We apologize for the inconsistent Daf Yomi posting. You are welcome to visit our Orach Chaim Halacha discussion. It is updated several times weekly. You are welcome to subscribe on the right to receive the Halacha in your email.

Avraham Klein

Sanhedrin 24

Hatmana

The gemara in today’s daf rules that one may be matmin (insulate) a cold food or drink on Shabbos. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 257:6) clarifies that one may only do so when the insulation does not add heat (eino mosif hevel), and his whole purpose of doing so is to ensure that the item will not become too cold. If however it does add heat (mosif hevel) then it is forbidden to insulate it even prior to Shabbos.

In generations past, in order to keep the cooked food warm once it was taken off the fire, it was insulated. Although there isn’t any issur melacha with hatmana per se, the Chachamim nevertheless forbade it so as not to violate the issur of bishul in the event that before the insulation he would find that the item cooled off and then he would return it to the fire. According to the opinion of ein bishul achar bishul, then he would be oiver on mavir - Mishna Berura. Therefore one may not do hatmana on Shabbos even when the insulation is not mosif hevel (ibid 257:1).

The Chachamim additionally forbade to insulate an item in a place where it’s mosif hevel even before Shabbos. The reason being since in the times of the gemara the ideal place for mosif hevel was in the ash next to the fire, and he might come to stir the ash on Shabbos to heat up the insulated food, thereby violating a form of mavir (ibid).

Reb Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe Orach Chaim 4:74 - Hatmana) explains that it is forbidden to insulate an item in a manner of mosif hevel even early Friday morning (One cannot infer that Reb Moshe held that there isn’t any problem of hatmana if it was insulated before Friday, since the question he was addressing was regarding Friday morning. On the contrary, it is pretty clear from his wording that it would be forbidden to do so no matter when it was insulated).

Avraham Klein

Sanhedrin 23

Table Manners

In today’s daf the gemara mentions that the n’kiei hada’as (talmidei chachamim) of Yerushalayim did not enter to eat a meal unless they knew who would be eating with them. Rashi explains, since it is a gnai for talmid chacham to eat with an am ha’aretz.

The Be’er Heitiv (Orach Chaim 170 s.k. ) cites Mateh Moshe who holds that this halacha applies even by a seudas mitzvah. The Biyur Halacha cannot find a source for his ruling, and notes that we don’t refrain from doing so.

Furthermore, he maintains that even the Mateh Moshe would agree in an instance where there is a benefit for the participants when a talmid chacham enhances a seuda with his presence, then he may do so. Also it is possible that the Mateh Moshe would concur that a talmid chacham may participate in a regular seudas mitzvah, if:

a) there are other talmidei chachamim there as well, or

b) if he is sitting by himself (he deduces this from the above mentioned Rashi who states that it is gnai for a talmid chacham to sit next to an am ha’aretz at a meal).

The reason for this halacha is because a talmid chacham eats in a more refined manner than the am ha’aretz. This is not simply a matter of finesse, rather there are explicit halachos that are mentions in the poskim (aside from the halachos that the Shulchan Aruch in siman 170 speaks about), on how to conduct oneself during a meal.

A small sampling:

1. Talking while eating is discouraged (Mechaber ibid 170:1).

2. The proper amount to eat at a time is less than a k’beitzah (ibid 170:7).

3. When drinking, the entire cupful should not be consumed in one gulp, rather it is proper to finish it in two swallows (ibid 170:8).

4. It is improper to take a bite out of the food and then leave it on the table (ibid 170:11).

5. One should not eat or drink while standing (Be’er Heitiv ibid citing Rokeiach).

6. It is proper for the host to show the guests where the restroom is (M’kor Chaim).

7. One should not lick his fingers during eating(Rokeiach).

8. It is impolite to wolf down the food, rather eating should be done slowly (Ben Ish Chai).

Avraham Klein

Sanhedrin 22

Mentally Preparing for Shmoneh Esreh

In today’s daf the gemara mentions in passing that according to one pshat the pasuk of “Shivisi Hashem l’negdi samid” teaches us that when one davens he should visualize that the Shechina is in front of him. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 98) writes an entire siman on the topic of realizing that one is talking to Hashem and how we should approach the mighty concept of tefilla.

First of all when davening, we must concentrate on the explanation of the words that our mouths are saying. Mishna Berura stresses that one must understand the simple meaning, and not delve into the esoteric depths of tefilla, furthermore all the mental preparations that are required, should be done before one starts Shmoneh Esreh for during davening one must solely focus on the simple translation.

One must expel all of his thoughts until his mind is clear, and he should meditate as to what amount of meticulous preparation he would put in when speaking before an earthly king, how much more so when speaking to Hashem. If a thought does enter his mind during davening, he should wait quietly until the thought goes away. The Mishna Berura cites an interesting Shela who states that as a segula not to be interrupted with other thoughts during tefilla, before davening he should say the pasuk “Lev bara li Elokim v’ruach nachon chadash b’kirbi” three times, and each time he recites it he should pass his right hand over his forehead. If thoughts enter during davening he should do as the above, just instead of reciting the pasuk out loud he should think it in his mind.

The Rema adds that before davening one should ponder the greatness of Hashem and conversely the smallness of man.

One must daven as a poor person pleading for mercy, slowly enunciating each word. One must make sure not to daven in a way that it seems that he can’t wait to finish. Mishna Berura points out that one must be exceedingly careful in this regard, since there are poskim which hold that if one davened in such a manner he must daven again. Although we don’t rule in accord with these poskim, it shows the severity of not davening properly.

Avraham Klein

Sanhedrin 21

Writing a Sefer Torah

In today’s daf the gemara teaches us that it is a mitzvah for every person to write a Sefer Torah, even if he inherited one from his parents. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 270:1) rules in accordance to this gemara.

There are several points that are dealt with in the poskim.

1) Does a woman have this mitzva of writing a Sefer Torah as well? The Rambam clearly rules that a woman is not included in this mitzvah. However the Shaagas Aryeh has difficulty understanding where the Rambam based his ruling from.

2) Can one be yotze his chiyuv through shutfus - by participating with others in a joint writing of one Sefer Torah? The Bais Efraim is in doubt if one can be yotze through shutfus. The Pardes David is astonished at the general custom which allows one to be yotze his chiyuv through shitfus. But he concludes that there is a bit of proof that one may be yotze through shitfus.

3) May one give his Sefer Torah to a Shul? Interestingly, the Toras Chaim (on our daf) is of the opinion that if one does so then he must write another one. He proves his ruling with simple logic. Since when he gave it to the Shul he consecrated it, then it belongs to hekdesh so to speak, and it’s not his any longer. And even though he wrote a Sefer Torah, that does not absolve him from this mitzvah, for it is not dependent on merely writing one. The biggest proof to that is, if he lost his Sefer Torah he would have to write another one. Therefore he concludes that one should only give away a Sefer Torah to a Shul if he has another one with him.

However the B’nei Yona argues that it is dependent on writing alone, and if it got lost he is still yotze his chiyuv. Furthermore even if it chas v’shalom got burned and it’s entirely gone he is most probably yotze his chiyuv.

Nevertheless, he concurs that one should not be makdish his Sefer Torah to the Shul, rather it should still remain his. The Pardes David and the Toras Nesanel also argue on the Toras Chaim and maintain that even if it got lost one is yotze his chiyuv.

Avraham Klein

Sanhedrin 20

Gazing at Women

In today’s daf the gemara records a machlokes between the Chachamim and Rabbi Yehuda regarding where the women stand when attending a funeral. Chachamim are of the opinion that they may stand both in front and behind the coffin, while Rabbi Yehuda maintains that they may only stand in front. Tosfos explains that since when attending a funeral it is a time of anguish, we are not concerned that the men will see the women and have illicit thoughts, therefore we allow the women to stand in front of the coffin while the men are behind them. However Tosfos continues that there are those who have the custom to position the men in front of the coffin and the women behind it, for it is improper for the men to gaze at the women.

There are many things men are forbidden to do, so as to distance themselves from immorality. Obviously these laws do not apply to one’s wife. Due to the severity of these laws and the fact that it is unknown to many people, this article will be a bit explicit.

It is forbidden to:

1) Wink, snap the fingers or any other bodily movement that is considered flirting.

2) Joke around with a woman, or to act in a light hearted manner.

3) Gaze at her beauty. This also applies to an unmarried girl.

4) Smell the perfume that a woman is wearing.

5) Gaze at the clothing of a woman that one knows, even if she is not wearing it at the time.

6) If one is walking down the street and a woman is walking in front of him, it is forbidden to continue to walk behind her, rather he should quicken his pace and go in front of her. If this is not possible, then he should either go to the side or wait until she is sufficiently ahead of him. There is a machlokes of how much of a distance needs to be between them. Mahari and others hold that it is enough if a man is four amos behind a woman, while the Radvaz rules that one must distance himself until he can’t clearly see her walking and movements. This applies even where ladies go covered from head to toe.

7) Pass a prostitutes house.

Gaze at any part of a woman’s body.

9) Listen to a woman singing.

Avraham Klein

Sanhedrin 19

Yichud

In today’s daf the gemara says that one of Rabbi Yosi enactments in Tzipori was that women should speak to each other in the restroom, so as to caution the men not to enter the room and transgress yichud. Rashi explains that their restrooms were in the fields, so if a man would enter while the women are there, he would have been oiver on yichud.

The Rema (Even Ha’ezer 22:13) cites Rambam who rules that these days there is no need for this takana, because our restrooms are in the city.

Min Hatorah, one may not be secluded in a room with any of the “ervos” (i.e. any woman that is forbidden for him to marry), except for a mother and her son, a father and his daughter, and a husband with his wife who is a niddah (ibid 22:1). Even one’s sister one is not permitted to live with, rather only a yichud arai - a temporary passing seclusion, is permitted (Chelkas Michokek).

The Chachamim additionally forbade for a man to be secluded with a girl (Even Ha’ezer 22:2).

There are many halachos in the laws of yichud, as well as many exceptions. To name a few:

1) Ishto Imo - If one’s wife is with him while he is secluded with another woman, then yichud does not apply (ibid 22:3)

2) Ba’ala B’ir - There isn’t any problem of yichud when the woman’s husband is in town, the rationale being that the woman won’t do anything immoral for she is afraid that her husband will walk in (ibid 22:8). There is a disagreement between Rashi and Tosfos whether this is permissible lichatchila. If the husband is in the same city but he most definitely will not walk into the room while his wife is secluded with another man, for example he is in prison, or even if he works in a different part of the city and it is long distance commute, then there is an issur of yichud (Igros Moshe Even Ha’ezer 4:65:7)

3) Pasuach Lirshus Harabim - When the room in question has an opening to a public place then one may be secluded with a woman (ibid 22:9). The time of day would make no difference, as long as there are people passing by (Be’er Heitiv). An opening means that people can see into the room, therefore if there is a window that is higher than the eye level of the people passing by on the street then yichud would apply (Igros Moshe Even Ha’ezer 4:65:2).

Avraham Klein

Sanhedrin 18

When is One Exempt from Returning a Lost Item

In today’s daf the gemara asked how can the mishna state that a Kohein Gadol says eidus. We know that even though there is a lav (Torah prohibition) to ignore a lost item, rather one must pick it up and return it to its owner, and yet the Torah teaches us that there are exceptions; a kohein in a cemetery, an elder which is not befitting him to return this lost item, or if the lost item is worth less than the amount of money he can make in the time it takes to return it. Similarly asks the gemara there should be an exemption for the Kohen Gadol to give testimony, since it is beneath his dignity to come testify regarding a common person.

The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 263:1) clarifies that even a young talmid chacham, or a well respected person (Aruch Hashulchan), is exempt from returning a lost item which is below their dignity to deal with, for example a bale of hay.

Although they are usually exempt from returning a lost item that is beneath their dignity to deal with, they will be required to do so if they actually moved or picked up the item, since they started the mitzvah (ibid 263:2). The Shach directs us to a halacha in 261:2 where the Mechaber rules that if one found an animal grazing in someone else’s vineyard or field then he is obligated to return it, because the animal is damaging that property. This is termed aveidas karka (in other words, the owner of the vineyard is being caused a loss, so the person seeing the animal grazing has an obligation to return it to his owner, so as not to cause a loss to the owner of the field). At first glance it is difficult to see the apparent connection. Rabbi Akiva Eiger explains that the Shach is proving that since the Mechaber does not state that he should just simply move the animal to a ownerless field, that shows that once he moved the animal he is obligated to return to its owner. However the Or Zerua cites Ritva that disagrees, and maintains that it is enough if he merely moves it to an ownerless field.

The Mechaber (ibid 263:3) rules that if the these people want to go beyond the call of duty and lower themselves to return the lost item, they may do so. The Rema disagrees, and quotes Rosh that the most such people are allowed to do, is to pay the owner for the lost item.

Avraham Klein

Sanhedrin 17

Adding More Dayanim to a Beis Din

After Beis Din listens to all the claims from the litigants, and any testimony from witnesses, they send everyone out of the room and precede to deliberate the case. If they all agree as what the halacha should be, well and good, but if they don’t then they follow the majority opinion (Choshen Mishpat 18:1).

In instances where either; a) one dayan says chayav and another says zakkai, while the third abstains from stating an opinion because he doesn’t know, or b) even if both dayanim agree what the ruling should be, but the third does not know what to rule, then two more dayanim are added. Now that there are five dayanim they deliberate once again, and if there is a majority opinion either way, then that is what the ruling would be. If however the same scenario repeats itself that there is an equally divided opinion and the fifth does not know, then an additional two are added (ibid).

It is interesting to note that if there would be a similar case as example b above, where three dayanim rule one way while the fourth disagrees and the fifth abstains, or if four dayanim rule one way and the fifth abstains, then we follow the majority opinion. Even though earlier such an instance would cause us to add more dayanim, here is different. The difference is because in order to follow the majority opinion of a Beis Din there obviously needs to be a Beis Din in the first place, and that can only happen when there are at least three opinions. Therefore in the case of three alone then more dayanim need to be added in order to follow the majority, while in the instance where more were already added, then there are already three that gave an opinion, so we may follow the majority (S’ma ibid).

Avraham Klein

Sanhedrin 16

Tikun Chatzos

In today’s daf the gemara informs us of David Hamelech’s custom of waking at midnight and learning until dawn. Today this is known as Tikun Chatzos, for that time of night is a particularly auspicious time for learning and prayer, especially to lament the destruction of the Bais Hamikdash and to pray for its speedy rebuilding.

There is a dispute among the poskim as to when exactly Chatzos is. Without going into a lengthy explanation of the various opinions, suffice to say that the Mor Uktzia, Shulchan Aruch Harav and the Mishna Berura all agree that Chatzos is always exactly at midnight, meaning the halfway point between Tzeis and Alos.

Although we see from this gemara that David Hamelech learned after Chatzos, and this would imply that we should do so as well in regard to Tikun Chatzos, there are Achronim that hold otherwise. While the Mishna Berura, Kaf Hachaim and others advocate that one should learn from Chatzos and on, the Arugas Habosem held that one may learn the first half of the night rather than the second. Similarly the Chasam Sofer writes that most people that learn at night, do so the first half of the night. The Seder Hayom explains why one should rather learn the first half of the night, for the simple reason he might find it hard to get up in middle of the night to learn, and the night would pass without him learning.

Tikun Chatzos is a great mitzva, but it cannot come of the expense of falling asleep during davening (Elya Rabbah). Similarly a person who is by nature made of a weaker composition and needs his sleep, he need not arise for Tikun Chatzos.