A shiur on the laws of Talmud Torah and the laws of issur v'heter by Rabbi Mordechai Shmuel Ashkenazi

00:05 Speaker 1 People here are studying Yoreh De’ah and the laws of what is permitted and forbidden, since we have no guests here. So let’s say something connected to Torah study. We are now on the eve of Shavuos, Rosh Chodesh Sivan, the days of preparation for Shavuos. Shavuos is about the giving of the Torah. We received the Torah, and ever since, we have been studying it—the Torah of Moshe. No matter how much we study, we see that we have not even begun to reach its treasure of secrets. [unclear] There is a book by the Alter Rebbe, which you have probably heard of and seen, on the laws of Torah study. It is a remarkable book, written very concisely, but small in quantity and great in quality. It contains many, many new ideas and insights. There is something very interesting there, something people might ask where he got it from, since it was one of his innovations. Yet when you study it, you see from the outset that it is so obvious—how could you learn without it? Regarding the laws of Torah study, the Yerushalmi asks: How do we know that a person is obligated to study Torah? As it says, “And you shall study them.” It says, “And you shall study them.” From the verses we learn two mitzvos: a father has a mitzvah to teach his son, “And you shall teach them to your children”; a teacher has a mitzvah to teach his student, as it says, “And you shall teach them diligently to your children.” A person is also obligated to study himself, as it says, “And you shall study them and observe them.” That is in the book of Devarim, Parshas Va’eschanan, which we learned here. The Yerushalmi derives that a person is obligated to teach himself. So [unclear] said: If he is obligated, first of all he must study himself. But we will not get into that subject now. In Hilchos Talmud Torah, the Alter Rebbe introduces a major innovation. He says that the mitzvah of Torah study is divided in two: there is the mitzvah of knowing the Torah, and there is the mitzvah of “You shall meditate on it day and night.” For the Yerushalmi says that the mitzvah is to study Torah, as it says

02:20 Speaker 1 “and study them”—with its plain meaning. On the other hand, Tractate Menachos says, in the name of Rabbi, that even if a person studied only one chapter in the morning and one chapter in the evening, he has fulfilled “You shall meditate on it day and night.” The other statement in the Gemara says: even if he recited only a passage of Shema. So how do these two things fit together? First of all, we know that a person is obligated to study the entire Torah; everyone is obligated to study the entire Torah. On the other hand, I say that even one chapter in the morning and one in the evening suffices. This question was also discussed before the Alter Rebbe, in Yefeh To’ar by Rabbi Yefeh, on a Midrash where he asks how the two statements fit together. There is also much about this in other works of chiddushim. The Alter Rebbe offers his own new explanation of the two Gemaras and says that there are two mitzvos in Torah study. One mitzvah is that a person must study the entire Torah, know the entire Torah. After all, the Tannaim and Amoraim studied and already knew the entire Torah. Once a person knows it, what is he to do? Yet he is still obligated to study Torah, even though he already knows it. The Alter Rebbe says that this is where the mitzvah of “You shall meditate on it day and night” comes in: after he has learned, he must study whenever he has free time. And what Rabbi says in Tractate Menachos—that even one chapter in the morning and one in the evening suffices—is speaking about someone who has attained knowledge of the entire Torah and fulfilled the obligation to know the whole Torah, all the mitzvos and all the laws. Then, even if he studies only one chapter in the morning and one in the evening, he fulfills the mitzvah of “You shall meditate on it day and night.” In any case, this is his innovation: the mitzvah of Torah study is divided in two—the mitzvah of knowing the Torah and the mitzvah of “You shall meditate on it day and night.” Although “You shall meditate on it day and night” is a verse in the book of Yehoshua, from the Prophets, still

04:10 Speaker 1 he brings proofs that it has the force of a mitzvah from the Torah. In other words, the mitzvah of Torah study is divided in two. The mitzvah... I have seen in several books [unclear]. Such a major innovation! Where did he get it from? No one before the Alter Rebbe—not any of the great Torah scholars—had understood it this way. No one had introduced such an idea. He came and introduced it. Where did he get it from? It had never occurred to anyone. There is something here, an order to it. It is interesting. He explains the difference between the mitzvah of knowing the Torah and the mitzvah of “You shall meditate on it day and night” as follows: For the mitzvah of knowing the Torah, a person must study and properly understand the Torah as it is. “You shall meditate” applies after he already knows it. He knows it already. So “you shall meditate” means reviewing it constantly, studying the same thing without gaining any new insight, but doing it again—studying one chapter in the morning, one chapter... Now, there is something interesting here. We have two blessings during the day. In the morning we recite the three blessings over the Torah: “concerning words of Torah,” “please make sweet,” and then “Who has chosen us.” Later there is another blessing over Torah study, before the reading of Shema. We say “Ahavas Olam”—in one version, “Ahavah Rabbah”; in another, “Ahavas Olam.” It includes further blessings, and there we ask Hakadosh Boruch Hu: “Our Father, merciful Father, have mercy on us and put understanding into our hearts, to understand and discern, to listen, to learn, to observe and to do.” And we know that this is a blessing over Torah study. It says in the Yerushalmi: If a person did not recite the blessings over the Torah, but [unclear]. But if someone recited the blessing of

06:15 Speaker 1 Ahavas Olam, then the blessing of Ahavas Olam counts in place of the blessings over the Torah. Later, at night, we ask again. This is in Maariv. We say, “With everlasting love You have loved the House of Israel. Torah and mitzvos, statutes and judgments You have taught us. Hashem our G-d, when we lie down and when we rise, we will speak of Your statutes and rejoice in the words of Your Torah.” Again, this is a blessing over Torah study. So much so that some halachic authorities say the following: If a person did not recite—say, he did not daven Shacharis and did not say the blessings over the Torah—and then at night he recited Ahavas Olam, he fulfilled his obligation to recite the blessings over the Torah through that blessing of Ahavas Olam. Let’s think about it. This is very puzzling. Let’s look at it in the context of this lesson. In the morning we say, “Have mercy on us and put understanding into our hearts, to understand and discern, to learn and to teach. Enlighten our eyes in Your Torah and attach our hearts to Your mitzvos.” What are we asking for? That Hashem give us understanding, to understand and discern. Now look at what we say at night: “Therefore, Hashem our G-d, when we lie down and when we rise, we will speak of Your statutes and rejoice in the words of Your Torah.” We do not ask even once to understand. What does it mean to speak? What does that mean? Is speaking words of Torah enough? Surely the point is to understand. If a person studies but does not understand what he is saying, he does not fulfill the mitzvah of knowing the Torah. So why do we not ask Hashem for that at night? What does the Rambam say in Hilchos Talmud Torah? That a person acquires most of his Torah wisdom only at night, and then he merits the crown of Torah. So at night we can do the main work. “We will speak of Your statutes and rejoice in the words of Your Torah.” Why? What can I tell you? It would seem that, according to the Alter Rebbe’s explanation, we understand the wording. There are two mitzvos in Torah study: the mitzvah of knowing the Torah and the mitzvah of “You shall meditate on it day and night.” After we have already established

08:37 Speaker 1 We have a mitzvah to speak words of Torah. As it says in Tanya, chapter 5, the mitzvah of speaking words of Torah is even greater than—[unclear] on this point. In other words, there are two mitzvos in learning Torah: a mitzvah to understand and a mitzvah to speak. Even after you have learned and understood, you must review and repeat it—“we will speak of Your statutes.” So we are confident. Why? Because of the blessing in the morning. What does that mean? Just as there are two mitzvos in learning Torah, there are two blessings, one for each mitzvah. In Ahavas Olam in the morning, we ask for knowledge of Torah, and at night we ask for—speaking words of Torah. Those are two mitzvos: the mitzvah of knowing Torah and the mitzvah—And another thing: let’s look at what it says here. “We will speak of Your statutes and rejoice in the words of Your Torah and in Your mitzvos and statutes forever, for they are our life and the length of our days, and we will meditate on them day and night.” The mitzvah of “you shall meditate on it.” So what is this? Two things are written here. Here it speaks of the mitzvah of knowing Torah; here it says, “we will meditate on them,” the mitzvah of “you shall meditate on it day and night.” I once had occasion to speak about this. Someone asked me: That’s all well and good, but why? Why didn’t they do it the other way around—ask in the morning to “meditate on it day and night,” and at night ask to understand the words of Torah? Why not? When I studied the matter further, I saw how brilliant the arrangement is. The order in learning Torah is that a person must first understand, and as we said, after he understands, he must “meditate on it day and night.” So it seems that in the morning he asks for knowledge of Torah, and at night he asks to “meditate on it.” Why does it begin in the morning? Why? It should be the other way around. After all, with the mitzvos of the Jewish people, the night comes first and the day follows—only with offerings does the night follow the day. Right? The night follows the day. So at night they should ask for—

10:49 Speaker 1 For that. There’s something very interesting about this in the laws of blessings, in connection with the mitzvah of learning Torah. The halachah says that if a person—what do the earlier authorities do with the blessings? Of course, what we discussed is understood. How does this work? It is established that if a person recited the blessings over Torah in the morning, whatever he learns afterward, until the following dawn—if he stayed awake all night—is covered by the blessings over Torah that he recited that morning. The next day begins a new day. And the Yerushalmi says something further: [unclear], that one can make up at night what he missed during the day. The Yerushalmi in Tractate Berachos says that if a person had a set amount to learn each day but was occupied with something else, with earning a living, and did not manage to learn what he ordinarily learns each day, he can learn it at night. That is the plain meaning of the Yerushalmi. He can make up at night what he was to learn during the day. By the next day, he no longer can; that is already another day. The Rebbe [unclear] asks: Why, really? Why? After all, the day always follows the night. Rabbi Nosson [unclear] says that in Torah study, the night follows the day—not the day after the night, but the night after the day. And that is why the Yerushalmi says that what was missed during the day can be made up at night: that is the order, Rabbi Nosson says. In a moment we’ll prove it. Where did Rabbi Nosson get the idea that Torah study works this way? On Shabbos, Yom Tov, Yom Kippur—in all these matters, the day follows the night. But in Torah study, the night follows the day. If so, we can understand it well: if the night follows the day, we begin with the first mitzvah, learning Torah, in Ahavas Olam in the morning—

13:12 Speaker 1 And afterward, at night. Why, really, was it arranged so that the night follows the day, when for all the mitzvos of the Torah the day follows the night? There is something very puzzling here, and several individuals later ask exactly what you asked. There is a question raised about a passage in Bava Basra. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that even if a person learned one chapter in the morning and one chapter in the evening, he has fulfilled “you shall meditate on it day and night.” Why did Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai choose a verse from the Book of Yehoshua? We say twice a day in Shema, “when you lie down and when you rise.” And the first paragraph, as the Gemara in Tractate Berachos says, certainly speaks about words of Torah. The second paragraph concerns the recitation of Shema; the first speaks about words of Torah. What does it say? “When you lie down and when you rise.” Yet we chose a verse from Yehoshua, and from there they learned Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai’s ruling: if a person learned one chapter in the morning and one in the evening—or even if he only recited Shema morning and evening—he has fulfilled “when you lie down and when you rise.” Why? The later authorities offer many, many answers. The Alter Rebbe’s approach is very apt. If we derive it from Shema, which says “when you lie down and when you rise,” the night, “when you lie down,” comes first, and the morning comes afterward. But if I derive it from “you shall meditate on it day and night,” it says “day and night”: the night follows the day. Now, it’s true that the basis for learning about this mitzvah is “when you lie down and when you rise.” But the order of study was established according to the verse “you shall meditate on it day and night.” And that is why the Alter Rebbe does not mention that verse. The Alter Rebbe says that in Torah study the night follows the day because this was learned from the verse “you shall meditate on it day and night.” The Book of Yehoshua explains the Torah’s mitzvah of “when you lie down and when you rise”: it is not as you might interpret those words and think that the day follows the night. No, that is not right.

15:25 Speaker 1 The night follows the day; consequently, for this mitzvah, the night follows the day. That is why they based it on the verse “you shall meditate on it day and night.” So when our Sages established the order of prayer, it made sense: since the night follows the day, in the morning we ask about Torah, “Place understanding in our hearts to comprehend and discern, to listen, to learn and to teach”—all the highest levels of learning Torah. But at night, once we have learned Torah and already know it, what do we ask for? “May we rejoice in the words of Your Torah”; “we will meditate on them day and night”—“you shall meditate on it day and night.” In fact, our Sages immediately gave us a hint. Why did they arrange it this way? “For they are our life, and we will meditate on them day and night.” The prayer does not say “when you lie down and when you rise,” but “we will meditate on them.” Remember the verse in the Book of Yehoshua, “you shall meditate on it day and night,” where the night follows the day. So we see that this is indeed the straightforward meaning. I don’t know how others learned it. Without this distinction, how could one learn it differently? Could one understand the two blessings, understand these matters, in another way? Otherwise, it is simply the Torah’s command. Do you have any questions?

16:46 Speaker 2 One more question. How do we explain the Rambam’s statement that “a person acquires most of his wisdom only at night”? If learning at night is defined entirely as review, how do we understand the Rambam? How can we call that review?

16:54 Speaker 1 There is a long sicha from the Rebbe about this. The Rebbe explains that the Rambam—The Rebbe explains that it is evidence that the Rambam also studied the hidden dimension of Torah, Kabbalah. The meaning is connected to the “crown of Torah.” The Rebbe discusses at length, bringing several proofs, that the crown of Torah is also expressed in Torah study, in the study of Kabbalah. And since Kabbalah is studied at night, he did not need to say so.

17:19 Speaker 2 Otherwise.

17:19 Speaker 1 Yes.

17:20 Speaker 2 What exactly is the definition of the mitzvah of knowing Torah?

17:22 Speaker 1 Knowing Torah... Oh, that is very hard to define. But as it appears from the Alter Rebbe’s ruling, the mitzvah of knowing Torah is fulfilled if a person has studied the laws of Torah study, the four sections of Shulchan Aruch, and the Rambam’s laws of purity—yes?—and the Rambam’s other laws. That is, he does not have to learn all the—Mishpat HaMelech and all the—each halachah with its reasoning and the method of reaching a ruling. Then he has fulfilled the mitzvah of knowing Torah.

17:50 Speaker 2 So I can’t fulfill the mitzvah of knowing Torah.

17:53 Speaker 1 “You shall meditate on it.”

17:54 Speaker 2 I can’t fulfill “you shall meditate on it.”

17:55 Speaker 1 You can, yes. There is the mitzvah of “you shall meditate on it.” The Alter Rebbe also writes elsewhere that, it seems, if a person, for example, does not have the ability—someone who is incapable of learning more—then he is not obligated in knowing Torah. Does that mean he is exempt from learning Torah? He is obligated to “meditate on it day and night.” In other words, how does a simple Jew who has not learned anything fulfill the mitzvah of learning Torah? He can recite—even by reciting Tehillim. But what does that mean? He is not obligated to learn all day; he may engage in Torah for a certain amount of time. If he recites one chapter of Tehillim, one chapter... When we speak of a “chapter,” what does “chapter” mean? It certainly means laws. We can also say that a chapter means laws without their underlying reasons. Why? Because he is not obligated to do more. He is incapable of learning more, so he is exempt from that obligation and fulfills “you shall meditate on it day and night.”

18:42 Speaker 4 One with the other. But in principle, yes. Or without knowing it. All right, I can’t fulfill the mitzvah of Torah study, while someone who knows it generally can.

18:56 Speaker 1 No. If we say they are two different things, it is still included.

19:02 Speaker 4 So a yeshiva student can indeed fulfill it.

19:04 Speaker 1 “And you shall meditate on it.”

19:05 Speaker 4 In other words, exertion without knowledge. But as the rabbi said, someone who does know how to learn—

19:11 Speaker 1 Someone who is capable of it. If he is capable, then certainly.

19:13 Speaker 4 Someone capable of studying Torah cannot fulfill the mitzvah of Torah study without knowing it—all four mitzvos.

19:17 Speaker 1 That too is the question.

19:18 Speaker 4 The question concerns a Jew capable of studying Torah and understanding it: if he only recites Tehillim, then that doesn’t—

19:24 Speaker 1 He hasn’t fulfilled it.

19:25 Speaker 4 He hasn’t fulfilled his obligation to study Torah. Has he also not fulfilled “and you shall meditate on it day and night,” or has he not fulfilled the obligation to know Torah?

19:30 Speaker 1 I won’t say whether he has fulfilled it, but he hasn’t fulfilled his obligation.

19:33 Speaker 4 At that time, it takes the place of the mitzvah of “and you shall meditate,” which is why it didn’t happen.

19:40 Speaker 1 A person capable of in-depth study.

19:43 Speaker 4 He should know what he can say briefly. So, in short, Torah study involves knowledge. It could be that even regarding nighttime there is a distinction concerning knowledge of Torah. The wording says “joy,” “to understand.” In other words, knowing Torah brings the highest level of joy. The joy of delight comes specifically through understanding things. It may be important to know the exact words; I’m just commenting on the phrasing.

20:06 Speaker 1 The phrasing... That is the wording I learned in school. A person studies during the day, and then he rejoices at night. When do you rejoice? After you eat the meat.

20:17 Speaker 4 Our Sages distinguish between “he will rejoice” and “he will exult” in relation to Torah study. There is “he will rejoice” in the morning and “he will exult” at night.

20:23 Speaker 1 Understanding brings us to the higher level.

20:26 Speaker 4 Right. Why does the siddur begin with Shacharis, with Maariv at night?

20:28 Speaker 1 What?

20:29 Speaker 4 Why does the siddur begin with Shacharis, with Maariv at night?

20:32 Speaker 1 That relates to [unclear].

20:34 Speaker 4 Ah, what?

20:35 Speaker 1 There is also a story about someone asking why the siddur begins with Shacharis and not... Look in the Tzemach Tzedek, because the night does not precede the day.

20:46 Speaker 4 No, because that is understood. Why do we open with Shacharis and then the night? It would have to be a preparation that need not be done.

20:52 Speaker 1 The Mishnah begins with Maariv, yes? Its main discussion begins with Maariv, while the siddur begins with Shacharis. Because in the mitzvah of Torah study, in the mitzvah of Shema, the night precedes the day: “when you lie down and when you rise.”

21:07 Speaker 4 You need to establish a set time.

21:09 Speaker 1 “And you shall meditate on it day and night.” There are many implications of that.

21:15 Speaker 4 No, we did that deliberately to make it interesting.

21:18 Speaker 1 You would have said it begins at night. Since you mentioned this matter of joy, of rejoicing each day, let me say something very brief that I thought was connected to Shavuos. There is a question: Is a person obligated to eat meat on... We’re discussing the slaughtering of meat for [unclear] or Pesach. When must a person eat meat and drink wine—at night or during the day?

21:58 Speaker 4 During the day.

21:59 Speaker 1 What?

21:59 Speaker 4 During the day.

22:01 Speaker 1 During the day? At night. Why? Why not during the day? Why during the day? Hm? The Shulchan Aruch says here that a person must first eat the dairy food. A person must eat meat during the day—that’s what the rabbi says. The Creator made the Jewish people to eat dairy, dairy, but on Yom Tov one must eat meat. So how can you do both? Then I’m done, that’s it. Right, one can eat the meat at night. Dairy during the day means there is a mitzvah to eat meat specifically during the day, and there’s nothing to be done about it.

22:38 Speaker 5 Ah yes, one can eat dairy at night and meat during the day.

22:40 Speaker 1 No, dairy during the day—that permits it during the day. The whole question of the reasons for eating meat. The meat, the meat is [unclear].

22:49 Speaker 5 During the day.

22:50 Speaker 1 The meat is [unclear]. That could have worked. One could have eaten it at night, but no—apparently there is a question here that the yetzer hara prompted. Is there a mitzvah to rejoice on Yom Tov at night? The mitzvah of rejoicing on Yom Tov comes from the time when the Beis Hamikdash stood and the offerings were brought in joy. Offerings were brought only during the day, not at night. That means they rejoiced on the following night. But is there a basis for the first night? There are arguments on both sides. The Rebbe once brought proof in one of his sichos from the Alter Rebbe’s wording concerning the Yom Tov blessings. It implies that there is indeed a mitzvah of rejoicing even on the first night—not as it sounded from our discussion. There are several proofs for it. So it turns out that there really is a basis for eating meat at night too, but during the day one is certainly obligated. [unclear] Yes, the rabbi says that another rabbi is in a hurry, so perhaps he will say something.

23:53 Speaker 5 The soul should be uplifted through holiness.

23:55 Speaker 1 With the rabbi’s permission.

23:58 Speaker 5 Soul, soul. No, no, no, we still have time.

24:04 Speaker 1 It’s a shame. There is something here on this subject. They study in yeshiva, the boys.

24:09 Speaker 5 Ah, no.

24:10 Speaker 1 Ah.

24:11 Speaker 5 What Shavuos, five—

24:32 Speaker 1 There is also a rabbi here who is in a hurry. The rabbi is in a hurry.

24:35 Speaker 5 No, no, there is a joint event with him.

24:42 Speaker 1 Here, in the section we mentioned, section 494, there are three things that seem new in the wording of the [unclear]. Yes, you notice new things that lead to... In any case, when they make the bread using dairy utensils—and ovens in those days were ovens... they did not make meat in them. You had to use dairy utensils. What do you do with the oven? What do you do with the oven? How do you kasher the oven? The Alter Rebbe adds: “Take care, when kashering the oven before baking, to heat it thoroughly until sparks fly from it, to expel the meat gravy that previously spilled on it and was absorbed into it.” That is the first point: the oven requires libun, kashering by fire. There are two kinds of libun: light libun and stringent libun, a more thorough heating. He says that to kasher the oven for meat or dairy, you must heat it until sparks fly from it. That is one thing. The second thing he says is: “They should also take care to use a new peel to remove the bread from the oven.” In those days they didn’t do it the way we do today. They would put the bread directly on the floor of the oven and use a peel to take it out, as people still do. They should take a new peel to remove this bread from the oven and not use the peel with which they remove other breads that are not dairy, even if they intend to eat this bread on its own. Why? Because the peel has now absorbed the taste of dairy throughout its entire thickness. If they use it to remove bread kneaded with milk and later bake another loaf to eat with meat, the dairy taste absorbed in the peel will pass into it. That is what he says. Now they take out the... They are eating this cake now, this cake baked in the oven. Be careful to use a new peel to remove the bread. So they remove the—

26:59 Speaker 1 bread from the oven. The bread wasn’t in a baking pan. When they take it out, they should use a new peel. Why? A peel set aside for this bread. Why? Because when they use this peel to take out the bread, the peel absorbs a dairy taste. How much does it absorb? Throughout its thickness—the entire peel, not just its outer layer. They use it to remove bread kneaded with milk. If they later bake another loaf to eat with meat and remove it with this peel, the dairy taste will pass into the bread to the depth of its outer layer. All right. When we now use this peel to take out the dairy cake, the peel becomes dairy—completely dairy. If afterward they use it to remove another loaf, which might have been baked to eat with meat, the second loaf becomes dairy to the depth of its outer layer. So people may then eat that second loaf, whose outer layer has absorbed dairy, with meat. There would be a concern of mixing meat and dairy. There seem to be two things here—three new things—that students don’t notice when they learn this, though they are very obvious. Perhaps we’ll start with the last one. If you take this loaf, this cake, out with that peel, the cake is dairy. And if that peel later removes another loaf, the second loaf again becomes dairy to the depth of its outer layer and cannot be eaten with meat. The question is: Why is the second loaf dairy? We have the principle of nat bar nat, a secondary transfer of taste. After all, this peel—

29:19 Speaker 1 became dairy. From what? From the cake. And now this cake... now this peel has that taste. So the first transfer was permitted. This bread, this peel—the peel transfers its absorbed taste into the second loaf. So the second loaf is nat bar nat. Why should that be a problem?

29:44 Speaker 6 Both transfers involved permitted foods.

29:46 Speaker 1 What?

29:46 Speaker 6 Both transfers involved permitted foods.

29:47 Speaker 1 That’s what I’m saying. So it’s nat bar nat.

29:50 Speaker 7 There is absorbed taste in the peel. But could there be residue on the peel?

29:53 Speaker 1 No, no, no. He says something quite precise here. No, he says it absorbed a taste. He doesn’t say anything about residue.

29:58 Speaker 6 Residue is no longer a matter of absorbed taste. It isn’t.

30:02 Speaker 1 Nat bar nat.

30:03 Speaker 6 No, that doesn’t follow there. Rabbi, we’re talking only about the taste absorbed in the peel.

30:08 Speaker 1 So it’s nat bar nat.

30:09 Speaker 6 That did not come out as one of the foods. You could take one; seemingly, it would come out with the second loaf of bread.

30:14 Speaker 1 What’s that? What is it?

30:15 Speaker 6 This is not nosen taam bar nosen taam—two transfers of taste—when one of them is into food. Here we have—

30:19 Speaker 1 Why?

30:20 Speaker 6 A baker’s peel. We have the peel.

30:21 Speaker 1 The peel, and the peel imparts flavor to the food.

30:26 Speaker 6 To the cake.

30:26 Speaker 1 To the cake. So that is nosen taam bar nosen taam.

30:29 Speaker 6 There is no grease at all.

30:30 Speaker 1 So that would be nosen taam bar nosen taam. Then why would it be forbidden? Why? Why would it be forbidden to eat it? The point is that this particular issue needs examination. We need to think about it, and there is a difficulty here, and another difficulty here. There is a disagreement between the Rema and the Beis Yosef about whether nosen taam bar nosen taam applies to baking or cooking. In other words, the Beis Yosef is lenient: fish that were put into a meat pot may be eaten with kutach, a dairy food. Fish cooked in a meat utensil may be eaten with kutach. That is nosen taam bar nosen taam. So according to the Beis Yosef, there is no issue at all. But the Rema comes and says: one should be stringent if they were roasted or cooked. If you cooked a pareve food—eggs, say—in a dairy utensil, one should be stringent with baking and cooking and not eat it with meat. So apparently this is how to reconcile things: we understand the Alter Rebbe here to be following the Rema, since the Rema is stringent about baking and cooking. The Alter Rebbe is saying that this peel, which you now use to remove something dairy—so according to the Rema, you cannot take it. That is, you cannot put bread on the peel, even if the bread was originally pareve, because it will become dairy, and then you cannot eat it with meat. But there is a question here. The Rema is stringent only about baking or cooking. Why? Because baking or cooking draws out a great deal of flavor. But here I did not bake in the peel. All I did was use the peel to take it out of the oven. I did not bake in it. We do not necessarily have to be stringent and say that removing something with a peel has the same law as—

32:56 Speaker 1 as baking or cooking. But it seems from his words that he holds that removing something with a peel is also like baking or cooking, where one should be stringent. Somehow, that can be worked out. But there is another question here. He says this oven must be kashered until sparks fly from it. Yes, sparks fly. Why is that necessary? Why be so stringent here, to the point of sparks flying? We are not kashering something that absorbed non-kosher food; we are kashering an oven so that meat can be cooked in it. That is called hetera bala—it absorbed something permissible. It would seem that he contradicts himself. Look at the gloss in Shulchan Aruch, where he introduces a tremendous insight. He says this: take a utensil—a spit, let’s say—used to roast meat. It becomes meaty. Now the rule is that a utensil used over fire requires libun, heating it until it glows. A utensil used for cooking in liquid requires hagalah, purging it in boiling water. If something absorbed flavor directly from fire, without liquid, it requires libun; if it absorbed flavor through cooking in liquid, it requires hagalah. Suppose I roasted non-kosher meat on a spit, then performed hagalah on it but did not do libun. That is not enough. What if someone took a spit on which he had roasted meat, performed hagalah on it, and then roasted cheese on it? What would the law be? As we said, if I roasted a piece of non-kosher meat on it, what is needed to kasher the spit? Libun. Yes, libun. So even after the fact, hagalah alone would not suffice, because flavor would still remain inside it. Why? What is the reasoning? Libun removes everything, but hagalah does not remove everything; flavor remains, and it is forbidden. So if I took a spit on which I roasted—

35:33 Speaker 1 meat and then performed hagalah on it, what would the law be? May I roast cheese on it afterward, or not? The Alter Rebbe writes that it is permitted even from the outset. Fine. He gives a rationale that would seem to fit the Rema’s words, though it is not stated explicitly there. He says this: a utensil used over fire requires libun; hagalah is not enough. Why? Because absorption through fire, without liquid, is stronger. That, apparently, is how he explains it. The flavor is absorbed more deeply than when I cook something. Afterward, water is not enough to remove everything; some of what was absorbed through fire remains. So we see that hagalah does not work for a utensil used over fire: it needs libun. But all of that is said about a forbidden substance. If it absorbed something forbidden, whatever remains is still forbidden. That remaining flavor is forbidden. Not so with meat and milk. He says: I have now performed hagalah. I removed the flavor, except that I did not remove all of it; some flavor remains. What remains in this spit on which you roasted meat, after you have removed the main meat flavor? A faint flavor remains—he calls it a “faint flavor”—which would be removed by libun. And now I go and roast cheese on it. Where would the meat and milk meet? In that faint flavor. And he says that this faint flavor cannot acquire the status of a forbidden mixture of meat and milk. Let’s understand this properly. This is a tremendous insight, with a great deal of depth and logic. If I took a spit and roasted meat and milk together on it, then both flavors together would be absorbed throughout the spit. If I now performed hagalah on it, it would remain forbidden, because—

38:05 Speaker 1 there is absorption here. The flavor—

38:08 Speaker 8 There is a faint flavor.

38:09 Speaker 1 But this time I have already removed the main flavor. Only a faint flavor remains. Can that faint flavor acquire the status of a forbidden mixture of meat and milk? The idea is like what we say about nosen taam bar nosen taam; it is the same issue. With nosen taam bar nosen taam, we say that this faint flavor cannot acquire that status. There, we are talking about a transfer from a utensil to food. Here, though, he is talking about what remains inside the utensil itself. He says that, within the utensil itself, he does not see how this faint flavor can acquire the status of meat or milk. This raises a very good question. In siman 494, he tells us that an oven in which we baked meat all year, and in which we now want to bake dairy foods for Shavuos, needs the treatment he describes. But there is also a lighter form of libun. Light libun is like hagalah. So do that, and then see for yourself. You said it would not involve a prohibition of meat and milk. What is going on here? This is very, very puzzling. There would seem to be room for an explanation from a third discussion of meat and milk, where we will see how to understand it. First, we need to establish a general principle: studying the halacha on its own is not enough. You have to know the physical reality in each case. That is what we were discussing just now. A person can study many laws of inspections and treifos, but if he never encounters the actual reality, that is no good. Utensils in the past were made of earthenware. Once, all utensils were made of earthenware. You understand that they were fired in a kiln, unlike our ovens today, which are made of metal. They were made of earthenware. So apparently, the ordinary ovens referred to in siman 494 were like that. The laws of Shabbos also say that the ordinary—

40:33 Speaker 1 Ovens were made of earthenware, of clay. Here we’re talking about iron spits, metal ones. What is this? What is this? All right, in the laws of earthenware vessels he writes: “An earthenware vessel can never be completely rid of what it has absorbed. You cannot kasher such a vessel.” Why? Why? [unclear] So why start with that? He says: “An earthenware vessel can never be completely rid of what it has absorbed. I’ll do hagalah on it. I’ll do hagalah on it.” The meaning is that earthenware absorbs a great deal. [unclear] That’s the reason: it absorbs a great deal. So even with hagalah, even with hagalah. I don’t understand it that way. There is something that absorbs through fire, and there is earthenware. As we said earlier, hagalah does not help something that absorbs through fire, and the forbidden substance remains in it. Hagalah does not help earthenware either. Are these cases alike, or is there a difference between them? So he says: Why doesn’t hagalah help something that absorbed through fire? Because fire bonds the forbidden substance to the vessel much more strongly, as though it sticks it on more firmly than water does. So hagalah doesn’t help; you have to heat it until it burns out. With earthenware, the reason isn’t that the forbidden substance is stuck to the vessel and can’t be removed. It simply absorbs a great deal. It absorbs an enormous amount. It absorbs an enormous amount. So if it absorbs that much, hagalah alone cannot remove it. You have to burn it out. So those are two different ways [unclear] even with earthenware. That’s how I understand it. What he introduced in section 451 is that with earthenware, if you did hagalah on a meat vessel, a faint taste remains—

43:36 Speaker 1 A faint taste. What is he discussing there? He’s discussing something that absorbed through fire. So he says: Something that absorbed through fire [unclear] its principal taste. A faint taste remains, and that faint taste does not create a prohibition of cooking meat and milk together. But if we’re now talking about earthenware, not a vessel used over fire, where hagalah doesn’t help because it absorbs so much, right? Then even if you did hagalah, the principal taste remains. It isn’t just a faint taste. So if meat now comes into contact with it, there is a prohibition of meat and milk. That’s why, there in section 494, he required heating it until sparks fly. Why? Because here we see the basis for the distinction between something used over fire and earthenware. Earthenware absorbs strongly—that is, it absorbs a great deal. So even after you do hagalah, a taste remains in it. That taste can render meat and milk forbidden. That’s why it needs to be heated until sparks fly. But the discussion there is about a spit. That’s what can be said about it.

44:56 Speaker 9 Yes.

45:02 Speaker 1 How little?

45:03 Speaker 9 How much does it...?

45:04 Speaker 1 How little?

45:05 Speaker 9 What is it used for?

45:06 Speaker 1 Who says that?

45:14 Speaker 9 That’s what they say.

45:18 Speaker 1 Where is it written? Where is it written? Look, search the commentaries. Is there someone who writes what “a little” means, how much “a little” is? Huh? What?

45:30 Speaker 9 Perhaps he wrote that we aren’t sufficiently versed in it.

45:32 Speaker 1 Where is that written?

45:32 Speaker 9 Perhaps that we aren’t sufficiently versed in it.

45:34 Speaker 1 What? What aren’t we versed in?

45:35 Speaker 9 Salting. That we don’t know, that we aren’t versed in the difference between salting this and salting that.

45:40 Speaker 1 What does fat have to do with it? We’re talking about the Rema saying that it needs a little salting.

45:45 Speaker 9 I’m not talking about fat. As for time—an hour—I’m not talking about an hour. I’m talking about the amount of salt. The Rema is stringent.

45:52 Speaker 1 But he says it needs a little salting. How much is “a little”?

45:57 Speaker 9 A little.

45:57 Speaker 1 How little? How much is “a little”? Someone once asked me: When you put salt on meat, how much salt do you have to put on?

46:09 Speaker 9 You have to cover it.

46:10 Speaker 1 That’s like the beginning of the laws of eruvin.

46:12 Speaker 9 Huh?

46:13 Speaker 1 The woman salted it. No, how much, how much? Right. Well, listen, put on ten percent. You understand?

46:19 Speaker 9 So that it’s covered all over. There shouldn’t be a single spot [unclear].

46:23 Speaker 1 A single spot. You could make a mound on top of it.

46:25 Speaker 9 No, you mustn’t make a mound.

46:25 Speaker 1 Come and see how it’s done: you rub it on, you pour it on. There shouldn’t be any gaps.

46:29 Speaker 9 So that it can’t be eaten.

46:31 Speaker 1 But how much? Let’s talk practically. When someone asks you—you’re working, you’re there on the front line in the factory—“Salt it well, really well.” How much? How much do you have to put on? How much?

46:39 Speaker 9 Enough that it can’t be eaten, so they won’t eat it.

46:41 Speaker 1 So that no spot retains the taste of meat. It’s explicit in the Shulchan Aruch: no spot should retain the taste of meat. The Shulchan Aruch says, “There is no piece that does not contain thirty times the amount of its salt,” right? Is there such a passage in the Shulchan Aruch? Yes. That’s what it says. In other words, if a piece weighs thirty kilos, how many kilos of salt does it need? [One-thirtieth.] Ah, right? In other words, I can spread one kilo of salt over it; I just need to spread it everywhere. But I don’t have to [unclear]. If they ask me at the factory how much salt I have to use, I know the minimum. A kilo. You can use more, you can add more, but one kilo of salt is needed for every... How much does a quarter weigh? Thirty kilos. A kilo of salt. But here the Rema says that [unclear] a little. The required amount is “a little.” That’s all that’s written about it [unclear] on Yom Tov. He mentions it in passing, in case someone asks. He says you salt it as you would rub salt on a plate. That’s the measure of salt. That becomes subjective. Huh? Some people rub on a lot and some rub on less. No, but that’s what the Shulchan Aruch says: there is no piece that does not contain thirty times the amount of its salt. Huh? It’s very subjective. It always is. It’s just as subjective. What? Right? What? We were talking about coating the plate. That’s what he says it depends on. Why apply it by hand?

48:22 Speaker 9 How much is “a substantial quantity of permitted food”?

48:23 Speaker 1 Huh?

48:24 Speaker 9 How much is “a substantial quantity of permitted food”?

48:25 Speaker 1 It depends on... [unclear].

48:32 Speaker 9 Thank you very much.

48:35 Speaker 1 Have a good month. Goodbye.

48:36 Speaker 9 Have a good month.

48:36 Speaker 1 See you in the holy city of Jerusalem.

48:38 Speaker 9 Amen. In Jerusalem, in the Sephardic [unclear], among other places.

48:44 Speaker 1 In the Quarter.

48:44 Speaker 9 Ah, in the Quarter.

48:45 Speaker 1 In the Quarter. Yes, [unclear] the area between the Temple Mount and the sea.

48:49 Speaker 9 Ah, is that also in Be’er Sheva?

48:50 Speaker 1 Yes. No, it’s actually also in the valley, but I also used it in Be’er Sheva. Yes, at my place in Be’er Sheva. Well, thank you very much. I really must ask your forgiveness.

48:59 Speaker 9 No problem.

49:01 Speaker 1 Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Rabbi.

49:06 Speaker 9 Well done.

49:09 Speaker 1 Thank you very much. No problem.

50:15 Speaker 10 [unclear] You’re allowed to talk about the nature of other living things, but [unclear] put it before the rabbis. That’s already a lot to talk about. Why aren’t you allowed to talk? So how does that happen? [unclear] You keep hearing a word. It’s like [unclear]. It’s only like [unclear]. What is a siddur? A siddur is a siddur. So what do you call it? Is it something foreign? No, it isn’t. A siddur is that kind of siddur. I don’t know. So, so, so there’s no problem. We’ve already seen [unclear]. I have a siddur. A siddur.

51:00 Speaker 11 It’s the same thing.

51:02 Speaker 10 It’s the same thing my grandfather taught me. So you don’t know who [unclear] is? So they said [unclear], but he had already parted from him. But after about a week, when he was surely [unclear], they have no knowledge, boruch Hashem, of the Torah. That isn’t [unclear] a siddur. But then they told me she was a non-Jew—not a non-Jew. That means anyone who wants [unclear], that’s good. That’s good.

51:25 Speaker 11 So I’ll read it to you from the siddur. And that, too, is a siddur.

51:37 Speaker 10 All right.

51:37 Speaker 11 That isn’t a [unclear] siddur, right? He—

51:39 Speaker 10 Like Posner. A siddur [unclear]. But when each person says to himself that he wants something like that—a prayer siddur.

51:49 Speaker 11 Who wrote about that?

51:50 Speaker 10 Huh? So there, that’s easy. It’s [unclear]. There’s a siddur. There’s a section about it. Whose siddur is it? No, there is something like that in the siddur. It’s not just [unclear] saying that prayer. That isn’t [unclear]. Or, or, or it’s some sort of [unclear] about the siddur. And it’s something. So the Kaddish [unclear] Shemoneh Esrei is, after all, part of the prayer in the siddur. [unclear] Minchah, the name of Minchah. Which Kaddish [unclear]? And on the contrary, there’s more to it. So they show the wording as a prayer and a Kaddish [unclear]. We don’t begin [unclear] a Kaddish [unclear], and [unclear] the prayer, the Kaddish. [unclear] the chazzan’s prayer. [unclear] prayer and Kaddish. Yes, so instead of a whole outlook on life, you see [unclear] prayer [unclear]. Someone, someone [unclear] on Shabbos [unclear]. The world runs [unclear]. [unclear] how does that grow? The rabbi is something [unclear]. [unclear] together [unclear]. Yes, so again, [unclear] it was all Kaddish. But which Kaddish [unclear] prayers?

53:13 Speaker 3 The Kaddish [unclear] was very—

53:15 Speaker 10 No, here, no, here, no, here. Yes, that’s it. And then [unclear]. If at Maariv, Minchah, or [unclear], then the Kaddish after Shemoneh Esrei [unclear] the prayer. Because where does the chazzan [unclear]? That’s where he got mixed up with Kaddish.

53:36 Speaker 3 Kaddish with a bracha.

53:38 Speaker 10 Kaddish with a bracha, and [unclear]. So Kaddish with a bracha affects the [unclear] of the prayer. So I have something for you to understand. You don’t need that; sometimes it’s with [unclear], with the others—

53:51 Speaker 3 Someone told me something. It requires people. Well, why don’t those people [unclear] with a bracha?

53:56 Speaker 10 Well.

53:56 Speaker 3 The reason is something like Kaddish after Shemoneh Esrei.

53:59 Speaker 10 Shemoneh Esrei, yes.

54:00 Speaker 3 That’s the meaning of prayer—

54:01 Speaker 10 No, that’s it. That’s the meaning.

54:03 Speaker 3 It’s also complicated.

54:05 Speaker 10 Yes, but those are two different approaches.

54:07 Speaker 3 No.

54:07 Speaker 10 Ah, those words, those words.

54:12 Speaker 3 It’s, it’s, it’s—

54:12 Speaker 10 Those are two different approaches. But a bracha is forbidden, or [unclear] who are now going back to read what is repeated. We knew that in advance. That’s what I told him.

54:21 Speaker 3 You can’t go with that as a package.

54:25 Speaker 10 So now—how?

54:29 Speaker 3 I actually went to [unclear].

54:30 Speaker 10 This? It’s a shame. That’s explicit, not just something said casually. [unclear] because it’s Kaddish. That’s the same opinion that [unclear] is prayer. It could be.

54:46 Speaker 3 To start deliberately, and then it follows that even if he had mentioned it, it would be roughly—

54:51 Speaker 10 Twelve.

54:51 Speaker 3 Huh?

54:51 Speaker 10 That too. Even if it’s Shemoneh Esrei.

54:52 Speaker 3 That’s already Shemoneh Esrei anyway. That too.

54:58 Speaker 10 That’s what encouraged me. It’s the order of prayer. He knew. He knew it was over.

55:02 Speaker 3 You don’t have a siddur.

55:03 Speaker 10 A physical one. He knew it was over.

55:05 Speaker 3 Okay, that’s it. That applies to non-Jews too.

55:10 Speaker 10 That’s the practical solution. I want to. I want to.

55:13 Speaker 3 No, I’m asking this in order to—

55:14 Speaker 10 Work out the practical solution. This isn’t halachah. It isn’t a solution here.

55:19 Speaker 3 What about a yeshivah? He’s not a Torah scholar. Not this time.

55:23 Speaker 10 The best solution for [unclear] is that everything’s fine.

55:26 Speaker 3 Huh?

55:26 Speaker 10 The best solution is for them to daven together from the outset.

55:29 Speaker 3 What’s that? [unclear] what?

55:31 Speaker 10 What?

55:33 Speaker 3 But who’s pressing the issue? So you see that you don’t, don’t [unclear]? Don’t talk.

55:39 Speaker 10 There’s nothing you can do about that.

55:40 Speaker 3 Then me too.

55:41 Speaker 10 Going back. Going back to [unclear].

55:42 Speaker 3 Yes.

55:45 Speaker 10 Thank you. I’m coming back to ask you. I’m getting to the point that you absorb [unclear] easily. A lot of it is that too.

55:53 Speaker 3 Who’s Buki?

55:56 Speaker 10 Nice. I know that you have [unclear].

55:59 Speaker 3 There is [unclear].

56:00 Speaker 10 [unclear] both of us. It’s a kind of [unclear]. So there’s Kedushah, Kedushah. And if you want to do it there—

56:07 Speaker 3 It comes back.

56:08 Speaker 10 Yes. Well, exactly.

56:10 Speaker 3 That.

56:11 Speaker 10 In this case, it’s actually easier. The easier way isn’t that. It’s said silently. That’s good. It applies everywhere, [unclear], or at the end.

56:19 Speaker 3 You can make it bigger.

56:22 Speaker 10 Money—even something has grown for us.

56:23 Speaker 3 What sort of catalysts do you mean?

56:25 Speaker 10 For what?

56:26 Speaker 3 No, that’s not it.

56:27 Speaker 10 What should we point out? [unclear] completely with Kedushah. With Kedushah. I want to start moving, without even losing anything. That’s from this, [unclear]. That’s right. Who is that, [unclear]? That’s talk from the shtiebel.

56:43 Speaker 3 Infographics.

56:45 Speaker 10 You know, like that.

56:47 Speaker 3 A sentence.

56:48 Speaker 10 There is.

56:48 Speaker 3 Just a tip.

56:50 Speaker 10 That’s mine. It’s just—

56:51 Speaker 3 Let’s say that.

56:54 Speaker 10 For me, something like that also [unclear] how much it’s worth.

56:58 Speaker 3 How heavy is it? So that it isn’t called [unclear].

57:01 Speaker 10 All the [unclear] that can.