Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour

It is clear that one must not eat or drink in the restroom, as doing so is inappropriate. But is it forbidden also to bring food into the restroom? Many people keep sucking candies or other small snacks in their pockets throughout the day. Must they remove these products from their pockets before entering the restroom? For that matter, may food or beverages be stored in the bathroom cabinets? Hacham Ovadia Yosef cites the ruling of the Shalmeh Sibur that although there are harmful forces of impurity in the restroom, these forces affect only the hands (which is why one must wash his hands after entering the restroom even if he does not perform his bodily functions). They have no effect on food products, and so one may bring food into the restroom. However, as Hacham Ovadia brings, other Poskim – including Rav Haim Palagi (Turkey, 1788-1868) and the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) – disagree, and maintain that the impurities of the restroom indeed impact food and beverages, and they should thus not be brought into the restroom. Hacham Ovadia ruled that one should act stringently in this regard, and refrain from bringing foods or beverages into the restroom, but one may rely on the lenient position of the Shalmeh Sibur after the fact, or if one has nowhere to place the food, such as if he is in a public area. This is particularly so given that our restrooms, which are more hygienic than the restrooms of old, and from which the bodily waste is immediately expelled, may not have any impurities at all. Hacham Ovadia writes that if one must bring food into the restroom, he should preferably ensure that it is wrapped. If unwrapped, exposed food was brought into the restroom, then it should be rinsed three times before it is eaten. There is even greater room for leniency when dealing with foods given to children, as some Poskim maintain that the impure forces of the restroom pose harm only to adults, who are obligated to observe the Torah, but not children. Therefore, if a schoolteacher keeps candies in his pocket to give to the children, he may give them to the children even if the candies had been in his pocket when he used the restroom. Preferably, though, he should remove them from his pockets before entering the restroom. If a person keeps in his pocket pills which he must take at certain times, they may be brought into the restroom, as they are likely not considered food, in addition to the factors noted above (the lenient ruling of the Shalmeh Sibur, the relative cleanliness of modern restrooms, and the fact that pills are not exposed). Medications that are flavored – such as chewable tablets and sweet liquid medicine – must be treated like food, and should preferably not be brought into the restroom. Therefore, one may store ordinary pills in the bathroom cabinets, but flavored medications should preferably be stored elsewhere. Of course, if flavored medications were brought into or stored in the restroom, they may nevertheless be used, just as food which was brought into the restroom may be eaten after the fact, as discussed. Many apartments in Israel are constructed with a utility room off the bathroom, where the washing machine is located, and many people use that area for storing food products. It is permissible to bring food products to and from the utility room through the restroom. This leniency is based on the factors discussed above, as well as the fact that since the restroom was from the outset intended to serve as a passageway, and not exclusively as a restroom, it perhaps does not have impurities. A woman should preferably refrain from nursing her infant in the restroom, as the impurities could affect the milk. In fact, the Poskim write that a woman should preferably refrain from nursing her infant for 18 minutes after using the restroom, and it would thus seem that all the more so, she should not nurse in the restroom. Rav Chaim Kanievsky (1928-2022) refuted this line of reasoning, asserting that it is only after a woman uses the restroom that she should wait for 18 minutes before nursing her infant. There is thus no proof that a woman should not nurse in the restroom. Rav Chaim therefore ruled that Halacha allows nursing in the restroom, though it is preferable not to. Rav Yisrael Bitan questioned this view, noting the Shulhan Aruch's ruling (Orah Haim 4:8) that impurities are always present in the restroom, even when it is not being used for bodily functions. Therefore, a woman should avoid nursing in the restroom, though, needless to say, when she has no alternative – such as when she has no other private room – she may, in light of the grounds for leniency discussed earlier (in addition to the possibility that the impurities do not affect children). Likewise, a woman should not express milk from her body in the restroom unless this is necessary. Summary: One should not bring food or beverages into the restroom, or store food or beverages in the restroom. If a person is in a public area with food or beverages and has nowhere to keep them outside the restroom, he may bring them into the restroom, and should preferably ensure they are covered. If a food product was brought uncovered into the restroom, it should be rinsed three times before being eaten. Tasteless pills may be brought into or stored in a restroom, but flavored medications are considered food and thus should not be brought into or stored in the restroom. A woman should not nurse her infant in the restroom unless she has no other private room in which to nurse.

In an earlier installment in this series, we noted that Halacha forbids having a conversation while using the restroom. The question arises as to whether this applies when one is in the restroom for reasons other than performing bodily functions, such as to use the mirror for combing one's hair or putting on makeup, or while bathing a child. Is speaking in the restroom always forbidden, or only when one is performing his bodily functions? Rav Yisrael Bitan answered this question by noting two rulings of the Shulhan Aruch which appear, at first glance, contradictory. In one context, the Shulhan Aruch writes that one may speak about mundane matters (as opposed to Torah matters) in the restroom, whereas in a different context, he indicates that speaking in the restroom is forbidden altogether. Different answers have been offered to reconcile these two passages in the Shulhan Aruch, but likely the simplest and most compelling explanation is that the latter ruling refers to a person who performs his bodily functions, when speaking is forbidden. When one is in the restroom for other reasons, speaking is allowed. In light of this, Rabbi Bitan concluded that if one enters the restroom for a purpose unrelated to bodily functions, it is entirely permissible to speak (though one must of course refrain from speaking about Torah matters). During the moments when one performs his bodily functions, speaking is strictly forbidden. When one uses the restroom to perform his bodily functions, then during the time when he is not actually relieving himself, he may speak if a need arises. The Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakov Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939) writes that according to Kabbalistic teaching, one should always refrain from speaking in the restroom, under any circumstances. However, it is likely that this does not apply nowadays, when, due to modern plumbing, our restrooms are far cleaner and more hygienic. Summary: Speaking is forbidden while performing one's bodily functions, but speaking is allowed when one is in the restroom for other reasons. If one uses the restroom, and there is a need to speak, he may do so during the moments when he is not actually relieving himself.

Special care must be taken to protect the honor of sacred books, such as Siddurim, Humashim, and all books of Torah literature. It is strictly forbidden to allow bodily waste in the presence of sacred books. When young children are being toilet trained, parents must not allow the children to use the portable "potty" in a room containing sacred books, and doing so constitutes a grave infraction on the honor of these texts. The Mishna Berura writes about a family that kept a bedpan in a small room which they used as a restroom, and the stench spread into the main room where there were Torah books. The family suffered as a result – the homeowner's son abandoned religious observance, and the family endured considerable humiliation. The Mishna in Pirkeh Abot (4:6) warns that one who disgraces the Torah will be punished with disgrace, and the Mishna Berura pointed to this unfortunate incident as an example of such a transgression. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in his Anaf Etz Abot, likewise applies the Mishna's warning to those who fail to show proper respect to Torah books, such as by placing a child's potty in their presence, or having marital relations in a room with Torah books. (It is similarly customary not to allow young children near the Shabbat candles when they are unclothed, due to the sanctity of the Shabbat lights.) Many people carry small books or papers in their pockets throughout the day – such as a small Siddur for Minha, a small Birkat Ha'mazon, or a pocket-sized Gemara or Torah pamphlet. If one has such a text with him when he needs to use the restroom, he should remove the sacred text from his pocket before entering the restroom. If this is not possible, such as if one is in a public area, then he may enter the restroom with a book in his pocket. A sacred book may be brought into the restroom if it is under two coverings, and when necessary, one may consider the binding one covering, such that the pocket is considered the second covering. Preferably, one who often carries a small Siddur or Torah book with him should wrap it with an additional covering. If one keeps a small Birkat Ha'mazon card in his wallet, he is certainly permitted to enter the restroom with the wallet, as the wallet is considered one covering and the pocket is considered the second. A woman who wears a piece of jewelry bearing the inscription of a verse from the Tanach must remove it before entering the restroom. If the jewelry features only a name, it may be brought into the restroom. It is certainly permissible to bring a phone or other device into the restroom even though it contains Torah content, because that content is not being displayed at that time. One who keeps a picture of a Rabbi with him in his pocket may enter the restroom with the picture, as pictures have no Halachic status of sanctity. Of course, one must not treat such pictures disrespectfully, but keeping them in one's pocket in the restroom is permissible. Summary: It is forbidden to allow the presence of bodily waste in the presence of sacred books, such as Siddurim or any books of Torah literature, and therefore young children must not be potty trained in a room where sacred books are present. If one carries a sacred book in his pocket, and he cannot leave it outside when he uses the restroom, he may bring it in his pocket to the restroom, as the binding can be considered one cover, and the pocket is then the second required covering. Preferably, though, the book should be wrapped with an additional covering. One may enter the restroom with a Birkat Ha'mazon card in his wallet, as the wallet is the first covering and the pocket is the second. A woman who wears a piece of jewelry bearing the inscription of a verse from the Tanach must remove it before entering the restroom.

It is clear that one may not pray, recite a Beracha, or learn Torah in a restroom or in the presence of bodily waste. But is one allowed to perform a Misva, or to make plans for performing a Misva, in such a place? One example might be Sedaka (charity). Is a person permitted to write checks to charity while in the restroom, or to go over his finances to calculate how much to donate to different organizations? Another example is a person who is in prison, and the toilet is in his cell. If the Jewish chaplain was able to bring him a Lulab and Etrog during Sukkot, may he perform the Misva of Arba Minim (the four species) – of course without reciting a Beracha – there in the cell, which also serves as his restroom? The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that one may not make plans for performing a Misva while in the inner chamber of the bathhouse (which has the same status as a restroom). This includes planning his Shabbat preparations, his purchase of the four species, or distribution of charity. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, challenged this ruling, in light of a passage in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Demai 1:4) which permits separating Ma'aserot (tithes) in a bathhouse in situations where no Beracha is required (namely, when one tithes Demai – produce which must be tithed as a precautionary measure). This clearly demonstrates that although Berachot may not be recited in a bathhouse, Misvot may be performed. Clearly, one should preferably strive to perform all Misvot in a clean area, out of respect for the Misva. When, however, a person has no choice – such as in the case of a prison inmate – he may perform Misvot even in the presence of filth. Additionally, while a Misva should preferably not be performed in an unclean place, one may make preparations for performing Misvot in such a place. Moreover, Hacham Ovadia ruled that when it comes to a Misva like charity, which one can fulfill without thinking of spiritual matters – because the essence of the Misva is the practical assistance given – one may fulfill such Misvot even in the presence of filth. Therefore, one may write checks to charity organizations while in the restroom. Summary: Although it is preferable to perform Misvot in a clean area, one may, when necessary, perform a Misva in an unclean place. Thus, for example, a prison inmate who is brought the four species on Sukkot may perform the Misva in his cell even though his toilet is there. One may make plans in the restroom for a Misva – such as planning Shabbat preparations, the building of his Sukka, and so on. One may also write checks for Sedaka while in the restroom.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

One's Kippa should preferably be large enough to cover the entire head or the majority of the head. If, however, one prefers a smaller Kippa, this is acceptable, as long as it can be seen from all sides. One should not wear a Kippa so small that cannot be readily discerned from all sides. This is the ruling of Hacham Ovadia Yosef. Hacham Ovadia Hedaya (1889-1969), in one of his published responsa (Yaskil Abdi, vol. 6, p. 292a), writes that he would often reprimand people for wearing very small Kippot. Even one who normally wears a smaller Kippa, that does not cover the majority of his head, should try to wear a hat or a larger Kippa – that covers the majority of the head – while praying or reciting Birkat Ha'mazon.

As we have seen, even if wearing a Kippa cannot be defined as an outright Halachic obligation (except while praying, reciting Berachot, and eating), it is proper to ensure not to walk four Amot (cubits) with one's head uncovered. It is considered a special act of piety to avoid walking even shorter distances without a Kippa. The Maharshal (Rav Shlomo Luria, Poland, 1510-1573), surprisingly, writes that this entire concept applies only outdoors. Indoors, he writes, there is no need to wear a Kippa – even as a measure of piety – because there is a roof over one's head, and this suffices to remind him of G-d. Most later Poskim, however, including the Mishna Berura, disagreed, and maintained that one should wear a Kippa both outdoors and indoors. Is it recommended to wear a Kippa even while sleeping? From the Rambam's comments it appears, at least at first glance, that he assumed people did not wear a head-covering while sleeping. The Rambam ruled that the Birkot Ha'shahar – the series of morning blessings which we recite praising Hashem for certain phenomena we experience each morning – are recited only as we experience each phenomenon. For example, when one hears the crowing of the rooster, he recites "Ha'noten La'sechvi Bina…"; when one opens his eyes, he recites "Poke'ah Ivrim"; when one stands up from his bed, he recites, "Zokef Kefufim"; and so on. Toward the end of this sequential list of blessings, the Rambam mentions that upon putting on one's head-covering, he recites "Oter Yisrael Be'tifara." The Rambam seems to presume that people's heads were uncovered at night, and only in the morning they put on a covering. However, Rav Yisrael Bitan noted that the Rambam may have assumed that people slept with a small covering – like a Kippa – and then recited this Beracha when putting on their turban or larger hat. In any event, the Mishna Berura and others bring the teaching of the Shela (Rav Yeshaya Ha'levi Horowitz, d. 1630) that it is proper to sleep with a head-covering, though it seems clear that this was intended as a special measure of piety, and is not required. As a practical matter, it is very difficult to keep a Kippa on one's head during the night, and oftentimes it becomes difficult to find it in the morning. Certainly, if a man would end up waking up his wife early in the morning as he searches for Kippa, then he should not sleep with a Kippa. Some people avoid this problem by sleeping with a special hat that stays fastened on the head throughout the night. While this is commendable, it is certainly not required. Summary: One should wear a Kippa both indoors and outdoors. Some sources mention that one should sleep with a Kippa as a measure of special piety, though this is not required, especially given the practical difficulty entailed, though there are those who sleep with a cap that remains fastened on the head throughout the night.

The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin (31a) tells that Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua made a point of always keeping his head covered, and he explained that since the Shechina hovered over his head at all times, it is appropriate to cover one's head as a sign of respect. This same Rav Huna is cited elsewhere (Shabbat 118b) as saying that he was worthy of reward for ensuring never to walk four Amot (cubits) with his hair uncovered. In a different context (Shabbat 156b), the Gemara teaches that wearing a hair-covering helps engender Yir'at Shamayim (fear of Heaven) and thus prevent us from sin. It tells that a woman was warned by astrologers that her infant son would be a thief as an adult. She understood this to mean that the boy was born with a natural inclination toward theft. In an effort to avoid this outcome, she saw to it that the child's head would always remain covered, so he would be cognizant of Hashem's presence at all times and thus stay away from sin. In addition, she fervently prayed to G-d that he would be righteous. Once, the Gemara says, when this boy was still a child, he was sitting beneath somebody's palm tree learning Torah, and his head covering blew off. He looked up and saw a cluster of luscious dates. Enticed, he ate the dates, which were somebody's private property – showing how a head covering helps protect a person from the Yeser Ha'ra (evil inclination). (Thanks to his mother's efforts, though, this boy grew to become Rav Nahman Bar Yishak, one of the great Sages of the Talmud.) Similarly, the Zohar (Balak 187a) teaches that one must avoid walking more than four Amot with his head uncovered, because the Shechina hovers over his head. The Zohar adds that this concept is alluded to in the verse in Kohelet (9:8), "Ve'shemen Al Roshecha al Yehsar" – "Oil shall not be lacking upon your head." The Shechina (divine presence) is compared to fire, and Misvot are the "oil," the fuel that sustains its presence in our lives. Covering our heads brings us Yir'at Shamayim so that we remain loyal to G-d's commands. The Zohar reiterates this point later (Pinhas 245b), citing the verse, "Melo Kol Ha'aretz Kebodo" (Yeshayahu 6:3) – G-d's glory fills the entire earth. We acknowledge and give honor to His presence by wearing a head covering. The Rambam, too, in his Guide for the Perplexed (3:52), emphasizes that the great Sages always ensured to cover their heads out of respect for the divine presence. However, as we know, there are many otherwise observant Jews (especially in our community) who do not wear a Kippa all the time. They make a point of wearing a Kippa when they enter the synagogue, but not throughout the day when they go about their ordinary affairs. Is this acceptable, or are these individuals failing to fulfill a Halachic obligation? This question depends on whether we regard head-covering as a strict Halachic requirement, or as a Middat Hasidut – a recommended measure of piety. The Maharam of Rothenberg (Germany, c. 1215-1293), cited by the Orhot Haim and Kolbo, maintained that Halacha does not forbid going about bareheaded, and the Sages who ensured to have their heads covered did so as a Middat Hasidut. This is also the clear implication of the Rambam, in the passage cited earlier, where he mentions that great Rabbis made a point of covering their heads – indicating that this is a recommended measure of piety, and not a binding Halachic obligation. The Maharshal (Rav Shlomo Luria, Poland, 1510-1573) drew proof to this view from a passage in the Midrash which emphasizes how Hashem deals with us far more kindly than mortal kings deal with their subjects. Normally, the Midrash comments, when a king's messenger reads to the masses a written royal decree, everyone is expected to stand, remove their hats, and listen with fear and trepidation. But when we read the Shema in fulfillment of G-d's decree, we are not required to stand and remove our head coverings. The Midrash here clearly implies that there would be nothing wrong with baring our heads – even for the recitation of Shema. The Shebut Yaakov (Rav Yaakov Reischer, 1661-1733) refutes this proof, noting that the Midrash later observes that Hashem does not demand that we hunt wild animals to bring them as sacrifices, but rather commands that we offer as sacrifices domesticated animals, which do not need to be hunted. Clearly, this does not mean that it would be acceptable to offer wild animals as sacrifices. By the same token, we cannot necessarily deduce from the Midrash that it is acceptable to recite Shema with our heads uncovered. Maran (Rav Yosef Caro, author of the Shulhan Aruch), in Bet Yosef (91), brings the aforementioned opinion of the Maharam of Rothenberg, that covering one's head is not strictly required, indicating that he concurred with this view. Elsewhere in Bet Yosef (46), however, Maran appears to imply otherwise. In discussing the blessing recited each morning, "Oter Yisrael Be'tif'ara" ("He who crowns Israel with splendor"), Maran explains that we are "crowned" in the sense that we, unlike other nations, are required to cover our heads. Maran adds that even those who maintain that this is not strictly required, agree that it is recommended as an act of piety. Here Maran clearly sides with the opinion that head-covering constitutes an outright Halachic obligation. Regardless, the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) noted that in the Shulhan Aruch, Maran takes the position that covering one's head is recommended but not strictly required. In Siman 2, the Shulhan Aruch writes that "it is forbidden" to walk about "Be'koma Zekufa" – completely upright, appearing proud and overly confident. In the same sentence, the Shulhan Aruch writes that "one should not walk four Amot with his head bare." When it comes to "Koma Zekufa," the Shulhan Aruch uses the word "Assur" ("It is forbidden"), whereas regarding walking bareheaded, he writes simply that this should not be done. It would thus appear that although it is proper to wear a head-covering, this is not strictly required. However, the Taz (Rav David Ha'levi Segal, 1586-1667) writes that even assuming that head-covering was practiced in ancient times only as a Middat Hasidut, in modern times this has become a strict Halachic obligation. The Taz explains that since the Christians are accustomed to walk about bareheaded, doing so violates the prohibition of "Hukot Ha'akum" – following gentile practices. Hence, in the view of the Taz, one is required to wear a Kippa nowadays in order to avoid transgressing the Biblical prohibition of "Hukot Ha'akum." Hacham Ovadia Yosef disputes this claim. Based on the comments of the Mahari Kolon (Rav Yosef Kolon, d. 1480), Hacham Ovadia writes that one transgresses the prohibition of "Hukot Ha'akum" only if he does something with the specific intention of imitating gentile practices and resembling a non-Jew. If a person decides to leave his head uncovered in the interest of comfort, this does not violate the prohibition. Nevertheless, in a famous responsum in Yehaveh Da'at, Hacham Ovadia writes that nowadays, one is required to wear a Kippa, for a different reason – because this has become the "badge" or symbol of an observant Jewish man. By wearing a Kippa, one identifies himself as a member of the population of G-d-fearing Jews. Conversely, one who chooses not to wear a Kippa presents himself as being non-observant, thereby inviting suspicion, and for this reason, wearing a Kippa has today become an obligation. It seems, however, that this applies only in Israel, where the decision of whether or not to cover one's head is the clear marker of one's self-identification as religious or secular. Here in the United States, however, at least in some communities, this is not the case, and it is known that not all observant Jews ensure to keep their heads covered at all times. Therefore, while it is certainly preferred and advisable to wear a Kippa – and where a person fears antisemitism, he can wear a cap instead of, or over, his Kippa – one who wishes to leave his head uncovered has a basis on which to rely. (Indeed, in the school where I work, I advise the members of the basketball team to leave their Kippot off during games, because the Kippa would interfere with their playing; since the Kippa is not required as a strict obligation, it may certainly be removed for this purpose.) Nevertheless, wearing a Kippa when eating, praying, reciting Berachot and learning Torah is strictly required. Of course, one must wear a Kippa in the synagogue. In the presence of a Rabbi, it is proper to wear a Kippa in the interest of Derech Eretz (common courtesy). When a person wishes to fulfill the requirement of a Beracha by listening to its recitation by somebody else, he must wear a Kippa even though he remains silent, because he is considered as actually reciting the Beracha by listening to his fellow.

It is permissible to handle one's clothes and dress himself immediately upon waking in the morning, even before washing his hands, though one who is stringent in this regard, and ensures to wash Netilat Yadayim before touching his clothing, is deserving of special blessing. However, this applies only to one who went to sleep before Hasot (Halachic midnight). If one went to sleep after Hasot, then there is no reason whatsoever to avoid touching his clothes before Netilat Yadayim, not even as a measure of piety. The Kabbalists teach that the impurity which descends upon the hands while one sleeps arrives at the point of Hasot, and so if one went to sleep after that time, there is no concern at all.

The Gemara (Shabbat 129a) teaches that one should ensure to purchase shoes for his feet even if this necessitates selling the "ceiling beams of his house." This might mean that the protection provided by shoes for the feet is more important than the protection provided by the roof of one's home. Elsewhere (Pesahim 113b), the Gemara warns that one who goes about barefoot is "excommunicated by G-d." Different reasons have been given for why one should not walk about without shoes. Rashi explains that walking around barefoot is undignified, and Torah Jews are obligated to conduct themselves in a dignified manner as befitting the children of the Almighty. Others explain, very simply, that walking around barefoot is dangerous, as one's feet might be bitten or stung, or might step on a sharp object. Some have noted that the Hebrew word for shoe – Na'al – may be read as an acrostic for the words "Nahash" (snake), "Akrab" (scorpion), "Lahash" ("hissing"). Similarly, some sources warn that one who walks about barefoot is more susceptible to catching a cold or some other virus. Rav Abraham Azulai (d. 1643) offered a Kabbalistic reason for this Halacha, explaining that after Adam and Hava's sin in Gan Eden, G-d placed a cursed upon the ground ("Arura Ha'adama Ba'aburecha" – Bereshit 3:17). It became the domain of the snake, which represents the Yeser Ha'ra (evil inclination) and forces of impurity, and slithers on the ground and eats the dirt. One who walks barefoot, touching the ground without any obstruction, exposes himself to the ground's impurity. Indeed, some commentators explain that the Egyptian sorcerers, who succeeded in mimicking some of the wonders that Moshe Rabbenu performed – such as changing their staffs to snakes, and transforming the water into blood – received their magical powers from the forces of impurity within the ground. For this reason, they were unable to match Moshe after he brought the third plague – the plague of Kinim (lice) – because the earth underneath Egypt was overrun by vermin (Shemot 8:13), and thus they could not access the forces of impurity. According to the Kabbalists, then, one must wear shoes in order not to connect himself to the Tum'a (impure) in the ground. In fact, some suggest that the word "Na'al" is an acrostic representing the phrase "Nahash Afar Lahmo" – "the snake's bread is dirt," alluding to the function of shoes to shield a person from the impurity of the ground, the domain of the snake. In theory, these different reasons yield interesting exceptions to this Halacha. For example, in warm climates, or during the summertime, walking about barefoot will not likely result in illness. And, in societies where walking barefoot has become accepted, it is not considered undignified. The Kabbalists teach that the ground of Eretz Yisrael does not contain the Tum'a that is present in the ground throughout the rest of the world. In practice, however, since we must concern ourselves with all these reasons, one should avoid walking about barefoot everywhere – even in warm regions, in societies where this is accepted, and in Eretz Yisrael. Inside one's home, however, none of these reasons apply: there is no concern of getting sick or being bitten or stung; there is no requirement to appear especially dignified within the privacy of one's home; and the floors are tiled such that one does not step directly on the ground. Thus, it is entirely permissible to walk about barefoot in one's home. This is the ruling of Hacham Ovadia Yosef. One should avoid walking about outside without shoes even if he wears socks. Although the socks protect the feet from the Tum'a of the ground, they do not offer protection from small creatures or sharp objects, and, in most societies, this would be considered undignified. Some sources mention the practice of going outside barefoot as a form of self-affliction for the purpose of achieving atonement for one's sins. People would intentionally endure the discomfort of walking barefoot and hurting themselves, or getting sick, so they could earn expiation for their wrongdoing. (This resembles the account of how the Arizal would roll in the snow during the winter in order to earn atonement.) Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, opposed all practices of self-affliction, including voluntary fasts. He noted the Gemara's teaching that the Nazir must bring a sin-offering to atone for his self-denial, abstaining from wine. All the more so, we are discouraged from afflicting ourselves unnecessarily by fasting and causing ourselves pain. Hashem expects us to enjoy – in moderation – the comforts and joys of our world, not to deprive ourselves of them. Moreover, voluntary fasts and other extreme measures of piety can often bring more spiritual harm than benefit, as they frequently result in arrogance. Many people who observe such practices ensure to put themselves on display, or to tell their peers about what they do, in order to earn their admiration and esteem – a kind of exhibitionism which is the diametric opposite of piety. Primarily, though, Hacham Ovadia opposed these practices because they lead a person to overlook the most important and most beneficial means of atonement – Torah study. King Shlomo teaches in Mishleh (16:6), "Be'hesed Ve'emet Yechupar Avon" – "Iniquity shall be atoned through kindness and truth," and "Emet" ("truth") refers to Torah learning. In fact, in the blessing of the Amida in which we ask Hashem to help us repent, we begin, "Hashibenu Abinu Le'Toratecha" – "Bring us back, our Father, to Your Torah." The most important and most effective way to rectify one's wrongdoing and earn atonement is through Torah study. The sanctity of Torah has the ability to purge and cleanse the soul of all impurities. I am often approached by people seeking advice for how to attain forgiveness for various sins, and my response is always to attend more Torah classes and devote more time to Torah learning. This isn't my idea – it was written explicitly by Rabbenu Yona (Spain, 1200-1263) in his famous Iggeret Teshuba – a brief guide for those seeking to repent. He says that on the day that a person decides to perform Teshuba, he should immediately commit to increase his Torah learning: if he is accustomed to learning one page, then he should learn two; if he is accustomed to learning for one hour, then he should learn for two hours. Even regarding the six weeks of Shobabim, when there is a time-honored custom to fast on Mondays and Thursdays, the Sadikim teach that spending several hours a day learning achieves more than fasting. This is especially so in today's day and age, when we are not accustomed to abstaining from food, and fasting thus causes frailty which diminishes our productivity and our ability to learn Torah and observe Misvot. It must be emphasized that Torah learning has the ability to atone for even the most grievous sins. The Gemara in Masechet Menahot (110) teaches that one who learns Torah does not need to offer sacrifices for atonement. Even the sin of Lashon Ha'ra – a sin as severe as murder, idol-worship and immorality combined – can be atoned through genuine repentance and Torah learning. Rav Chaim of Volozhin (1749-1821) related that people would ask his mentor, the Gaon of Vilna (1720-1797), how they could atone for the severe sin of Hosa'at Zera ("wasting seed"), and he would respond, "If they devote themselves to Torah study, then they have nothing to worry about." The Gaon of Vilna did not advise these individuals to observe fasts or practice forms of self-affliction or self-deprivation; instead, he urged them to devote time to Torah learning, as this is the universal remedy for all spiritual maladies. (It goes without saying that rectifying this sin also requires common-sense measures such as avoiding places and devices that trigger the Yeser Ha'ra.) We should add that reading the Zohar, too, is beneficial for achieving forgiveness. Even if one does not understand what he reads, the words themselves have inherent sanctity that spiritually cleanse a person. In fact, the Arizal had the custom of reading a section of Tikkuneh Zohar each day from Rosh Hodesh Elul through Yom Kippur, when he would complete the entire work. Clearly, then, one should avoid all measures of self-deprivation, and should instead care for his physical wellbeing so he has the strength and mental energy to devote himself to Torah learning as much as he can.

When putting on shoes, as we have seen, one should put the right shoe on before the left shoe in order to show importance to the right side, though he should tie the laces of the left shoe before the laces of the right shoe, because the left side has greater importance with respect to tying. When removing one's shoes, one should show respect to the right side by reversing the sequence – removing the left shoe first, so that the right shoe remains on the foot for longer. Intuitively, we might assume that the entire process should be reversed, such that one first unties the right shoe, unties and removes the left shoe, and then removes the right shoe. This is, indeed, the opinion of several Poskim, and the position adopted by Hacham David Yosef in Halacha Berura. By contrast, the Az Nidberu (Rav Binyamin Zilber, 1916-2008) maintained that one unties and removes the left shoe, and then unties and removes the right shoe. He reached this conclusion on the basis of the Gemara's formulation (Shabbat 61a) – "Holetz Shel Semol" ("removes the left [first]"). The verb H.L.TZ. used here in reference to removing shoes appears also in the context of Halisa – the procedure required when a married man dies without children, and his brother chooses not to marry the widow (which would fulfill the Misva of Yibum). The Torah requires the widow to remove her brother-in-law's shoe from his foot, using the word "Ve'halsa" (Debarim 25:9). This is understood as referring to both untying the shoelaces and removing the shoe, seemingly proving that the root H.L.TZ. includes both steps of the process, and not merely the shoe's removal. By extension, then, when the Gemara requires, "Holetz Shel Semol," it means that one should first untie and remove the left shoe before untying the right shoe. As mentioned, however, other Poskim ruled that one should first untie the right shoe before removing the left shoe. Therefore, one has the option of which procedure to follow. It is told that the Sadik of Nasaud ( Rav Avraham Yehoshua Freund, 1850–1932) once needed to remove only his right shoe, to have it repaired. He made a point of first removing the left shoe, in order to observe the Halacha requiring removing the left shoe before the right shoe. This shows that at least in his opinion, even if one needs to remove only the right shoe, he should remove the left shoe first. Rav Abraham Yishak Ha'kohen Kook (1865-1935) drew an intriguing distinction between the ordinary removal of shoes, and removing shoes for a Misva purpose – such as before Yom Kippur and Tisha B'Ab, a Kohen preparing for Birkat Kohanim, or when changing into one's Shabbat shoes on Friday afternoon. Normally, one shows greater respect to the right side by leaving it on for longer. However, when the shoe's removal fulfills a Misva, then to the contrary, one shows greater respect to the right shoe by using it for the Misva first. Rav Kook thus maintained that whenever one removes his shoes for the purpose of a Misva, he should remove the right shoe first. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) fundamentally agreed with Rav Kook, though he disputed the application of this reasoning to the removal of shoes before Yom Kippur and Tisha B'Ab. On these occasions, the purpose of removing the shoe is to deprive oneself the comfort of wearing shoes. Therefore, Rav Shlomo Zalman contended, one shows greater respect to the right shoe by leaving it on and enjoying the comfort it provides for longer than the left shoe. In the other situations of a Misva, Rav Shlomo Zalman concurred with Rav Kook's position. However, Rav Yisrael Bitan noted that the earlier sources make no mention of such a distinction. Moreover, the Lebush (Rav Mordechai Yoffe, c. 1530-1612) explained the requirement to remove the left shoe first by stating that it is disrespectful for the right foot to remain bare for a few moments while the left foot is still in a shoe. According to this explanation, it would certainly seem that the purpose of the shoe's removal is not relevant as far as this Halacha is concerned, and thus in all situations, one should remove the left shoe before the right shoe. Summary: When one removes his shoes, he should remove the left shoe before the right shoe. According to some Poskim, one should first untie the right shoe before untying and removing the left shoe, whereas others maintain that one should untie and remove the left shoe, and then untie and remove the right shoe.

We have seen that although one should put his right shoe on before his left shoe – because precedence is always given to the right side – nevertheless, one should tie his left shoe before his right shoe. This is because the Torah commanded tying Tefillin to one's left arm, indicating that with regard to tying, the left side has greater importance than the right. Seemingly, then, this Halacha should not apply to women, who do not wear Tefillin. For them, we might assume, the left has no special importance with regard to tying. Accordingly, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) maintained that women should tie their right shoe before the left shoe, reverting to the general principle that the right should be given precedence. Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (1873-1960) was of the opinion that women have the option of tying their shoes in whichever sequence they choose. Others, however, disagree, arguing that once the Torah lent importance to the left side with the Misva of Tefillin, the left takes precedence in this respect for all people, even women. Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, accepted this view, drawing proof from a different Halacha that applies to women despite its being based on the Misva of Tefillin. When using the restroom, a person should not clean himself with the right hand, as this is the hand used to wrap Tefillin around the left arm (and the middle finger of the left hand should not be used, as the Tefillin is wrapped around that finger). Rav Yaakov Emden (Germany, 1697-1776) maintained that this applies even to women, since a woman could wrap Tefillin around her husband's arm, and thus the significance of Tefillin is relevant also to women. By the same token, then, women should tie their left shoe before the right shoe. Hacham Yishak Yosef, in Yalkut Yosef, brings both opinions without reaching a definitive conclusion, but Hacham David, as mentioned, accepts the view that women should follow the same sequence as men. Children should be taught to put their shoes on in the proper sequence as part of their training in Halacha observance. Summary: Men should put on their right shoe before the left shoe, but should tie their left shoe before the right. The Poskim debate the question of whether women, too, should tie the left shoe first, and a woman has on whom to rely whichever sequence she chooses, though it would seem more correct for women to follow the same sequence as men and tie the left shoe first.

We have seen that although the right side is always given precedence over the left, the left shoe is tied before the right shoe, because the Tefillin is tied to the left arm, showing that with regard to tying, the left is given precedence. Seemingly, this would mean that a lefthanded individual – who wears Tefillin on his right arm – should tie his right shoe first. In truth, however, the Halacha in this regard depends not on whether a person is lefthanded, but rather if he is "left-legged" – meaning, if his left leg is stronger than his right leg. If it is, then he should tie his right shoe first, regardless of whether he is righthanded or lefthanded. A "right-legged" person, however, ties his left shoe first, even if he is lefthanded. If a person is placing shoes on somebody else's feet – such as an employee in a shoe store, or an aid tending to an elderly individual – the procedure depends on the person whose shoes are being put on, and not the person who is putting on the shoes for him. Thus, if, for example, the customer at a shoe store is "right-legged," then the person putting on his shoes should tie the left shoe first, even though he – the store employee – is "left-legged." If, for whatever reason, one currently has only his left shoe available, he should wait until his right shoe is brought so he can put it on first. He should not put on his left shoe while waiting for his right shoe.

The Gemara in Masechet Shabbat brings the ruling of Rabbi Yohanan that when one puts on shoes, he should put his left shoe on before his right shoe. He notes that Tefillin are worn (by righthanded people) on the left arm, indicating that the left side, at least in some respects, is given precedence over the right side. Rabbi Yosef, as the Gemara cites, disagrees, quoting a Berayta establishing that the right shoe should be placed first. The Gemara concludes that the proper thing to do is to accommodate both opinions, by placing the right shoe before the left shoe, and then tying the left shoe before the right shoe. At first glance, this "compromise" seems difficult to explain. If one places the right shoe first, but then ties the left shoe first, he does not accommodate either position. Why, then, is this the preferred sequence? The Bet Yosef brings those who explain that when Rabbi Yohanan points to the precedent of Tefillin, his intention was to show that when it comes to tying, the left side is given precedence. Tefillin is tied to the left arm, thus indicating to us that tying on the left should come before tying on the right. Therefore, even Rabbi Yohanan agrees that the right shoe should be placed before the left shoe, and his point was simply that the left shoelaces should be tied before the right shoelaces. This is the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch. It should be noted that the Tefillin are not actually "tied" around the arm; they are wrapped around the arm. It thus follows that this Halacha applies not only to tying shoelaces, but to all kinds of fastening – such as if one's shoes are closed with a zipper or Velcro. Moreover, when one wears a long-sleeve shirt, he should first button the left sleeve before buttoning the right sleeve, as this, too, is a kind of fastening. Although one should insert his right arm into his shirt when getting dressed before the left arm (as we've discussed in previous installments), the left sleeve should be buttoned before the right sleeve – or, if one wears cufflinks, the left cufflink should be closed before the right cufflink. Interestingly, the Lebush (Rav Mordechai Yaffe, c. 1530-1612) offered a different explanation for why the left shoe should be tied before the right shoe. He notes the story of Abraham Abinu rescuing the city of Sedom after it had been captured by the four kings, and when he returned from battle, the king of Sedom offered Abraham all the property which he had retrieved. Abraham refused to take any possessions of the evil city of Sedom, and he proclaimed that he would not even accept a "thread or a shoelace" ("Im Mi'hut Ve'ad Seroch Na'al" – Bereshit 14:23). The Gemara (Sota 17a) teaches that in reward for Abraham's refusing to take even a "shoelace," the Misva of Tefillin was given to his descendants. Thus, the Lebush writes, a special connection exists between shoelaces and the Misva of Tefillin, and it is for this reason that we tie our shoelaces in a manner that is based upon the Tefillin, granting precedence to the left side. According to this explanation, this procedure is required only when tying shoelaces, and not when tying or fastening anything else, such as shirtsleeves. Regardless, the commonly accepted explanation is that which the Bet Yosef cited, and therefore the left is always given precedence when tying or fastening garments, such as when buttoning shirtsleeves. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) addressed the question regarding shoes which have laces on both sides; meaning, on each foot, there are two sets of laces that must be tied, one on the right side of the shoe and one on the left side. When tying each shoe, which side should be tied first? This would depend on the question of whether Halacha requires only tying the left shoe before right shoe, or giving the left side precedence in every act of tying. According to the first perspective, the requirement is merely to tie the left shoe first, in which case for each shoe, we revert to the standard rule granting precedence to the right side, and tie the right laces of each shoe first. According to the second perspective, then even when tying each shoe, the left side is given precedence. Rav Shlomo Zalman was more inclined to accept this second possibility, that the left side should be tied before the right side. The Rama writes that if one wears shoes without laces, then he simply places the right shoe before the left shoe. Rav Haim Cohen of Aleppo (d. 1655) wrote that when wearing shoes without laces, the proper procedure is to put the right foot in the shoe but not completely, and then put the left shoe on completely and, thereafter, finishing to put on the right shoe. However, the Poskim did not bring this practice, and the accepted procedure is to simply put the right shoe on before the left shoe. (It is known that the Hafetz Haim made a point of wearing of shoes without laces, as he did not wish to waste the time it would take each time he put on or took off his shoes to tie and untie the laces.) Summary: The proper procedure when putting on shoes is to place the right shoe first, without tying it, and then place the left shoe, tie it, and, at the end, tie the right shoe. When it comes to any sort of tying or fastening, the left side is given precedence, and thus one should tie his left shirtsleeve before his right shirtsleeve, or close the left cufflink before the right cufflink. If one wears shoes without laces, then he simply puts the right shoe on before the left shoe.

The Gemara (Shabbat 61a) teaches that if one is applying oil on his entire body, he should begin with the head, which is the "king," so-to-speak, of the body. The Rama, in Darcheh Moshe, cites Rav Abraham of Prague (d. 1542) as asserting that this applies also to bathing; when one washes his body, he should wash his head first. The Rama then proceeds to cite a passage from the Rambam which seems to imply that one may wash the rest of his body first, before the head, and that there is no need to wash the right side of one's body before the left side. However, the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939) cites those who explain that since in earlier generations people did not bathe very often, no procedure was instituted for bathing. It is only when it comes to daily activities that we are urged to give precedence to the right side to symbolize the prevailing of Hesed (which is associated with the right) over judgment (which is associated with the left). Bathing, however, was infrequent in ancient times, and so the Sages did not institute any procedure. Nowadays, we bathe regularly, and so we should follow the proper protocol – washing the head first, and then the right side of the body followed by the left side. The simple manner of bathing, then, is to first wash the hair on the head, and then the entire right side of the body – the arm, torso and legs – followed by the entire left side. The Arizal, however, taught that after washing the head, one should wash the right arm, then the left arm, the torso, the legs, the private area, and then the feet. When one washes his hands – either for Netilat Yadayim or for cleanliness – he should wash his right hand before his left hand. Likewise, when drying oneself after bathing, he should first dry the head and face, followed by the arms and then the feet. When one gets dressed after bathing, he should first put on his Kipa before his garments, as the head should be covered before the other parts of the body. When undressing, one should remove his Kipa last, after removing all his clothing. And when one removes his clothes, he should remove the left side before the right side to show importance to the right side, just like one puts his garments on his right side before the left side (as discussed in a previous installment).

There is a basic rule that the right should always be given precedence over the left. The right side is associated with the divine attribute of Hesed (kindness), whereas the left is associated with judgment, and so we always strive to give precedence to the right side so that kindness shall prevail over judgment. When bathing, then, one should wash the right side before his left side. (The Kabbalists first wash their head, followed by the right side of their torso and then the left, and they conclude with the feet.) When one dresses himself in the morning, he should insert his right arm in his shirt before his left. Likewise, when putting on a sports jacket or overcoat, the right arm should be inserted first. One should preferably hold both sides of the garment with his right hand, and then transfer one side to the left so he can put his right arm through the garment first, followed by the left arm. This applies even to lefthanded individuals. When putting on a Tallit, too, one should first hold the Tallit with his right hand, and then transfer one side to his left, at which point he recites the Beracha and puts it on. When putting on a scarf, one should wrap the right side over the left side, and not vice-versa, expressing the prevailing of Hesed over judgment. Hassidic communities insist on this arrangement even for the buttons of shirts. In contemporary society, the shirts have the buttons on the right side, with the buttonholes on the left, such that the left side covers the right side. Hassidic communities therefore have shirts custom-made with the buttons and button-holes reversed, so that the right side will cover the left side. It is told that the Steipler Gaon (Rav Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky, 1899-1985) would have his buttons transferred to the left side of his garments for this reason. In any event, most communities are lenient in this regard, and wear their shirts and jackets with the left side covering the right. Interestingly, even Hassidic communities that insist on wearing shirts with the buttons on the left side wear normal pants, with the button on the right side. Some explain that there is value in leaving one area for the Kelipot (forces of impurity) to control so they will be content and not seek to inflict harm. When putting on shoes, one first puts the right shoe on before the left. Likewise, when applying hand lotion, one should first treat the right hand before the left hand.

The Gemara (Horiyot 13b) warns that sleeping with one's garment under his head can cause him to forget his Torah knowledge. In airports, for example, when flights are delayed, people sometimes place their jacket beneath their head so they can rest. One should avoid doing so, as this could cause him to forget his Torah knowledge. However, this applies only if one places his head directly on the garment. If there is something in between, then there is no concern. Hence, one may lay his head on a piece of luggage even though it contains clothing. According to one opinion, the Gemara refers specifically to a person who lays his head on his own article of clothing. If one lays his head on somebody else's garment, then there is no danger. This is the view of Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868), and of the Salmat Haim (Rav Yosef Haim Sonenfeld, 1849-1932), who explains on this basis the Mishna's description (Tamid 1:1) of the Kohanim sleeping on their garments in the Bet Ha'mikdash. This was allowed, the Salmat Haim suggests, because the priestly garments were not the Kohanim's personal property, but were rather owned collectively by the entire nation. Hacham Ovadia refutes this proof, noting that perhaps the Kohanim were allowed to sleep on their garments because of the sanctity of the Bet Ha'mikdash. The Kelipot (forces of impurity) had no power in the Bet Ha'mikdash, and so there was no danger involved when sleeping there with one's clothing under his head. Hacham Ovadia concluded that as we have no definitive proof to the lenient position, it is preferable to act stringently in this regard due to the serious risk that's at stake, and refrain from sleeping directly on any garment, even one which belongs to somebody else. One who wishes to lie on a garment should ensure to place something in between his head and the garment.

In earlier installments, we noted the Arizal's teaching that one should not put on two articles of clothing simultaneously – such as putting on a hat with the Kippa inside it – as this could cause a person to forget his Torah knowledge. The reason, as we discussed, is that the inner garment will be concealed and thus unable to receive the "Or Ha'makif" ("supernal light") that surrounds our clothing to protect them from harmful spiritual forces. It would seem, at first glance, that this is relevant only to putting two garments on at the same time, because it is then when we want the "Or Ha'makif" to surround the garments. When removing garments, however, there appears to be no reason not to remove two garments simultaneously – such as removing a sweatshirt together with the shirt underneath it. This is, indeed, the position taken by Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995). He writes that when it comes to behaviors which could lead a person to forget his Torah knowledge, we have no reason to be stringent beyond the restrictions mentioned in the earlier sources. Since the sources speak only of the dangers of putting two garments on at the same time, we do not need to be concerned about removing two garments at the same time. By contrast, the Yosef Ometz ruled stringently, that one should avoid also removing two garments at the same time. Hacham Ovadia Yosef concluded that although Rav Shlomo Zalman's lenient ruling seems correct, nevertheless, it is preferable to act stringently and avoid removing two garments at the same time, because one might then also put them on together. If, for example, a person removes his shirt together with his sweater, and the shirt remains inside the sweater, he might later put them both on simultaneously, and so he should preferably remove his garments one at a time.

June 16 first through 5:25 As explained in an earlier installment, the Arizal warned that putting on two articles of clothing simultaneously could have an adverse effect on a person, causing him to forget his Torah knowledge. This gives rise to the question of whether one may put on his shoes when they are inside rubbers. Often, in the winter, people take off their shoes when entering the home together with the rubbers, keeping the shoes inside the rubbers. Then, when they go back out into the snow, they simply put the shoes with the rubbers on their feet. Seemingly, this should be discouraged, as one must refrain from putting on two articles of clothing at the same time. Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (Jerusalem, 1873-1960) cites a source claiming that the Arizal's teaching does not apply to garments made from rubber, in which case there is no concern in this regard. However, the Sitz Eliezer (Rav Eliezer Waldenberg, 1915-2006) questioned this theory, noting that there seems to be no reason to differentiate between rubber and other materials. The Arizal taught that when placing two articles of clothing at the same time, the inner garment does not receive the "Or Ha'makif" (supernal light) that surrounds garments to protect them from the harmful spiritual forces. This concern certainly appears to be relevant to rubbers no less than to garments made from other materials. Nevertheless, Hacham Ovadia ruled leniently in this regard, and allowed putting on shoes that are already inside rubbers. This is based on a comment of the Aruch Ha'shulhan (Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein of Nevarduk, 1829-1908) that the Arizal's teaching does not apply to shoes. The Aruch Ha'shulhan does not explain why shoes would differ from other garments in this regard, but Hacham Ovadia suggested that since the shoes touch the ground, which has impurity, they cannot be protected from impurity, and so they do not receive the "Or Ha'makif." Socks, however, are not treated as shoes. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) ruled that although one who touches shoes must then wash his hands, one does not require hand washing after touching his socks. Some Poskim disagree, but Halacha follows this view of the Ben Ish Hai. This lenient ruling yields a stringent conclusion with regard to the question of putting on two socks at the same time. Since socks are treated by Halacha differently than shoes, the Aruch Ha'shulhan's leniency does not apply. Therefore, one who wishes to wear two pairs of socks for extra warmth must put on one after the other, and may not wrap one sock in the other and then put them both on together.

A number of sources teach that if a person puts on two garments at the same time, he is likely to forget the Torah he has learned. This is mentioned in the Sha'ar Ha'kavanot, based on the teachings of the Arizal. It is brought also by the Mishna Berura. An example is placing one's Kippa in his hat, and then placing the hat on his head, such that he puts on both head coverings simultaneously. Another example is somebody who is going skiing and puts on two pairs of socks – he must put one sock on the foot at a time, rather than placing one sock inside the other and putting them together on his foot. This can also be relevant to a person wearing a shirt and a sweater; he must put on the shirt and then the sweater, rather than putting the shirt inside the sweater and then putting them on together. This applies also to those who wear two jackets; each must be put on separately. The reason for this Halacha is that according to Kabbalah, a garment is surrounded by an "Or Ha'makif" – a "supernal light." In fact, when we recite each morning the blessing "Malbish Arumim," thanking Hashem for the blessing of clothing, we refer to the special "light" that surrounds the clothes that we wear. This "light" has the effect of bringing a person Kedusha (sanctity) and warding off the Kelipot – the harmful impure forces that threaten him. If a person puts on two garments simultaneously, the inner garment does not receive the "Or Ha'makif." It must first be worn alone so it can receive this "light" before the outer layer covers it.

It is incumbent upon observant Jews to always appear well-kempt and dignified. Nowadays, this applies to all observant Jews. As representatives of the Torah, we all bear the obligation to look respectable in order to reflect positively on the Torah. An observant Jew must not walk about with stained clothing, scuffed shoes, or a foul odor. People who encounter a religious Jew who appears this way lose respect for the Torah, and reach the conclusion that the Torah does not encourage self-dignity. In fact, the Sages teach (Shabbat 114a) that if a Torah scholar has "Rabab" – dirt – on his garment, then he is deserving of death, because he misrepresents the Torah. I had the privilege of knowing Rav Chaim Kreiswirth (1918-2001), the Chief Rabbi of Antwerp who frequently visited Israel. He was a towering spiritual giant, who mastered the entire Talmud. I saw him once take out a pocket mirror and comb before getting out of a car, to groom himself. He explained that the windows were open during the trip, and his hair and beard became disheveled. He therefore made sure to groom himself so he looked presentable before getting out of the car. Another example that I personally witnessed was the time when I went with a group of students to the home of Rav Chaim Brim (1922-2002) in Jerusalem, for a Torah class, after which we wanted to take a group picture with him. He did not allow the picture to be taken until he first straightened up the room and made sure he looked presentable. He wanted to ensure that people who looked at this picture would not see him unkempt or his home untidy. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in Yehaveh Da'at, addressed the question of whether or not it is acceptable for a man to use a mirror. The Gemara teaches that a man should not use a mirror, as this is something that women do, and is considered vanity for men. Nevertheless, Hacham Ovadia ruled that nowadays it is specifically a Misva for men to use a mirror to ensure that they look presentable and thereby make a Kiddush Hashem (glorification of G-d's Name). Rav Yissachar Frand (contemporary) shared that when he traveled with his Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yaakov Ruderman (1900-1987), to fundraise, and they would pass through the train station, Rav Ruderman would have his shoes shined in order that he would look presentable when meeting with the donors. Just as an observant Jew must dress in a dignified manner, he must conduct himself in a dignified manner. This includes eating neatly and patiently. Needless to say, this applies to both men and women. Women must dress not only modestly, but also respectably so they appear dignified. Earlier, we noted the Gemara's teaching that a Torah scholar with a "Rabab" – stain – on his clothing is deserving of death. An alternate reading of this teaching has been suggested, based on the Gematria of the word "Rebab" (204), which is the same Gematria as the word "Sadik." The Gemara thus perhaps refers to a scholar who "wears" piety on his clothing, who shows himself to be more righteous than he really is. Just as it is wrong to appear unkempt and undignified, so it is wrong to appear greater and holier than one actually is. One who projects a false impression of piety is also deserving of death, as he deceives people in an effort to earn their respect and admiration. Finally, a Torah scholar should wear neither very expensive clothing, nor very cheap clothing. He must appear respectable, but should not appear as though he wastes large amounts of money on costly attire.

The Gemara (Shabbat 114a) teaches that one of the qualities of a Talmid Hacham (Torah scholar) is that if he notices that one of his garments is inside-out, he immediately turns it around so the stitches will not be visible. It seems that long ago, the interior of garments looked very much like the exterior, except that the stitching was visible on the inside, and so it would be common to mistakenly wear a garment inside-out. A Torah scholar is obligated to ensure to wear his garments the right way, and not inside-out. The Tur writes that with respect to this Halacha, all observant Jews must consider themselves "Torah scholars." All those who observe the Torah effectively function as the "ambassadors" of Torah, since people who see us and watch how we conduct ourselves naturally interpret our behavior as reflective of the Torah's values. Therefore, all observant Jews must dress respectably, and this includes ensuring that clothing is not worn inside-out. However, if the concern was only about appearance, then this Halacha would not apply to undergarments, which are not seen. We would assume that one may wear an undershirt, for example, inside-out, since it is not visible. In truth, though, several sources teach that this Halacha is based also on Kabbalistic concepts, and it therefore applies to all garments. Even if, for example, nobody would notice if one's socks are worn inside-out, or if his Sisit are worn inside-out, nevertheless, they must not be worn this way. Beyond the need to appear presentable, clothes must be worn the right way because of Kabbalistic reasons, and so this applies to all garments. If, however, a garment is made from the outset to be reversible, and worn both ways, then one may wear it either way.

As discussed in an earlier installment, men – like women – are required to dress in an appropriate manner. This includes a requirement to limit exposure to the minimum extent necessary when changing or performing one's bodily functions, and ensuring to lock the door when using the restroom. The Poskim make a point of emphasizing the requirement for parents to educate their children in this regard. Even at a young age, children should not be permitted to walk about unclothed. And, after a child is toilet-trained, the child should be taught to keep the door closed while using the restroom. While it of course might be dangerous to instruct a small child to lock the door – as an adult should when using the restroom – children should be taught to keep the door closed and maintain privacy while changing their clothes and while using the restroom.

People mistakenly believe that the concept of modest dress is relevant only to women, whereas men can dress in any way they like. This is incorrect. There are certain restrictions on dress that apply to men. The basic principle is that one must realize that he is constantly in the presence of G-d. Even when a person is in the privacy of his home, and even alone in his bedroom, he must be cognizant of the fact that Hashem fills the earth and accompanies him at all times. King Shaul was praised for his high standards of modesty, as he went into a dark cave to perform his bodily functions, and even inside the cave, he exposed himself only as needed, out of an awareness of G-d's presence. Accordingly, the Shulhan Aruch rules that a person must put something on before getting out of the bed in the morning. Long ago, people would sleep under their blankets unclothed, and the Shulhan Aruch writes that before a person steps out of bed, he should put his garment on under his blankets so he will not be exposed upon leaving his bed. This applies even if the room is dark, as Hashem can see even in the dark. The Poskim debate the question of whether the Shulhan Aruch intended this instruction as an actual Halachic requirement, or only as an admirable practice, a measure of piety that is recommended for the sake of demonstrating one's awareness of G-d's omnipresence. Rav Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986) maintained that there is no strict halachic obligation for a man to avoid being exposed in private, and the Shulhan Aruch's ruling was written only as a recommended practice, a proper mode of behavior for a G-d-fearing individual. By contrast, the Mishneh Halachot (Rav Menashe Klein, 1923-2011) maintained that this law constitutes an outright Halachic obligation, as the straightforward reading of the Shulhan Aruch and other sources suggests. Likewise, the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that according to some Rishonim, these laws are required on the level of Torah law, and so they should be strictly observed. Nowadays, of course, people generally wear pajamas or undergarments when sleeping, so the Shulhan Aruch's instructions would apply in our time to changing one's clothes under the blanket, so that his private parts are not exposed. Many people would naturally find this difficult. Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, accepts Rav Moshe Feinstein's lenient position, that these guidelines were not presented as actual Halachic requirements, and so he rules that they may be suspended if they would cause considerable discomfort. Thus, if somebody finds it very difficult to get dressed under the blanket, this is not necessary. Hacham David writes that this was the position taken by his father, Hacham Ovadia Yosef. In fact, Rav Moshe himself ruled leniently if dressing under the blanket would take too much time, or if one cannot dress neatly in this fashion. Nevertheless, Rav Haim Kanievsky (1928-2022) taught that one who ensures not to expose his private parts while getting changed is worthy of special blessing. Rav Moshe adds that when walking about, a man must dress in a manner in which he would not feel ashamed appearing before ordinary people. When it comes to Tefila, one must dress in a way he would when greeting a prominent figure. At all other times, Rav Moshe writes, it suffices to dress in a manner that is not embarrassing. One's private parts, however, must of course always remain covered. Rav Haim Kanievsky took a more stringent position, writing that one must ensure not to expose his arms above the elbows, or his legs above his knees. Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) wrote that since people in modern society do not walk about barefoot, one should refrain from doing so even in his home. In fact, the Mishna Berura writes that since the feet are normally covered, it is proper to put one's socks on before getting out of bed in order not to expose his feet. The Piskeh Teshubot concluded that one may walk about barefoot in his home under hot weather conditions, when covering the feet is uncomfortable. However, even the Mishna Berura conceded that in Mediterranean countries, where many people walk about barefoot, it is permissible to do so. It thus stands to reason that the guiding principle is the accepted practice in any given locale. In communities where it is not deemed acceptable to walk about with exposed feet, or in short sleeves or shorts, one should abide by the community's standards. In places where these modes of dress are acceptable, then they are allowed. Indeed, Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that one is allowed even to pray wearing very short sleeves or short pants if this mode of dress is accepted in his community (though he added that a person dressed this way should not serve as Hazan). Likewise, despite the Mishna Berura's aforementioned ruling that one should put on his socks before getting out of bed, numerous later Poskim – including the Hazon Ish, the Steipler Gaon, and Hacham Ovadia Yosef – ruled leniently in this regard. This is likely due to the fact that it has become more acceptable to walk about with sandals without socks, and thus exposing one's feet is no longer considered undignified. By the same token, a man may take off his shirt when swimming in a pool or at the beach, as this is the accepted mode of dress in these areas. However, some Poskim ruled that if one is not swimming at the beach, but is playing ball or walking, he should wear a shirt. A man who goes to the Mikveh should not walk about the Mikveh unclothed, and should instead cover himself with a towel or robe on his way to and from the water. Some Poskim allow one to be unclothed in a restroom that has a bath or shower, as such a room has the status of a Bet Ha'merhatz (bathhouse), where it is permissible to be unclothed. Others, however, rule that this is not allowed unless one is planning to bathe. Summary: Men, like women, must adhere to appropriate standards of modest dress. The basic rule is that one must dress in a manner that is deemed respectable and dignified in the place where he is. In some communities, it is inappropriate to walk about in shorts, whereas in others this is allowed. At the beach or swimming pool, a man may remove his shirt. Nowadays it is generally deemed acceptable in most communities to wear sandals without socks, so this is permitted. When one needs to expose himself – such as when dressing, when bathing, when using the restroom, or in a Mikveh – one should expose himself only to the extent necessary, remaining cognizant of G-d's presence.

There are certain sections from the Torah that some communities have the custom of reciting each day. These include the verses in Parashat Ki-Tisa that speak of the Kiyor (the faucet in the Bet Ha'mikdash from which the Kohanim would wash); the verses in Parashat Sav that speak of the Terumat Ha'deshen (the daily removal of ashes from the top of the altar); and the verses in Parashat Tesaveh and Parashat Ki-Tisa that speak of the Ketoret (incense offering). Sephardic custom, however, following the teachings of the Arizal, is not to recite these sections from the Torah as part of the daily prayer service. Although we recite the verses of the Tamid (the daily sacrifice in the Bet Ha'mikdash), and the section from the Gemara that discusses the Ketoret, we do not recite this section. (In some communities, the Kohanim read the section of the Kiyor each day.) Many have the custom to recite the text called "Perek Shira" each day. This text speaks about the praises that the various animals sing to Hashem. Some women, in particular, recite a portion of Perek Shira each day, completing it over the course of the week, whereas others recite the entire text every day. The Sages teach that "Kol Ha'osek Be'Perek Shira" – "whoever involves himself in Perek Shira" – is guaranteed a share in the world to come, and will succeed in remembering the Torah that he studies. Notably, the Sages speak not of someone who "recites" Perek Shira, but rather of someone who "involves himself" in this text. To reap the benefits offered by Perek Shira, it does not suffice to simply mouth the words. One must understand what he is saying and reflect on the fact that even the animals give praise to Hashem – showing us that we, who recognize Hashem's greatness and kindness far more than the animals, certainly have the obligation to constantly give praise to G-d.

Some have the custom to recite each day the section known as "Parashat Ha'man" – the verses from Parashat Beshalah (Shemot chapter 16) which tell of the Manna, the miraculous food with which G-d sustained Beneh Yisrael in the wilderness. Reading this section reinforces our faith in Hashem as the source of our material sustenance, and is thus very significant. The Talmud Yerushalmi writes that one who recites this section each day is guaranteed that he will never lack food. Many people mistakenly think that reading this section is a Segula ("charm") that brings wealth, but it is clear from the Yerushalmi that this is not the case. The Yerushalmi guarantees that those who read it every day will never experience deprivation or shortage, not that they will become wealthy. Rav Haim Vital (1543-1620) would recite Parashat Ha'man each day until his mentor, the Arizal, told him to discontinue this practice. It is unclear whether the Arizal opposed the daily recitation altogether, or opposed only its recitation at the beginning of the prayer service. The Sefer Hasidim (Rabbenu Yehuda Ha'hasid, Germany, d. 1217) writes that one must not pray for his material needs before first beseeching G-d for assistance in his pursuit of spiritual greatness. Perhaps, then, the Arizal objected only to reciting Parashat Ha'man during the introduction to the daily prayer service, but accepted the value of reciting it each day after Shaharit. Regardless, Hacham David Yosef, in Halacha Berura, writes that Sephardic custom is not to recite Parashat Ha'man as part of the daily prayer service. Of course, there is nothing wrong with reciting it afterward. Many have the practice of reciting this section on the Tuesday before the Shabbat of Parashat Beshalah.