hagiga (5a) teaches that it is forbidden to do something that revolts one's fellow. The examples given include expectorating or killing a bug in somebody's presence. A modern-day example would be leaving one's used tissues on the table. The Gemara warns that one is liable to punishment for such behavior, for doing things that cause others to feel revolted. By the same token, one is obligated to clean up after himself after using the restroom, to ensure that no filth is left behind that will revolt those who use the restroom after him. This applies both to public restrooms and to the restrooms in one's home which he shares with his family members. More generally, one should always make a point of cleaning up after himself so that he does not cause discomfort to other people. If a person brings a cup of coffee into the Bet Midrash, for example, he should not leave his dirty cup on the table when he leaves. A person who uses the Mikveh should make sure not to leave behind any mess. We all have a responsibility to create a pleasant environment for the people around us, and to avoid creating an unpleasant environment. This obligation not only governs the way we are to talk to people, but also requires us to maintain cleanliness for the benefit of the people around us. Tue, 11 Aug 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 691aef5e-0e35-4a63-8a39-44782b2774fa The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 3:10) writes – based on the Gemara in Masechet Berachot (62) – that when one cleans himself after defecating, he should use specifically his left hand. The Gemara brings several reasons for this rule. One reason is that people ordinarily eat with their right hand, so it would be inappropriate to use the same hand for cleaning oneself. A second reason is that one uses his right hand when writing Torah matters. Another reason is that in the synagogue, the person signaling the cantillation notes for the Torah reader uses his right hand. Others explain this rule based on the Torah's description of G-d having given us the Torah with His "right," as it were ("Mi'ymino Esh Dat Lamo" – Debarim 33:2). Finally, one uses his right hand to wrap Tefillin around his left arm, and so this hand should not be used also for cleaning oneself. Even when cleaning with the left hand, one should not use the middle finger, as the Tefillin is wrapped around that finger. The Poskim debate the question of whether these laws apply to women, who do not wear Tefillin, and do not write Torah or signal to the Torah reader. Rav Yisrael Bitan concludes that it is proper for women to abide by this Halacha. When it comes to left-handed individuals, most of the reasons given in the Gemara would require them to do just the opposite – to use the right arm. The exception is the reason associating this practice with Hashem's having given the Torah with His "right." Regardless, the general consensus among the Poskim is that a left-handed person should clean himself with his right hand. A number of Poskim – including Rav Yaakov Emden (Germany, 1697-1776) and the Eshel Avraham (Rabbi Avraham David Wahrman of Buchach, 1771-1840) – maintained that this entire discussion applies only when one cleans himself with his bare hand. In ancient times, people did not necessarily have materials with which to clean themselves, and so they would sometimes use their bare hands. The Gemara thus established that it would be inappropriate to use the right hand for this purpose, as it would come in direct contact with excrement. Today, however, when people use paper, and the fingers do not directly touch the excrement, one may use either hand. This is the implication also of the comments of Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi (founding Rebbe of Lubavitch, 1745-1812). Rav Shlomo Gantzfried (Ukraine, 1804-1886), in his Kisur Shulhan Aruch, disputed this view, asserting that in Talmudic times, too, people used materials to clean themselves and did not use their bare hands. Likewise, the Birkat Yehuda argued that since the Gemara makes no mention of such a distinction, we must assume that this Halacha applies regardless of whether one cleans with a material or with his bare hand. Rav Yisrael Bitan refuted this argument, noting that in Talmudic times, even when people used materials to clean themselves, it was all but inevitable that their fingers would directly touch the excrement in the process. When one uses modern-day toilet paper, however, this does not happen, and so it might be permissible to use the right hand. The Sitz Eliezer (Rav Eliezer Waldenberg, Jerusalem, 1915-2006) followed the lenient opinion, and allowed cleaning oneself with either hand if he uses paper. Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, writes that if one finds it difficult to clean with his right hand, he may use his left hand. It must be emphasized that the highest priority is that the cleaning is thorough. As we've discussed, Halacha forbids learning Torah, praying or reciting Berachot if even a small amount of excrement is on the body, and thus one must ensure to clean himself thoroughly. According to all opinions, if cleaning with the left hand will compromise one's ability to clean himself properly, then he should use his right hand. Rav Yisrael Bitan writes that it stands to reason that this applies also when cleaning an infant in the process of changing a diaper, as there seems to be no reason to distinguish between cleaning oneself and cleaning somebody else. However, Rav Bitan adds, this would apply only when the child has begun eating solid foods. When a child only drinks milk, the bodily waste is not halachically regarded as filth, and we may thus assume that he can be cleaned with either hand. Once the child begins eating solid food, however, cleaning the infant should be no different than cleaning oneself, and the aforementioned Halacha should thus apply. Of course, since baby wipes are normally used, one who wishes may rely on the leniency noted above permitting the use of either hand if there is no direct contact with the excrement. The Poskim write that this entire discussion relates specifically to cleaning excrement. It is permissible to use either hand to kill an insect, to take out the garbage, and even to wipe drops of urine that had fallen on one's skin. Likewise, a plumber may use either hand when opening and repairing sewage pipes. Summary: A person should preferably use his left hand to clean himself after defecating, but should avoid using the middle finger of his left hand. A left-handed person should use his right hand and avoid using the middle finger on that hand. This applies also when cleaning somebody else, such as when changing an infant's diaper. However, some Poskim maintain that this entire discussion does not apply nowadays, when people clean themselves with paper and do not come in direct contact with excrement, and one who wishes may rely on this leniency. The most important consideration is ensuring that one cleans himself thoroughly. Mon, 10 Aug 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 468230ca-5ee1-af90-fe90-8641ddc914ec As mentioned in an earlier installment, it is forbidden for a person to pray, recite Berachot, or learn Torah if there is even a tiny amount of bodily waste on his body. For this reason, a person should clean himself with water, or at least moistened paper, after moving his bowls, to ensure that no traces of excrement remain on the body. Young children, quite obviously, cannot be expected to maintain this strict standard of cleanliness. Nevertheless, it is permissible for parents to learn Torah, pray and recite Berachot with their young child, even if it can be assumed that the child had not thoroughly cleaned himself after using the restroom. As long as there is no smell of excrement emanating from the child's body, this is permissible in the interest of Hinuch (the child's religious education). However, once a child reaches the age of 7 or 8, where he can be taught to clean himself thoroughly, with water, parents must ensure that he does so, as maintaining proper hygiene is part of a child's training in Halachic observance. Sun, 09 Aug 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 2d7361b6-42aa-b90f-1602-1c67e7d16643 The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes (Parashat Vayeseh) that the modern practice of cleaning oneself after defecating with dry paper, without using water, is Halachically incorrect. Halacha forbids praying, reciting Berachot or earning if even a tiny amount of excrement is present on the body, and it is impossible to ensure the complete elimination of all traces of excrement from the surface of one's body without water. It is therefore strongly advisable when possible to have a bidet installed in one's restroom so he can clean himself with water. If one does not have a bidet, or uses a restroom that does not have a bidet, he must at least use moist toilet paper, or moisten the toilet paper before cleaning himself, so he ensures to clean himself properly. If one has no possibility of cleaning himself with water, then he must take the time to clean himself very well with paper. The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 3:11), based on the Gemara (Shabbat 82a), writes that one should not use a flammable material to clean himself after defecating, as this could pose danger. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Poland, 1530-1572) cites the Sefer Ha'aguda (Rav Alexander Suslin, Germany, d. 1349) as claiming that this applies only when one is outside a city, where there is a risk of evil spirits. Under normal circumstances, however, there is no concern when cleaning oneself with a flammable material. The Rama writes that he does not understand the rationale of this distinction, but he acknowledges that common practice is to disregard this warning and allow using flammable material for cleaning oneself. The Magen Abraham (Rav Avraham Gombiner, Poland, d. 1682) suggests that in open areas, outside the city, one is exposed to spells cast by magicians, and this is the reason for the distinction drawn by the Sefer Ha'aguda. In any event, the Aruch Ha'shulhan (Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein, 1829-1908) writes that as these magicians are no longer common in the modern world, we need not be concerned, and thus people do not hesitate to use flammable paper to clean themselves. Fri, 07 Aug 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 9e148c19-8175-e446-26a5-b5f968ac9809 The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 3:2) writes that when one uses the restroom, he should not reveal his private parts until he sits down, and he should not stand up until after covering himself. This Halacha was relevant in the time when people would crouch on the ground to perform their bodily functions, and they were thus to lift their robes only after crouching. Nowadays, of course, people move their bowels while sitting on a toilet seat, and it is thus impossible to reveal oneself only after sitting, or to cover oneself before standing up. Nowadays, then, the practical application of this Halacha is that one should expose himself right before he performs his bodily functions, and then cover himself immediately afterward. However, one must ensure not to cover oneself after urinating until ensuring that no more drops need to exit the body. Just as one should minimize the duration of his exposure, he should also minimize the amount of his body that he exposes. The Halachic sources mention revealing only one Tefah (handbreadth) when defecating, and slightly more when urinating, to ensure that no drops fall on one's clothing. (The concern was that if people see someone with urine stains on his garment, they might conclude that he suffers from a urological condition, and thus suspect that his children were fathered by a different man.) Once again, in today's reality, this Halacha is not applicable, though one must make an effort to ensure that no bodily waste ends up on his garments. Likewise, although the Halachic sources forbid urinating while standing – due to the concern that some drops will ricochet from the ground back onto the person – this does not apply in modern-day bathrooms, which are specifically engineered to maximize sanitation when relieving oneself. One should ensure to close the door to the restroom even if nobody is home. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that if there is an intolerable odor in the restroom, then one may leave the door open as long as nobody is present at home. Otherwise, the door must remain closed. The requirement of modesty when performing one's bodily functions overrides the prohibition against restraining oneself and delaying relieving oneself. Therefore, it is proper to restrain oneself when necessary until he finds a private place for performing his bodily functions. The accepted position is that the prohibition against restraining oneself was introduced by the Sages, and is not a matter of Torah law. Hence, it is overridden by the concern of Kebod Ha'beriyot (preserving human dignity). The Ben Ish Hai distinguished in this regard between defecation and urination, maintaining that one who needs to urinate may not restrain himself until he finds a private restroom, and must, if necessary, relieve himself in public view. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, ruled that since nowadays public urination is considered indecent – and is even a punishable crime in many countries – it is clear that one may not do so, and must instead restrain himself until he finds a private place. Rav Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986) maintained that if a man uses a public restroom, and can choose between using a urinal or a private stall, he should use the private stall in the interest of maximizing privacy. If, however, no stall is available, then he should use the urinal and not wait for a stall to become available. When constructing public restrooms, Rav Moshe added, it is proper to build dividers between the urinals for the purpose of privacy. Two people should not use a private restroom together at the same time. Children, too, must be accustomed to use the restroom alone, with the door closed. One should not have conversations while using the restroom. The Shulhan Aruch writes that one should not push too hard when moving his bowels, as this could be harmful to the body. If a person must take a urine test, he is allowed to restrain himself before his visit to the medical office to ensure that he will be able to provide the required sample. Thu, 06 Aug 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 01584f74-b371-3677-9d2f-ce69a50c1b3f The Gemara in Masechet Berachot (5b) teaches that it is praiseworthy to position one's bed to the north or south, and one who makes a point of doing so is rewarded. Rashi explains that the Shechina's presence is to the east and west, and thus it would be disrespectful for a bed, where marital relations take place, to face either of these two directions. Talmideh Rabbenu Yona (commentary by the disciples of Rabbenu Yona, Spain, 1200-1263) offer a different explanation, noting that inside the Bet Ha'mikdash, the Menorah was situated along the southern wall, whereas the Shulhan (table) was to the north. The light of the Menorah symbolizes Torah wisdom, whereas the Shulhan, upon which bread was placed, represents Parnasa (material sustenance). For this reason, the Gemara elsewhere (Baba Batra 25b) teaches that one who seeks Torah wisdom should tilt slightly to the south while praying, whereas one who seeks wealth should tilt to the north. Similarly, Talmideh Rabbenu Yona write, a bed should be positioned to the south and north to express the prayer that the children produced by the couple should be blessed with both Torah wisdom and wealth. Interestingly, however, the Zohar teaches that to the contrary, the head of the bed should be positioned to the east, and the end of the bed to the west. The Vilna Gaon (cited by the Mishna Berura, 3:11) suggested reinterpreting the Zohar's comments such that it is not in disagreement with the Gemara, but others, including the Arizal, understood that the Zohar indeed disputed the Gemara's teaching. The Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939) writes that one should follow the Zohar's view – which was accepted also by the Arizal – and position the bed with the head to the east. Numerous other Poskim, however, ruled that since this issue remains unresolved, one can position the bed in whichever direction he prefers. Indeed, the Shiyureh Ha'kenesset Ha'gedola (Rav Haim Benvenisti, Turkey, 1603-1673) writes that in his day, the custom was to pay no attention whatsoever to the position of beds. This is the ruling followed by the Aruch Ha'shulhan (Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein, 1829-1908) and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995). Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) writes that it is preferable to follow the Arizal's view, but if this would cause any sort of inconvenience, one may position the bed north to south. On the occasions when I have been asked this question, I responded by noting to the questioner that this issue is many times less consequential than far more critical issues, such as the proper observance of the laws of family purity. As we saw, most Poskim conclude that the position of the bed does not matter. One's priority must be adherence to the more difficult but also far more consequential laws governing the relationship between husband and wife. Wed, 05 Aug 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 6a70298c-0b89-3c93-a429-06a9d06dae8e If a person must perform his bodily functions out in the open – such as if he is hiking or camping, or is driving and needs to relieve himself on the roadside – he should ensure to move away from the view of people. It suffices for him to be far enough that his private parts are not visible, even he can be seen. If one goes behind a wall, such that he is not visible to others, this suffices even if he can be heard. Although he might prefer not to be heard, this would not constitute a breach of modesty from a halachic standpoint, as long as he cannot be seen. If one must defecate in the open, he must position himself facing either the north or the south, and not the east or west. This is because the Kodesh Ha'kodashim – the inner sanctum of the Bet Ha'mikdash – was positioned on the western side of the Bet Ha'mikdash, and thus the line of west-east is associated with the Bet Ha'mikdash. Defecating with one's back facing westward – the direction of the Kodesh Ha'kodashim – would clearly be disrespectful to the Bet Ha'mikdash, and since the sanctity of the Kodesh Ha'kodashim affects also the east, it would be similarly disrespectful if one's back faced the east. This Halacha applies only when moving one's bowls; when urinating in the open, there is no concern, and one may face whichever direction he wishes. Additionally, this discussion relates only when one must defecate out in the open; if he is within walls or a fence, then there is no concern. This distinction is made by Tosafot in Masechet Berachot (61) and by the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, d. 1327). The Rambam makes no mention of such a distinction, but Maran (author of the Shulhan Aruch), in Bet Yosef, writes that the plain reading of the Gemara supports the lenient view of Tosafot, and this is his ruling in the Shulhan Aruch. Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi (founding Rebbe of Lubavitch, 1745-1812) recommended when building a home to construct the restroom in such a way that the toilet faces to the north or south, following the stringent view, and the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that this was the practice in Baghdad. Nevertheless, Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, writes that the accepted custom is to follow the lenient ruling of the Shulhan Aruch. Hence, one who moves his bowls indoors does not need to be concerned about the direction he faces, and one does not need to design the restroom in his home with the toilet facing to the north or south. The Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakov Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939) extended this rule to the situation of a person who needs to relieve himself in an open area within a walled city. Since he is surrounded by walls, he may face whichever direction he wishes. By contrast, the Magen Abraham (Rav Abraham Gombiner, Poland, d. 1682) ruled that one is considered "out in the open" even within a walled city, and so unless he is inside a walled structure, he must face either north or south. Hacham David Yosef follows the stringent view of the Magen Abraham. Summary: If one is camping, hiking or the like, and needs to perform his bodily functions out in the open, he should move far enough away from people – or behind a wall – so his private parts are not visible to anyone. When defecating out in the open, one should face either to the north or south. Inside a structure, however, he may face whichever direction he chooses. Tue, 04 Aug 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 74a8534b-3a9c-b8a6-a4b3-30dd81bdda45 The Gemara (Berachot 60b) teaches that before entering the restroom, one should make a declaration (beginning with the words "Hitkabedu Mechubadim") asking the angels that accompany him to wait outside, and to protect him, while he performs his bodily functions. As the angels do not enter the restroom, the individual respectfully addresses them before he enters, explaining that he needs to briefly leave them so he can tend to his bodily needs. Maran (Rav Yosef Karo, author of the Shulhan Aruch), in Bet Yosef (Orah Haim 3), cites Rav David Abudarham (Spain, 14 th century) as commenting that this prayer was instituted only for the exceptionally pious, who are indeed accompanied by angels wherever they go. For other people, making this declaration would be a display of arrogance. The Bet Yosef writes that it is thus improper to make this declaration nowadays, as nobody can honestly claim to have achieved such spiritual greatness that he is accompanied at all times by angels. Maran rules accordingly in the Shulhan Aruch. By contrast, the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) cites the Masat Shimurim (Rav Natan Shapira of Jerusalem, 17 th century) as asserting that this Beracha should be recited even nowadays, as it helps block harmful spirits and improper thoughts, thereby assisting a person in maintaining his purity. Additionally, the Hida cites Maharam Papirash (Rav Meir Poppers, d. 1662) who claimed that the Arizal reinstated the recitation of this prayer before using the restroom. What's more, Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788–1868) notes in his work Ru'ah Haim that the angel who would learn with Maran instructed him to recite this declaration (Maggid Mesharim, Matot), even though Maran ruled in the Shulhan Aruch that it should not be said. The Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939), after bringing these sources, concludes that a person who devotes himself exclusively to Torah study should make this declaration, but all others should not. He then advances a different approach, suggesting that since those who discouraged the recitation did so because it would be a display of arrogance, all people may recite this declaration when they are in the privacy of their homes, as there is then no concern of appearing arrogant. Rav Yaakov Emden (Germany, 1697-1776), cited by the Hida, claimed that although the Arizal instructed people to recite it, this was only when people would perform bodily functions outdoors in open fields, where evil spirits are found, and so even the Arizal would not encourage its recitation nowadays. And even the Arizal's closest disciple, Rav Haim Vital (1543-1620), writes (in his commentary to Tehillim) that the custom is not to recite this declaration. The Hida similarly observes that even Kabbalists do not make this declaration. Amidst his discussion of this topic, the Hida cites Rav Yehiel Kasteltz as challenging the Shulhan Aruch's ruling that this declaration should not be made. He notes the famous tradition that we are all accompanied by angels on Friday night as we return from the synagogue, and they bless us if they see that the home is properly prepared for Shabbat. It is for this reason that the "Shalom Alechem" hymn is sung in every Jewish home on Friday night to welcome the angels. Rav Yehiel objected to Maran's assumption that people nowadays are not worthy of the divine presence or of being accompanied by the angels. The Hida responds by sharply criticizing Rav Yehiel for dismissing Maran's comments, noting that Maran merely observed the widespread practice not to make this declaration, and offered his explanation. As for the angels that accompany us on Friday night, the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in his Od Yosef Hai, explains that these angels come not for our honor, but for the honor of Shabbat – just as Eliyahu Ha'nabi attends every Berit Mila out of respect for this precious Misva, and not to give honor to the people. Hence, we are not generally accompanied by angels, but angels join us on Friday night in honor of the sacred day of Shabbat. Anyone who nowadays feels that he is worthy of being accompanied by angels is guilty of arrogance. Interestingly, the Ben Ish Hai further writes that on Yom Kippur, when our sins are forgiven and we conduct ourselves on a very high spiritual level, one may make this declaration before using the restroom, and this would not be a display of arrogance. The Yalkut Yosef observes that from Hacham Ovadia Yosef's comments in a responsum in his work Yabia Omer, it appears that he concurred with this view. In practice, however, Hacham Ovadia was never seen making this declaration, not even on Yom Kippur. Regardless, the widespread custom is not to make this declaration anytime. Mon, 03 Aug 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 2c5203dc-abd2-f4cc-9b48-ed2723c1b704 In earlier installments, we saw that one may not delay using the restroom when he needs to perform his bodily functions, and delaying transgresses the prohibition of "Ve'lo Teshakesu Et Nafshotechem" – "You shall not make yourselves repulsive" (Vayikra 20:25). A number of Poskim cite a work entitled Shulhan Shelomo as applying this rule also to nasal secretions, which is a form of bodily waste that needs to be discharged. Delaying the expelling of these secretions from the nose – like delaying the expelling of bodily waste – qualifies as "repulsive" and is thus forbidden. Rav Yisrael Bitan explains that the Shulhan Shelomo follows consistently with his ruling elsewhere that one is required to wash his hands after touching nasal secretions. The Shulhan Shelomo equated nasal secretions with other bodily waste, and so he felt that one must wash his hands after coming in contact with such secretions, and that one may not delay expelling them from the nose. The consensus among the Poskim, however, does not require hand-washing after touching nasal secretions. (Needless to say, this is recommended as a matter of basic hygiene, but it is not a Halachic requirement.) By the same token, there is no prohibition against delaying cleaning one's nose. Rav Efrayim Greenblatt (Memphis, 1932-2014), in his Ribebot Efrayim, brings a source for the position of the Shulhan Shelomo – a passage in the work Yesod Ve'shoresh Ha'aboda (by Rav Alexander Ziskind of Grodno, d. 1794), where the author describes how he would always clean his nose immediately when he needed to. He writes that he deemed it disrespectful to stand before the Almighty with filth, and so even when he was involved in some important activity, he would right away clean his nose as soon as this became necessary. However, Rav Bitan noted that this practice was perhaps followed as a measure of special piety, and this passage in the Yesod Ha'shoresh Ha'aboda was not necessarily intended as a halachic ruling. Moreover, it seems likely that the author referred to situations where the nasal secretions already became visible outside the nose, in which case it is certainly appropriate to clean the nose immediately. This does not necessarily indicate that one must always ensure the inside of his nose is clear of nasal discharge. Regardless, the Poskim write that one should preferably blow his nose before beginning to pray, as a buildup of nasal secretions could compromise one's ability to concentrate on his prayer. (As an aside, Rav Bitan writes that some people had the practice of ensuring not to clean the nose with the right hand, but this is unnecessary.) Gas in the body is not considered bodily waste with respect to the prohibition against delaying expelling waste from the body. Therefore, one who needs to pass air is permitted to restrain himself when he is public, and of course this is the proper thing to do to avoid embarrassment and in order not to cause distress to other people. Moreover, one is required to restrain himself from passing air when wearing Tefillin, as passing air while wearing Tefillin infringes upon the sanctity of Tefillin. If a person cannot restrain himself from passing air until he removes his Tefillin, he should at very least move the Tefillin Shel Rosh out of place. Summary: Halacha does not treat nasal secretions as bodily waste. As such, one is not required to wash his hands after touching such secretions (though of course this is recommended as a matter of hygiene), and there is no prohibition against delaying cleaning one's nose like there is against delaying using the restroom. Nevertheless, it is proper to clean one's nose before beginning to pray to help ensure he can remain focused on the prayer. Sun, 02 Aug 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 02fb2a1d-c6e2-2f8e-0fc2-fd32ac0833b3 If one wakes up in the middle of the night with a need to use the restroom, he should get out of bed despite the inconvenience in order to perform his bodily functions, in fulfillment of the Halacha that forbids restraining oneself from using the restroom. In such a case, if the person plans to go to back to sleep after using the restroom, the question arises regarding Netilat Yadayim. In order to recite the Beracha of Asher Yasar after using the restroom, one must wash his hands. Normally, of course, one does not recite the Beracha of "Al Netilat Yadayim" when washing after using the restroom. But is a Beracha required when one woke up in the middle of the night to use the restroom? Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) notes a dispute among the Poskim as to whether a person who wakes up in the middle of the night, and plans to go back to sleep, recites the Beracha over hand-washing even in the middle of the night. According to one view, if the individual plans to go back to sleep, he does not recite the Beracha of "Al Netilat Yadayim" when washing his hands in the middle of the night, as the Beracha is required only when one washes upon waking up for the day. Others, however, require a Beracha both times – in the middle of the night, and then again in the morning. Hacham Bension concluded that the person in such a case should not recite the Beracha when washing his hands in the middle of the night. This is the opinion also of the Yalkut Yosef. Rav Yisrael Bitan suggests avoiding this debate by washing one's hands in the middle of the night without a utensil. He writes that a utensil is not required for washing after using the restroom, whereas for the morning washing, the accepted Halacha requires using a utensil. Although some Poskim maintained that one fulfills the obligation of the morning hand-washing even without a utensil, Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that one should follow the stringent opinion, and thus the Beracha of "Al Netilat Yadayim" should not be recited in the morning until one washes with a utensil. Accordingly, Rav Bitan reasons, when a person wakes up in the middle of the night to use the restroom, and plans to go back to sleep, he should wash directly from the faucet, without using a utensil. He then does not require a Beracha according to all opinions, and his hand-washing suffices to allow him to recite Asher Yasar. Another question that must be addressed is whether hand-washing is required in this case immediately when one wakes up, before going to the restroom. Generally speaking, one must avoid walking four Amot (cubits) after waking up before washing Netilat Yadayim. The Mishna Berura cites an opinion that one's entire home is considered within four Amot with respect to this Halacha, but we do not rely on this leniency. Nevertheless, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) ruled that if somebody woke up in the middle of the night to use the restroom, and plans to then go back to sleep, he may rely on the lenient view. He explains that there is also an opinion that the requirement to avoid walking four Amot before hand-washing does not apply when one wakes up for a brief period during the night and plans to return to bed. We may take into consideration these two leniencies to allow one to go the restroom during the night before washing his hands at his bedside. Rav Shlomo Zalman added that one is allowed in this case not to wash his hands at all in the middle of the night, and simply delay the recitation of Asher Yasar until after he washes his hands in the morning. However, we follow the opinion of Hacham Ovadia Yosef that the Beracha of Asher Yasar must be recited within 72 minutes of performing one's bodily functions, and thus one may not delay the recitation until morning. If a person is concerned that washing his hands with cold water will make it difficult for him to fall back asleep, then he may wipe his hands on a towel or some other material in lieu of washing, and this suffices to allow reciting Asher Yasar. Summary: if one wakes up in the middle of the night to use the restroom, and plans to then go back to sleep, he may go to the restroom before washing his hands. After using the restroom, he washes his hands without reciting "Al Netilat Yadayim," and then recites Asher Yasar. There is an opinion that it is preferable to wash in this situation directly from the faucet, without a utensil, so that "Al Netilat Yadayim" will not be required according to all opinions. If he is concerned that washing his hands with cold water will make it difficult for him to fall back asleep, then he may wipe his hands on a towel or some other material in lieu of washing, and this suffices to allow reciting Asher Yasar. Fri, 31 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 6fdaaa9a-7801-3484-d7ee-63c2633e99e9 he Yalkut Yosef cites a source addressing the case of a healthy individual who frequently feels the need to move his bowls even though this need does not really exist. There is a kind of inflammation that triggers a sensation as though one needs the restroom when in fact he does not. The cure for this condition is to accustom oneself to restraining the urge to use the restroom. Although Halacha generally forbids delaying the performance of bodily functions, nevertheless, in a case where there is a medical need to do so, this is allowed. As we have seen, the prohibition against delaying bodily functions is rooted in the command, "Ve'lo Teshakesu Et Nafshotechem" – "You shall not make yourselves repulsive" (Vayikra 20:25), and when one delays for a medical reason, this is not considered "repulsive," and so it is allowed. Later writers brought proof to this Halacha from the story told in Masechet Shabbat (108a) of one of the Sages who sought to help his colleague who suffered from constipation. He fed him foods and beverages that caused his colleague to feel a need to relieve himself, and then obstructed the entrance to the restroom so that the need would be intensified, thus curing the condition. This demonstrates that delaying using the restroom is allowed when this is done for a medical purpose. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) addresses the case of a person who feels the need to use the restroom while learning Torah. He writes that if the person continues learning – even just to complete the paragraph or section – before using the restroom, this falls under the category of "Misva Ha'ba'a Ba'abera" – a Misva performed by committing a sin, which is not considered a Misva. One must rather immediately discontinue his learning in order to perform his bodily functions. The Ben Ish Hai does not specify the level of urgency at which one must discontinue his studies, implying that as soon as he feels even the slightest need, he is required to stop and use the restroom. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in his Halichot Olam (a work discussing the rulings of the Ben Ish Hai), notes that the Hafetz Haim, in Bi'ur Halacha 92:2), disagrees with this position. The Shulhan Aruch there ruled that if, during the recitation of the Amida prayer, one feels the need to use the restroom, he should continue praying as long as he is capable of restraining himself. The Bi'ur Halacha applies this ruling to a person who feels this need during the Torah reading, the recitation of Hallel, the reading of the Megilla, the recitation of Birkat Ha'mazon, or a similar situation. As long as one did not feel a need when he began, he is not required to interrupt if he begins to feel a need during the reading. The Bi'ur Halacha explicitly extends this ruling even to one who begins to feel a need to relieve himself while he learns Torah. Moreover, the Bi'ur Halacha rules that the person may restrain himself even if he feels that he would be unable to delay for another 72 minutes. Even then, he may nevertheless continue until the need becomes urgent. This is in clear disagreement with the ruling of the Ben Ish Hai, who maintained that one must immediately discontinue his Torah study once he feels even a slight need to perform his bodily functions. Hacham Ovadia accepted the opinion of the Bi'ur Halacha, except that he limited this leniency to situations where a person thinks he might be able to restrain himself for 72 minutes. If the person is certain that he will not be able to restrain himself for this duration, then he must discontinue his learning to use the restroom. There is some controversy, however, surrounding Hacham Ovadia's position on this matter. Hacham Yishak Yosef, in Yalkut Yosef, claims that the editor of Halichot Olam misconstrued Hacham Ovadia's position, and in truth Hacham Ovadia accepted the Bi'ur Halacha's lenient ruling in its entirety, such that even if a person determines that he will be unable to restrain himself for 72 minutes, he may continue learning Torah. Rav Yisrael Bitan maintains that the Halacha as it appears in Halichot Olam is correct, and thus if one is certain that he cannot restrain himself for 72 minutes, he must immediately interrupt his learning to use the restroom. An exception is made, however, in the case of somebody who feels a need to use the restroom while teaching Torah. Since leaving to use the restroom would cause a disruption to the entire group, the teacher should continue and complete the class before using the restroom. It goes without saying that one should preferably take care of his bodily needs prior to praying, reciting Birkat Ha'mazon, Megilla reading, learning Torah, or any similar Misva activity in order to try to avoid this situation. In separate context (Mi'kabse'el, Parashat Vayeseh, 2), the Ben Ish Hi observes that for some people, the prohibition against postponing bodily functions can be very disruptive. There are those who require a great deal of time in the restroom each time they move their bowels, and some people need to relieve themselves very frequently. Such people might feel that it is preferable for them to delay using the restroom in order to limit the disruptions to their Torah learning and other important activities. Citing the Hesed La'alafim (Rav Eliezer Papo, 1785-1828), the Ben Ish Hai writes that these individuals should not view using the restroom as wasted time, for this is fulfilling G-d's wishes. Our time is to be spent in service of G-d, and when somebody feels the need to use the restroom, he serves G-d by tending to this need as G-d commanded. Therefore, even if fulfilling this requirement consumes a considerable amount of a person's time, he should not try to minimize this time by restraining himself, and should instead faithfully serve G-d by obeying the Halacha to use the restroom without delay. Summary: If someone began experiencing the need to use the restroom in the middle of prayer, Torah reading, Torah learning, Birkat Ha'mazon, or some other religious activity, he may continue his prayer or study, unless he knows that he will be unable to restrain himself for 72 minutes, in which case he should interrupt. If he is delivering a Torah class, then even if he is unable to restrain himself for 72 minutes, he should complete the class. If one has a medical condition that necessitates spending a great deal of time in the restroom when moving his bowls, or that causes a frequent need to use the restroom, he should nevertheless use the restroom as soon as he needs to, without delay, recognizing that he thereby fulfills the will of his Creator. Thu, 30 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 e884f538-a436-d717-2a6c-3963d768a36d The Torah value of Seni'ut – modesty – applies even in private, and even when one uses the restroom. Although one might intuitively assume that G-d is not present in the restroom, and does not descend into places of filth, the truth is that G-d is present everywhere. He is incapable of getting dirty, or becoming contaminated, and so He is present even in the lowliest and dirtiest locations, including the restroom. As such, Halacha requires conducting oneself appropriately even when using the restroom. The importance of this concept can be seen in the Gemara's discussion in Masechet Berachot (62b) about the story of King Shaul when he was pursuing David. As we read in the Book of Shemuel I (24), David was hiding from Shaul in a cave, and as Shaul passed near the cave, he needed to perform his bodily functions, and so he looked for a private place. He went deep into the cave, far from the entrance, and he exposed the minimum amount needed to relieve himself. While he was in the cave, David's men urged him to kill Shaul, who was trying to kill him. David, however, refused, and he instead secretly cut the corner of Shaul's garment, which he later showed to Shaul to inform him that he had the ability to kill him but refrained from doing so. The Gemara comments that it was Shaul's high standards of modesty when performing his bodily functions that provided the merit in which he was not killed during those moments. Earlier (Berachot 62a), the Gemara teaches that one who conducts himself modestly even in the restroom is saved from the poisonous snakes and scorpions, and also from "demons." Back then, people used outhouses, which exposed a person to harmful creatures such as snakes and scorpions. As Rashi explains, by acting modestly in the outhouse, one avoids drawing the attention of those creatures. And the demons, Rashi writes, respect those who act in a modest way, and so they do not seek to harm such a person. The Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakov Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939) cites the Yafeh La'leb as teaching that modest behavior in the restroom is one of the practices through which a person earns long life. The Mishna Berura cites the Sefer Misvot Katan (Rav Yishak of Corbeil, France, d. 1280) as maintaining that modest conduct when performing bodily functions constitutes a Torah obligation, established by the verse in the Book of Debarim (23:15), "Ve'haya Mahanecha Kadosh" – "Your camp shall be holy." Others maintain that this verse speaks specifically of a military camp, and the Sages extended this requirement to all times and places. The Petah Ha'debir (Rav Haim Binyamin Pontremoli, Turkey, d. 1873) writes that as this question is subject to a debate among the Rishonim, we must treat the obligation of modesty in the restroom as a possible Torah obligation and thus apply the same stringencies that we apply to other Torah obligations. The Gemara (Makkot 16b) teaches that it is forbidden to postpone performing one's bodily functions, and one should instead relieve himself as soon as he feels the need. The Torah (Vayikra 20:25) commands, "Ve'lo Teshakesu Et Nafshotechem," which the Gemara interprets to mean that one may act in a revolting manner. The Gemara gives the example of drinking water from the cup used to collect the blood when bloodletting. (The modern-day equivalent would be drinking water from the utensil used to collect one's blood when he takes a blood test.) Another example given by the Gemara is restraining oneself when he needs to relieve himself. One who does so is, essentially, carrying bodily waste around with him wherever he goes, which is disgusting, and it is thus forbidden. The Rambam, in Hilchot De'ot, adds that restraining oneself is also unhealthful, and adversely affects a person's health. As one is required to maintain his physical strength so he can properly learn Torah and serve Hashem, this is yet another reason why one must not delay using the restroom when he needs to. Additionally, the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that delaying using the restroom makes it more difficult to maintain the purity of one's thoughts. It is improper to leave the door to the restroom open when one uses it, even if nobody is home, because, as the Zohar teaches, harmful spirits are in the restroom at that time. The Ben Ish Hai emphasizes this point, noting that only if the odor in the restroom is unbearable, one is allowed to leave the door open, provided that privacy can be assured. The Ben Ish Hai writes that if one needs to perform his bodily functions in an open field, such as if he has no restroom available, then he should face north or south, but not east or west. Wed, 29 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 08d94adf-1811-4f1b-8ad1-4566eb8ec389 A number of works, including the Mesilat Yesharim and the Sefer Ha'hinuch, develop the idea which might be called the rough equivalent to the moder-day phrase "fake it till you make it." This means that even if a person does not feel religiously driven or motivated, he should nevertheless do the actions, repeatedly, and with time, the emotions will come. For example, even if a person does not feel like praying, he should try to walk briskly to the synagogue, as though he's excited to pray, as this will eventually lead to zeal and enthusiasm for Tefila. And this is true of all areas of religious life – one should push himself to go through the motions when he lacks motivation, because the actions will eventually engender the feelings. There is, however, one very important exception to this rule, and that is humility. There is no "faking" when it comes to humility, for the simple reason that fake humility is actually arrogance. If a person pretends that he feels lowly, he is actually trying to earn admiration through his displays of humility, which is the precise opposite of humility. By definition, humility must be genuinely felt. The Torah tells, "Ve'ha'ish Moshe Anav Me'od Mi'kol Ha'adam Asher Al Peneh Ha'adama" – "The man Moshe was humbler than any man who was on the face of the earth" (Bamidbar 12:3). This verse could be read to mean that Moshe was more humble that any man who walks with his face toward the ground, pretending to be humble. Moshe did not look humble – he was humble. He did not pretend, and he did not make displays of humility. His humility was pure and genuine. The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 2:6) writes that a person should not walk "Be'koma Zekufa," with his head fully upright, appearing arrogant and overly self-confident. The Poskim clarify that this does not mean that a person needs to walk about with his head down. Doing so would undermine the entire point of this Halacha, which is to avoid arrogance – because by walking with his head bent down toward the ground, one draws attention to himself. If a person makes a spectacle through his humility, then he is not being humble; he does just the opposite. (This applies to Seni'ut, as well. If a woman decides to be so strict with regard to Seni'ut that she dresses in an unusual manner, she draws attention to herself – which is the precise opposite of Seni'ut.) It is told that Rav Avraham Abush of Frankfurt (1690–1768) once went to a hotel where wealthy Jews were staying in order to raise money for his yeshiva. He entered the dining room, approached a table, and softly explained that he had a yeshiva and was seeking donations. The men at the table angrily sent him away, shouting that he should not disturb them while they were eating. The Rabbi immediately left. Just then, one of the men at the table noticed that his watch was missing. He ran over to the Rabbi and began yelling and beating him. He charged that the Rabbi was a fraud, that he had devised a plan to distract the men so he can sneakily steal from them. The men beat the Rabbi until he fled from the hotel. Meanwhile, the local Rabbi heard that Rav Avraham was in town, and would be spending Shabbat there. That Shabbat was Shabbat Shuba – the special Shabbat between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, when Rabbis delivered a special Derasha (lecture). The local Rabbi decided that it would be appropriate to invite the distinguished guest to deliver the Derasha in the synagogue, and Rav Avraham accepted the invitation. That Shabbat, he delivered a masterful talk, one that dazzled the entire audience – which included the men in the hotel who had chased the Rabbi away. They were shamefaced, realizing that they had mistreated such a distinguished Rabbi, beating him and accusing him of theft. They knew they needed to approach the Rabbi and ask for forgiveness. After the Derasha, they made their way through the crowds of people who were rushing to greet the Rabbi. When they finally came before the Rabbi, he immediately recognized them and said, "I told you – I didn't steal the watch!" This is a striking example of genuine humility. He did not assume that the men were impressed or inspired by his speech and were thus coming to apologize. He made no such assumptions about himself. He didn't think anything changed because he just delivered a brilliant and uplifting lecture. He assumed that they still demanded that he return the watch. Humility is an especially difficult challenge for those who are blessed with wealth. When a person has worked hard and made a lot of money, he can so easily feel superior to others, and feel entitled to do whatever he wants. The Gemara (Berachot 35a-b) notes that one verse in Tehillim (24:1) speaks of the earth as belonging to G-d – "L'Hashem Ha'aretz U'mloah," whereas a different verse in Tehillim (115:16) says that the earth belongs to man – "Ve'ha'aretz Natan Li'bneh Adam." To reconcile these two verses, the Gemara states, "Kan Kodem Beracha, Kan Le'ahar Beracha" – one verse refers to food before one recites a Beracha, and the other refers to food after one has recited a Beracha. Before one recites a Beracha, the food belongs to Hashem, but after the Beracha, the person earns rights to the food. The Gemara's comment could also be read to mean that "Kodem Beracha" – before a person is granted the blessing of wealth, he recognizes that "L'Hashem Ha'aretz U'mlo'ah," that everything is in Hashem's hands. But "L'ahar Beracha," once a person has been blessed with wealth, then he feels that "Ve'ha'aretz Natan Li'bneh Adam," he owns the world, he is self-sufficient and fully in control. The Hebrew word for "miser" is "Kilai," which is spelled Kaf, Yod, Lamed, Yod. This word can be read as a combination of the words "Ki Li" – "for it is mine." Some wealthy people are miserly because they feel too proud and self-assured, convinced that they earned their fortune not with Hashem's help, but exclusively because of their hard work and impressive skills. No matter how wealthy or successful a person is, he must remain humbly aware of his dependence of G-d, and this humility must be genuine and real, deeply-rooted in a true sense of subservience to the Almighty. Tue, 28 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 a2d65e49-8e52-1e1c-c25f-e26093eec0b1 The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 2:6) writes that one must not walk "Be'koma Zekufa" – fully upright, with his head held high. This is based on the Gemara's teaching in Masechet Berachot (43b) that if a person walks in an overly confident, arrogant manner, he "crowds out" the Shechina. Elsewhere (Sota 4b), the Gemara states that an arrogant person is considered like a heretic, and like an idol-worshipper. G-d refuses to live together with an arrogant individual, because the world was created for His honor, not for the honor of human beings, and thus G-d's honor is meant to fill the entire earth. The Gemara later (Sota 5a) comments that a Torah scholar must have "one-eighth of one-eighth" – meaning, a smidgen – of arrogance, but only for the purpose of unyieldingly upholding the Torah's values and principles. Otherwise, arrogance has no place at all in the life and mindset of a Torah Jew. (The Vilna Gaon offered a different interpretation of the Gemara's comment, according to which even a Torah scholar is not permitted to have even a smidgen of arrogance.) The trait of humility must be reflected even in the way a person walks, and thus one should not walk with his head fully upright, appearing overly confident and self-assured. Some have noted that the Gemara's teaching seems to call into question Rashi's comment to a verse toward the end of the Book of Vayikra (26:13). There Hashem tells Beneh Yisrael, "Va'olech Etchem Komemiyut" – "I have led you upright," and Rashi explains, "Be'koma Zekufa" – that they walked tall and proud. How can Rashi's comment be reconciled with the Gemara's stern warning against walking about in such a manner? The Seda La'derech (work on Rashi's Torah commentary by Rav Yissachar Ber Eilenburg, c. 1550–1623) suggests that Rashi used this term figuratively, as a reference to Beneh Yisrael's unique stature. He draws a comparison to the difference between human beings – who walk upright – and animals, which walk on four legs. Animals walk looking toward the ground, because they are incapable of conceiving of lofty, spiritual matters or pursuing spiritual goals, whereas humans walk upright because they are to be focused on the heavens, on spiritual ambitions. We, who received the Torah, are to live with a special degree of "uprightness" in this sense, which our heads directed heavenward. According to the Seda La'derech, this is the meaning of the verse, "Va'olech Etchem Komemiyut" – that Hashem has granted us the privilege of living with a special connection to the heavens and spirituality. The Petah Ha'debir (Rav Binyamin Pontremoli, Turkey, d. 1784) answers differently, explaining that this verse foresees the time when the enemy nations will fear Beneh Yisrael. At that time, it will be permissible for Am Yisrael to walk "Be'koma Zekufa" in order to intimidate those peoples who might otherwise think to attack and persecute the Jewish Nation. The Petah Ha'debir also suggests an additional answer, explaining that we must display humility when we walk because of the sin of Adam and Hava in Gan Eden, which resulted in an inherent spiritual deficiency that we must always be cognizant of and that should bring us humility. In the future, however, when the sin of Adam and Hava will be fully rectified, this will no longer be necessary, and the verse "Va'olech Etchem Komemiyut" refers to that time, when we will, indeed, be allowed to walk with our heads held high. Hacham Ovadia Yosef asserted that this law, requiring one to avoid walking fully upright, applies only as a Midat Hasidut (measure of piety), and not on the level of a strict Halachic obligation. He draws proof to this conclusion from the story told of the time when Rav, the great Amora, passed away, and each of his leading disciples chose to adopt one of his unique religious practices. Rav Yehuda adopted the practice of ensuring not to walk four Amot (cubits) fully upright. This clearly proves that refraining from walking "Be'koma Zekufa" is a measure of piety, for if it constituted an outright Halachic requirement, then Rav Yehuda would have adopted this practice even before Rav's passing. Nevertheless, the Shulhan Aruch writes that this is a practice which everyone should follow. The definition of "Koma Zekufa" is walking with one's head turned upward such that his eyes cannot see the ground, thus requiring him to walk more slowly. The Aruch Ha'shulhan (Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein, 1829-1908) emphasizes that one does not need to walk with his back hunched; he must simply ensure not to walk with his head turned upward. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) similarly writes that one should avoid walking in a manner that expresses arrogance, but does not need to lower his head as he walks. A Torah scholar has an obligation to walk with a special degree of dignity. This means not only that he should avoid walking with his head held high, but also that he should not run in public. Some Rabbis would make a point of avoiding conversation in the street, deeming this undignified for a Torah sage. Although it is unbecoming for a Rabbi to run in public, he also should not walk about slowly and leisurely, as though he has nothing to do. He should walk quickly and with a sense of urgency, showing that he is constantly occupied with Torah learning, teaching, and Misvot. One must be especially careful with how he walks about in a synagogue or Bet Midrash, as these are, in a sense, the "houses" of the Almighty, and so one must conduct himself in these buildings with a sense of reverence and humility. One of the commentaries to Pirkeh Abot cites a passage from the Midrash relating that King David was once reprimanded by Ahitofel for walking with his head held upright in the Bet Midrash, in violation of the requirement to carry oneself reverently in the study hall, and David accepted the criticism. Several writers noted the seeming implication of the Midrash that walking upright is improper only in the Bet Midrash, but not in other places – in direct contradiction to the Halacha we have been discussing. Hacham Ovadia Yosef suggested that as a king, David was permitted to walk about with his held up high in order to earn the respect of the people, but in a Bet Midrash this is forbidden even for a king. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) explained that David walked about in the Bet Midrash not with his head held high, but rather in a loose, carefree manner which is not proper in a Bet Midrash, and for this was he criticized. Returning to Hacham Ovadia's explanation – that a king is allowed to walk with his head held high – this is the opinion of the Bet Obed, cited by the Petah Ha'debir. Some, however, challenged this view, noting that the Torah requires a king to exercise greater humility than all other people and to avoid all feelings of superiority (Ramban, Debarim 17:20). The answer, it would seem, is that a king must make a special effort to remain in his heart humble and subservient to the Almighty, but outwardly may – and in fact must – carry himself with an aura of authority in order to earn the reverence of his subjects. Mon, 27 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 acaface2-4786-2c74-afa4-fef4061da447 Parents should preferably have their boys wear a Kippa already once they begin walking. At very least, they should wear a Kippa from the age of three, the age at which many parents give their sons their first haircut. As discussed in an earlier installment, wearing a Kippa helps instill within a child Yir'at Shamayim (fear of G-d), and so it is important that children be trained to wear a Kippa already from a young age. When a person rises in the morning, he should put on his Kippa first, before any other article of clothing. The head is the most important part of the body, and it should thus be "dressed" first, by placing a Kippa. Sun, 26 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 059e2d18-2417-9b45-00d4-177829f8cfdf The Shulhan Aruch (91:5) brings the opinion among the Rishonim that it is forbidden to recite a Beracha with one's head uncovered. Others, however, including the Maharshal (Rav Shlomo Luria, Poland, 1510-1573), ruled leniently, and maintained that it is technically permissible to recite a Beracha bareheaded. Some drew proof to this opinion from the Gemara's listing of the morning blessings, which, it appears, were recited in Talmudic times not all together (as we recite them today), but as one experienced each phenomenon – such as reciting "Poke'ah Ivrim" upon opening one'is eyes, "Zokef Kefufim" when standing out of bed, and so on. One of the blessings on this list is "Oter Yisrael Be'Tifara," which one recites when covering his head – seemingly indicating that the previous blessings were recited bareheaded, before the head-covering was placed. Hacham Ovadia Yosef noted that the Shulhan Aruch himself appears to contradict his stringent ruling. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) claims that the Shulhan Aruch did not definitively forbid reciting a Beracha bareheaded, as he merely mentions that there were those who maintained this opinion. In light of all of this, Hacham Ovadia concluded that although one should certainly abide by the stringent view and wear a Kippa whenever he recites a Beracha or prays, after the fact, if one prayed or recited a Beracha bareheaded, he does not need to repeat the prayer or Beracha. Thus, for example, if someone prayed alone at home (where there was nobody to point out to him that he was bareheaded), and afterward he realized that he was not wearing a Kippa, he does not need to repeat the prayer. This was also the position of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995). Rav Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986) ruled stringently in this regard, maintaining that a prayer recited bareheaded is unacceptable and must therefore be repeated with a head-covering. This is not, however, the consensus opinion. An interesting question arises in the case of a person who hears thunder or sees lightening while bareheaded. Halacha requires reciting the Beracha "She'koho U'gburato Maleh Olam" upon hearing thunder, and the Beracha "Oseh Ma'aseh Bereshit" upon seeing lightening. Our custom, based on the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), is to recite these Berachot without the Name of Hashem (omitting the words "Hashem Elokenu Melech Ha'olam"). The Ben Ish Hai reasoned that since the Beracha needs to be recited within a second or two of hearing the thunder or seeing the lightening, one is very likely to miss the time for its recitation, and if he recites it after the time, his blessing would constitute a Beracha Le'batala (blessing recited in vain). It is therefore preferable as a measure of caution to always recite these Berachot without Hashem's Name. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, disagreed, and maintained that one should make an effort to recite the Beracha immediately after hearing thunder or seeing lightening, and recite the entire text of the Beracha. If a person hears thunder or sees lightening while he is bareheaded, he will likely miss the time for reciting the Beracha if he first puts on his Kippa. Hacham Ovadia ruled that in such a case, one may rely on the opinion that permits reciting a Beracha bareheaded, in order not to lose the opportunity to recite a Beracha. Preferably, though, one should put his hand on his head when reciting the Beracha, because there is a view among the Poskim that one's own hand qualifies as a head-covering. Although Halacha does not follow that view, it is preferable to use one's hand as a head-covering if he does not have the opportunity to put on a Kippa. As mentioned, however, our practice is to recite these Berachot without Hashem's Name, in which case it is certainly acceptable to recite them before putting on a Kippa. Summary: If one realized after praying that his head was bare during his prayer, the prayer is nevertheless valid and does not need to be repeated. Fri, 24 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 e0301294-d817-c8de-22f0-c3109038370c Rav Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986) addressed the situation of a man who scheduled a job interview and felt that he stood a better chance of receiving the job if he showed up without a Kippa. Is it permissible for a person to remove his Kippa for the interview in this case if there was a reasonable concern of possibly forfeiting a job opportunity? Rav Moshe noted the Halacha that sets limits on how much a person is required to spend for the sake of fulfilling Misvot. When it comes to avoiding the transgression of a Misvat Lo Ta'aseh (Biblical prohibition), there is no such limit; a person must be prepared to lose all his money to avoid violating a prohibition. However, when it comes to a Misvat Aseh (affirmative command), one is not required to incur a significant financial loss for the sake of fulfilling the command. Therefore, even if we assume that wearing a Kippa has now been accepted as an obligatory practice, and is no longer observed merely as a Midat Hassidut (measure of piety), it certainly does not carry more weight than a Biblical command, and so one may remove a Kippa to avoid a substantial financial loss. Clearly, missing a job opportunity is a very substantial financial loss, and so the fellow in this situation would certainly be permitted to remove his Kippa before the interview. The Yalkut Yosef similarly ruled that it is permissible to go bareheaded at work if one fears losing his job if he keeps his Kippa on. The Shebut Yaakob (Rav Yaakov Reischer, 1661-1733) was asked about a case where a high-ranking government official was visiting a synagogue, and the local protocol required everyone to remove their head-coverings as a display of honor. Given the necessity of showing respect to the official, the Shebut Yaakob permitted the people to remove their Kippot, even in the synagogue. Nevertheless, the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) writes that it would be preferable for the community leaders to speak to the official's handlers ahead of time to explain that Jewish custom requires wearing a head-covering, so the people would not need to remove their Kippot. A more unusual question that once came to Rav Moshe Feinstein involved an otherwise observant fellow who decided to succumb to his urge to go see a movie in a theater. He posed the question of whether he can remove his Kippa in order to avoid creating a Hilul Hashem (defamation of G-d's Name) by people seeing Torah Jew in the movie theater. Rav Moshe strictly forbade removing one's Kippa in such a case, asserting that this would be adding a second sin on top of the sin of going somewhere inappropriate. Although the questioner claimed that he wished to remove his Kippa "Le'Shem Shamayim" – for G-d, so-to-speak, in the interest of protecting His honor, Rav Moshe said that this claim cannot be taken be seriously, and it is implausible that he wishes to remove his Kippa for altruistic motives. Therefore, there was no justification for removing the Kippa. Thu, 23 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 5200a5d0-c017-9bdc-eff3-c808d91abd1d It is clear that one may not speak words of Torah while he is unclothed. However, we saw in an earlier installment that Hacham Ovadia Yosef permitted silently thinking words of Torah while unclothed, because Halacha follows the opinion that thinking is not equivalent to speaking. Hacham Ovadia goes even further, allowing one to think about Torah matters while bathing. Halacha explicitly forbids thinking about Torah matters in unclean places – such as a restroom or a bathhouse. However, Hacham Ovadia maintains that a private bathing room in one's home, which is generally kept clean, differs from a public bathhouse (such as a Mikveh) in this regard. Therefore, if one has a separate room for bathing, which is not in the same room as the toilet, it is not considered an "unclean place" like a public bathhouse, and thus one may think Torah matters there while showering or taking a bath. This applies even if the bathing room is adjacent to the restroom and one can see the toilet from the bath. As long as one bathes in a separate room from the restroom, he may think Torah matters. Hacham Ovadia extends this ruling to listening to recorded Torah classes. Although there is a general Halachic principle of "Shome'a Ke'oneh" – that listening to somebody recite words is akin to saying those words – Hacham Ovadia explains that this does not apply to an electronic reproduction of somebody's voice. This yields a stringency in that one may not fulfill the obligation of Megilla reading on Purim, for example, by listening to a recording of somebody reading the Megilla (even a livestream) because listening to a recording is not akin to saying the words. In the case of a person bathing, this yields a leniency – that he is permitted to listen to a recording of a Torah lecture, because he is not considered to be saying the words he hears. We emphasize once again that this applies only if the room with the bath or shower is not also used as a restroom. Furthermore, this applies only to a recording or livestream of a Torah class. If one is bathing near a place where a Torah class is taking class, he may not listen to the Rabbi talking as he bathes. Summary: It is permissible to silently think Torah matters while unclothed, and this is allowed even while one bathes in his private bath or shower at home (as opposed to a public bathhouse, such as a Mikveh where this is forbidden), as long as the room where he bathes does not also have a toilet. One may even listen to a recorded Torah lecture while bathing if the room does not have a toilet. Wed, 22 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 435ad550-04e5-c5ac-369b-c5012c8fa6ec Is it permissible to answer "Amen" when one's head is uncovered? This question occasionally arises in the morning, when a person removes his Kippa in order to properly position his Tefillin Shel Rosh, and he hears a Beracha recited during those moments when his Kippa is off. Another example is a person who hears a Beracha in the barbershop while taking a haircut. Is he allowed to answer "Amen"? Some thought to forbid responding "Amen" bareheaded in light of the Gemara's teaching (Berachot 53b) that one who answers "Amen" to a Beracha is deemed greater than the person who recited the Beracha. The explanation given is that "Amen" in Gematria equals 91 – the combined Gematria of the divine Name "Havaya" (spelled Yod, Heh, Vav and Heh) and Adnut (spelled Alef, Dalet, Nun and Yod). Hence, answering "Amen" – which represents the combination of these two Names – is greater than reciting a blessing, which consists of only one of these two Names (Havaya). Seemingly, if it is improper to recite a Beracha bareheaded, we might assume that it is certainly improper to answer "Amen" bareheaded. In truth, however, this is incorrect. Certainly, if one has the possibility of covering his head to answer "Amen" and does not, then he acts improperly. But if a person finds himself in a situation where he hears a Beracha while his head is bare – as in the situations described – then it is preferable for him to answer 'Amen" bareheaded than to remain silent without responding to the Beracha. This resembles the Halacha concerning proper attire for prayer. While one is of course required to dress himself in an appropriate manner before praying, if, for whatever reason, one is unable to, he should nevertheless pray, rather than refrain from praying due to his unseemly attire. The Poskim also address the question of whether one may greet his fellow with the word "Shalom" while his head is uncovered. The Gemara (Shabbat 10a) brings the opinion of Ula that one may not extend such a greeting in the bathhouse, because "Shalom" is a Name of G-d, and the Shulhan Aruch rules accordingly. We might thus assume that one should avoid extending this greeting while bareheaded, as well, such as when taking a haircut. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, ruled that there is room to allow a person to respond to a greeting of "Shalom" while bareheaded. The Rambam does not bring Ula's ruling that one may not extend a greeting of "Shalom" in the bathhouse, as he apparently felt that Ula's position is not accepted as Halacha. Although the Shulhan Aruch – as mentioned – indeed codifies Ula's stringent view, several other Poskim followed the lenient opinion of the Rambam. And, even according to the Shulhan Aruch's view, it does not necessarily follow that if Halacha forbids saying "Shalom" in the bathhouse, it is likewise forbidden to utter this word while bareheaded. In light of this "Sefek Sefeka" (two uncertainties), Hacham Ovadia maintained that one who is bareheaded may respond "Shalom" if his fellow greets him. Rav Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986) maintained that one should not initiate a "Shalom Alechem" greeting to a fellow Jew who does not wear a Kippa, as the person will likely respond, "Alechem Shalom" – uttering the word "Shalom" bareheaded. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) ruled leniently, asserting that since the individual without a Kippa has no intention to utter a Name of G-d, one is not causing him to sin by creating a situation where he would say "Shalom." Needless to say, Hacham Ovadia would allow initiating such a greeting to somebody who does not wear a Kippa, since in his view there is room to permit uttering "Shalom" bareheaded. Nevertheless, in deference to Rav Moshe Feinstein's stringent view, Hacham Ovadia writes that one who wishes to greet his fellow who does not wear a Kippa should preferably use a greeting other than "Shalom" (such as "Good morning") so that his fellow will not respond with "Shalom." It should be noted that our Sages emphasized the great importance of extending friendly greetings. The Mishna in Pirkeh Abot (4:15) urges us to greet all people cordially, and this applies even to sinners. Although the verse in Yeshayahu (48:22) warns, "En Shalom Amar Hashem La'reshaim" – "There is no peace, said G-d, to the wicked" – this is understood as a reference to the next world. In this world, we are to extend warm, friendly greetings to all, including the non-observant, and it is important for them to see religiously-committed Jews acting in a refined, courteous manner. In fact, it is told that when Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky (1891-1986) would walk in his neighborhood in Monsey, NY, he would make a point of warmly greeting everyone he encountered, Jew and non-Jew alike. After his passing, several nuns remarked that Rav Yaakov was the only one who warmly greeted them whenever he passed them – underscoring the importance of extending friendly greetings to everyone. Summary: One who happens to be bareheaded when he hears a Beracha should answer "Amen." Although it is preferable not to say the word "Shalom" while bareheaded, one may respond to a greeting with "Shalom" if he is greeted while he is not wearing a Kippa. When one initiates a greeting to his fellow who does not wear a Kippa, it is preferable to greet him in such a way that does not elicit a response with the word "Shalom" (such as "Good morning," as opposed to "Shalom Alechem"), though strictly speaking, it is permissible to elicit a response of "Shalom." Tue, 21 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 27d647e8-66e2-f4e8-ac71-f9836069f3f6 The work Va'yomer Meir addresses the situation of a Jew who was involved in a court case, and the courthouse officials forbade him from wearing a Kippa. The question arose as to whether this man was permitted to review Torah topics in his mind during his time in the courthouse, despite being bareheaded. This issue hinges on the question of "Hirhur Ke'dibbur" – whether or not we consider thinking akin to speaking. The Rambam maintains that silent thoughts are indeed halachically equivalent to spoken words, in which case one may not think Torah thoughts while not wearing a Kippa. However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef writes that Halacha does not follow this ruling of the Rambam, and even if one is entirely unclothed, he is allowed to think about Torah matters as long as he does not verbally express these thoughts. Certainly, then, it is entirely permissible to think Torah matters when one is fully clothed but not wearing a Kippa. Summary: Although one may not speak any words of Torah while not wearing a Kippa, it is permissible to silently think about Torah matters without a Kippa. Mon, 20 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 01ff4217-9281-eb7b-bae7-289b39d4b122 The Zechor Le'Abraham (Rav Abraham Alkalai, 1750-1811) observes that some people ensure to keep their heads covered while walking about in the Mikveh, and not only when they actually immerse. He writes that this is an unfounded stringency that has no basis or reason. He explains that the Shechina does not reside in the bathhouse, and so there is no need to cover one's head, an act which is intended to make us aware of G-d's presence above us. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) similarly writes that there is no reason to cover one's head while in a Mikveh. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) clarifies that this refers to the interior part of the Mikveh. In the outer room, where people get changed, it is proper to keep one's Kippa on his head. One should keep his Kippa on until he leaves to the interior room to shower and immerse, and should put it back on his head immediately upon returning to the outer room to get dressed. The Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939) recommends placing one's hand over his head while walking about in the Mikveh, though the consensus does not follow this view. The Yalkut Yosef writes that the beach has the status of a bathhouse in this regard, and thus one may keep his head uncovered at the beach not only when he is in the water, but also when walking about or relaxing near the water. Of course, he should put his Kippa back on upon returning to the lounge. And it goes without saying that if a person wishes to eat while at the beach, he must wear a Kippa for the recitation of the Berachot and while he eats. (Incidentally, if a person wishes to eat bread at the beach, he may dip his hands in the ocean water in lieu of Netilat Yadayim, and recite the Beracha "Al Tebilat Yadayim.") This applies to a pool, as well. One may keep his head uncovered even while sitting at the poolside, except when eating. The Yalkut Yosef cites Rav Chaim Kanievksy as ruling stringently in this regard, and requiring one to wear a Kippa at the beach or pool when he is not in the water, but Halacha follows the lenient position. Summary: One is not required to wear a Kippa at the Mikveh, at the beach, or at the pool, even when he is not in the water. In the Mikveh, one should cover his head only in the outer room, where he changes. One who wishes to eat at the beach or at the poolside must wear a Kippa for reciting the Berachot and eating. Sun, 19 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 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. This applies as well to pants with the belt already around the waist. Many men keep the belt inside the loops of the pants, and then put the pants on together with the belt. Rav Bitan maintains that this is permissible, for the same reason as he explains regarding the tie– because the belt covers a very small portion of the body, and so this Halacha likely does not apply. 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. If a person does not have a Kippa and a child puts his hand on his head, this suffices as a head-covering as long as the child's hand meets the minimum size requirement. As we have seen, the Kippa must minimally be visible from all sides. Therefore, assuming the child's hand is at least this size, the individual may pray and recite Berachot with the child's hand on his hand. 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