Following the laws of prayer, the Shulhan Aruch deals with the laws of synagogue. The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 150:1) rules that residents of a town have an obligation to build a synagogue, and the Beur Halacha (ibid.) extends this obligation to establishing a Bet Midrash as well. As well, the Zohar (Beshalah) says that since a synagogue is considered a microcosmic Bet HaMikdash, one fulfils the obligation to rebuild the Bet HaMikdash by establishing a synagogue.The Shulhan Aruch’s ruling applies also to ensuring that there is sufficient capacity in the town’s synagogue(s) and building more if necessary.
Rabbi David ben Zimra (Shu”t HaRadbaz, vol. 3, § 472) discusses the propriety of building a new synagogue because some congregants wish to pray using their own rite. He explains that one must pray where one’s heart desires. In such a place–where one sings with familiar tunes and with practices to which one is accustomed–one’s mind gains full composure and one’s soul is awakened, and therefore one’s prayers are most effective. Thus, it is permissible to establish a new synagogue so as to conform to the customs and rites of a portion of the congregants. Nevertheless, Rabbi Shalom Schwadron (Shu”t Maharsham, vol. 3, § 168) rules that if by splitting off it will significantly affect the membership of the original synagogue such that it may not have a consistent Minyan or worse, may close, then it is forbidden.
Summary: Every Jewish settlement must have a Synagogue and a Bet Midrash. A new synagogue may be established as long as it does not affect the membership of the other synagogue(s).
The Halacha deals with the question of whether a donated Sefer Torah is simply on loan or whether the synagogue/community owns it outright.The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 153:20) rules that if one’s father donated a SeferTorah to a synagogue, one may take back possession of the Torah and the congregation has no recourse against him. Rabbi Yosef Colon (Shu”t Maharik, § 70) writes that although the Torah is physically in the possession of the synagogue, sometimes for many years, there is no presumption of ownership(“Hazaka”) on the part of the synagogue. Nevertheless, he quotes the opinion of Rabbi Shlomo Luria (Yam Shel Shlomo), who says that if one donated a Torah scroll without any stipulations, it could be assumed that it then belonged to the synagogue.
The Mishna Berura (Orah Haim 153:98-100) quotes both opinions and concludes that ideally the donor should stipulate the exact ownershiparrangement with the synagogue, and this was the custom in Morocco. Rabbi Yosef Berdugo (Shufre D’Yosef), siding with Rabbi Shlomo Luria, writes that in the absence of an express stipulation, the Torah would go into the possession of the synagogue. Conversely, Rabbi Haim Serero (Shu”t Rabbi Haim David Serero, § 16) and Rabbi Petahya Berdugo (Nofet Tzufim) maintain that there is no intention on the part of the donor of handing over ownership to thesynagogue. Rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron (Shu”t Binyan Av, Hoshen Mishpat, vol. 1, § 1) clarifies that the current practice is that when one donates something to a synagogue, one still retains ownership of it. However, it is preferable to articulate the terms of the donation so as to avoid any misunderstandings or Halachic quandaries.
Summary: Unless expressly stipulated, a donated Sefer Torah is considered to be on loan to the synagogue and its ownership is retainedby the donor. It is proper to stipulate the ownership arrangements prior to donating an article of value to a synagogue or community.
The Halacha deals with the question of whether a donated Sefer Torah is simply on loan or whether the synagogue/community owns it outright.The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 153:20) rules that if one’s father donated a SeferTorah to a synagogue, one may take back possession of the Torah and the congregation has no recourse against him. Rabbi Yosef Colon (Shu”t Maharik, § 70) writes that although the Torah is physically in the possession of the synagogue, sometimes for many years, there is no presumption of ownership(“Hazaka”) on the part of the synagogue. Nevertheless, he quotes the opinion of Rabbi Shlomo Luria (Yam Shel Shlomo), who says that if one donated a Torah scroll without any stipulations, it could be assumed that it then belonged to the synagogue.
The Mishna Berura (Orah Haim 153:98-100) quotes both opinions and concludes that ideally the donor should stipulate the exact ownershiparrangement with the synagogue, and this was the custom in Morocco. Rabbi Yosef Berdugo (Shufre D’Yosef), siding with Rabbi Shlomo Luria, writes that in the absence of an express stipulation, the Torah would go into the possession of the synagogue. Conversely, Rabbi Haim Serero (Shu”t Rabbi Haim David Serero, § 16) and Rabbi Petahya Berdugo (Nofet Tzufim) maintain that there is no intention on the part of the donor of handing over ownership to thesynagogue. Rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron (Shu”t Binyan Av, Hoshen Mishpat, vol. 1, § 1) clarifies that the current practice is that when one donates something to a synagogue, one still retains ownership of it. However, it is preferable to articulate the terms of the donation so as to avoid any misunderstandings or Halachic quandaries.
Summary: Unless expressly stipulated, a donated Sefer Torah is considered to be on loan to the synagogue and its ownership is retainedby the donor. It is proper to stipulate the ownership arrangements prior to donating an article of value to a synagogue or community.
After discussing the laws pertaining to the synagogue, the Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 155:1) discusses the obligation of Torah study. Specifically, one must establish a set time to learn Torah daily and one should not pass up this set time even if there is potential for great financial gain. The Kaf HaHaim (O.H. 155), quoting Rabbi Avraham Azoulay (Hesed LeAvraham), compares Torahstudy to the Tamid offering; just as this sacrifice was a minor one but was offered twice daily in a consistent manner, so too Torah study should be consistent. It would appear from the wording of the Kaf HaHaim, that what is important is not the amount of time spent studying, but rather that whatever time is dedicated to studying should be done consistently. Furthermore, the Mishna Berura (O.H. 155:3) writes that people who work should not focus whatever time they have available solely on Gemara, but should study the works of the Poskim (Halachic decisors).
Interestingly, it is said of Rabbi Efraim Margoliot, that although he was successful in business, when he entered the study hall he would consider himself “dead”. In other words, he was so focused on his set time for learningthat it was as though he was dead to all worldly matters. This is in line with the Talmudic dictum that the Torah is only acquired by one who kills oneself, as it were, for the sake of learning (Berachot 63b) . Additionally, the Gemara (Shabbat 31a) explains that one of the questions that one will be asked after one passes away is whether one had a set time to study Torah.
Summary: What is of importance regarding the principle of setting a timefor Torah study is not necessarily the amount of time spent learning, butrather that it be conducted diligently and consistently.
In his gloss to the Shulhan Aruch the Magen Avraham (Orah Haim 156:3) list a series of prohibitions not specifically mentioned in the Shulhan Aruch. One of these is the prohibition of “Hanufa” (flattery), which in this context means complimenting a wanton sinner and such a person’s ways. The Gemara (Sotah 42a) says that flattery is such a negative act that those who engage in it do not merit the Divine Presence. Nevertheless,the Orhot Tzadikim explains that supporting the positive deeds of a sinner for the end-goal of bringing him closer to Hashem is not considered flattery, and is therefore permissible. Additionally, it is a Mitzvah for a husband to flatter and compliment his wife so as to maintain marital harmony.
Summary: Flattering a wicked person and his ways is forbidden. Conversely, it is proper to compliment one’s positive deeds or traits so as to bring one closer to Hashem and the Torah.
In addition to Netilat Yadaim for bread, the Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 158:4) rules that whenever one eats food dipped into or wet by certain liquids, onemust wash one’s hands without a blessing. These liquids are wine, honey, oil, milk, dew, blood (such as fish blood, which the Torah allows, but is prohibited because of Marit Ayin, ie. how it will be perceived) and water, because these liquids have the capacity to transmitting impurity. The Rama (ibid.) goes further and says that only if the tip of the food is being dipped and one’s hands will remain dry, one still must wash. Even though the laws of ritual purity have been suspended, there is still a virtue of eating food in a state of holiness. As such, one who eats a wet apple, for example, would need to wash prior to eating it. Additionally, this is why one washes one’s hands without a blessing for the Karpas segment of the Seder, since it involves a vegetable being dipped into a liquid.
Nevertheless some Rishonim, including the Maharam of Rothenberg, are lenient with regards to this type of washing. As well, Rabbi Shalom Messas (Shu”t Shemesh Umagen, vol. 2, § 45:3) and Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach write that the custom nowadays is to be lenient. Rabbi David Ovadia (Nahagu Ha’am, Hilchot Berachot), on the other hand, writes that one may be lenientonly if a segment of the food is wet but the portion that one is holding is still dry, such as dipping a tip of a cookie into tea.
Summary: Although the Halacha is that one must wash one’s handswithout a blessing when eating wet foods, there were many lenientopinions.
ON APPLE 
ON SPOTIFY 