Yarchei Kallah 5766, New York

00:04 Speaker 1 Someone there in the back? Huh? By the keyboard. Is someone there? Give me E minor.

01:14 Speaker 2 He who separates between holy and mundane, between holy and mundane. We have sinned, we have sinned, we have sinned during the week. A good week, a good week, a good week, a good week, a good week, a good week, a good week, a good week. G-d of Avraham, of Yitzchak and of Yaakov, protect Your people Israel and guard Your people Israel. The holy Shabbos is departing. May the new week come with good fortune and blessing, with every good thing and success. We ask this of You alone, dear G-d, and let us say amen. He who makes the distinction between holy and mundane, between Shabbos and the weekdays, may He forgive our sins. Oh, may our children and our wealth increase like the sand. May He grant it to us, He who separates between holy and mundane. Oh, good Creator, oh, dear Creator. [unclear] He who separates [unclear]. Praise our Creator, praise Him alone. Ah, G-d of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, we are all dear to You. Give us and send us a good week. Protect us and guard us with a new blessing. G-d of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, we are all dear to You. Protect us and guard us with a new blessing. Give us and send us a new, good—a new, good week. I'm sure you do. As is customary, we open with a Dvar Malchus and ask our teacher, Rabbi Yoel Kahn, [unclear].

04:41 Speaker 3 The Rebbe spoke about this in a sicha, one of the sichos connected with 5726 and the yahrzeit of the one whose hilula we are marking. The Rebbe discussed the statement brought in the seforim: Why is the passing of tzaddikim compared to the breaking of the luchos? Rashi brings this, of blessed memory. In plain terms, why compare the passing of tzaddikim to the breaking of the luchos? When you compare two things, the point is not merely that they are alike in one detail. There must be a connection between them. So it follows that the connection is not only in how severe the loss is, but also in the greatness involved. This is true of the broken luchos as well. At first glance, the breaking of the luchos was something terrible. Yet we find that the broken luchos were placed in the Aron. The Ramban cites the Gemara in Bava Basra [unclear]. The broken luchos were not merely left aside; they were placed in the Aron. An accuser does not become a defender—and yet, more than that, this Aron was taken to war. It was specifically when they went to war that they took the Aron with them.

07:23 Speaker 3 They went to war with it, [unclear] and with the words “Hear, O Israel.” We must therefore say that the broken luchos possessed an extraordinary quality. That is why they were placed in the Aron and taken along when the people went to war. What was that quality? And there is more: who went to war? “The fearful and fainthearted”—one who feared the sins in his hands—would return from the battlefield. As the differing opinions explain, this applies to an obligatory war or to an optional war, [unclear]. In any case, even in an obligatory war, those who went were tzaddikim; certainly in an optional war. Why, then, did they need the broken luchos? The broken luchos must have brought out something great, even beyond what the tzaddikim themselves had. So this is an extraordinary point about the comparison between the passing of tzaddikim and the broken luchos. On the one hand, there is a connection between them. On the other hand, something good comes forth from this loss—something so great that it brings about a further ascent. The Rebbe spoke here about the ascent of the departed, and about the ascent connected with his name, [unclear], and how there must be an ascent for everyone connected with the one whose hilula we are marking.

09:09 Speaker 3 In connection with the one whose hilula we are marking, it seems that there must be a particular ascent specifically through this matter of the luchos: the good that emerges from the breaking of the luchos. Where do we find this in the breaking of the luchos? We find it in the following: Why did Moshe Rabbeinu break the luchos? Because the letters had flown away; the letters had departed, leaving the luchos themselves. Since “they had no substance,” he was therefore able to break them. But seemingly we need to understand: even if the letters flew away, why did the luchos have no substance? “The tablets were the work of G-d, and the writing was the writing of G-d.” Even without the writing, the letters, the luchos themselves were the work of G-d. Surely that is something great. How can we say that once the letters flew away, they had no substance—as though the luchos themselves were nothing? The luchos themselves were something great. There is an even greater puzzle: the writing was “the writing of G-d.” How was it written? It was engraved. When something is written on an object, the letters can be removed and the object remains. But here the letters were engraved. Once the letters were removed, [unclear] the luchos broke. Yet it says that Moshe Rabbeinu broke the luchos. For as soon as the letters—the writing of G-d—departed, only the luchos themselves remained, and they had to be broken.

10:54 Speaker 3 They remained in them in a tangible way. That is, before that, they were whole. After the letters flew away, the Luchos still remained whole. They were engraved, engraved into them. How could the writing disappear? Well, what then? It says in the seforim that the letters went away—not that the letters themselves simply disappeared, but that their soul, their spirituality, departed. So what does that mean? The Luchos remained. And the Luchos themselves were something tremendously great. Even the Luchos on their own, even what remained, were a great thing: “The Luchos were the work of G-d.” According to the explanation in the seforim, [unclear]. Even if the letters remained, the special quality of “the work of G-d” remained, while the special quality of “the writing of G-d” had been present before. Then the writing of G-d itself was missing—another matter altogether. According to that, there was “nothing tangible in them.” What do we need to understand here? It may be—and this needs further clarification regarding the writing of G-d and its mysteries—that the Luchos could remain, and the Luchos could be something very great, the work of G-d. However great the Luchos were, there was something more: what the Rebbe says about the writing of G-d. The writing was engraved; on the contrary, “the writing was the writing of G-d, engraved upon the Luchos.” It became one with them. It became part of their very essence—the relationship between the Luchos and the writing of G-d was like that of a body and soul. And if this is what “something tangible in them” means, then that itself is a great quality. Before—

12:35 Speaker 3 Before we consider the writing of G-d, they already had a great quality. After we consider the writing of G-d, it had a further effect on the Luchos: whether the letters’ vitality was present or not made a difference to their very substance. And those Luchos were placed in the Aron; they did not go out to war. They simply did not go out to war. [unclear] But when one goes to war and needs to conquer Eretz Yisroel, there is danger, despite how great and lofty things had been before, and despite all the merits one had. So the writing of G-d was placed within, within the soul, and not merely within the soul itself. It is not only the body—the body itself is holy. [unclear] Once one reaches the body of the matter, one is speaking of the soul. And it is not merely that the soul brings something; the body itself brings the soul. Not just the writing of G-d, but the Luchos bearing the writing of G-d. And this becomes your very being—to such an extent that if Moshe [unclear], there is “nothing tangible in them.” There was a body, and, on the contrary, there was a soul clothed in a body: the writing of G-d. Yet beyond that there are the levels of chayah and yechidah. And this becomes your very being, something tangible within you. With this one goes to war—sometimes in Eretz Yisroel, and sometimes throughout all of Eretz Yisroel.

14:23 Speaker 3 On the contrary, [unclear] serving Hashem throughout Eretz Yisroel, in all its particulars, [unclear]. The Seven Noahide Laws [unclear] the whole world into a dwelling place for Him. And with this one goes to war. For this, one goes with strength—a special strength. The strength of [unclear] the soul, or beyond that, chayah and yechidah, the soul of the soul. This becomes one’s reality, and with it one goes to war. This is what we see [unclear]. This is especially connected with the days of the yahrzeit. A yahrzeit concerns life. The Rebbe brings in Tanya from the Zohar: “When a tzaddik departs, he is found in all the worlds more than during his lifetime.” The Rebbe explains in Tanya that the life of a tzaddik is faith [unclear]. The tzaddik’s body [unclear], while the soul becomes [unclear]. When a tzaddik departs, [unclear]. What lives within physicality is not mere physicality, but the soul’s faith [unclear], together with the body and the soul of the soul. This applies in general when a tzaddik departs, and particularly on the yahrzeit. On the yahrzeit there is an ascent in life, an ascent [unclear]. And, on the contrary, as was said, [unclear] the light [unclear]. [unclear] words of Torah [unclear].

16:28 Speaker 3 [unclear] to such an extent. [unclear] This is then taken straight into the battle, to conquer Eretz Yisroel and to make the whole world, like Eretz Yisroel, a dwelling place for Hakadosh Boruch Hu. Thank you, Rabbi Yoel. The point is that among the many, many Chabad institutions, bli ayin hara, found across the world, one sees a very special interest on the Rebbe’s part in Gan Yisroel generally, and in Yarchei Kallah particularly. The Rebbe once expressed it this way: “Yarchei Kallah—that is one of my concerns.” As for Gan Yisroel, I remember when I was a boy before my bar mitzvah. The Rebbe told my parents at the time [unclear] to send me to camp. Later, when we came to visit the camp—it was Gan Yisroel in Swan Lake—my father subsequently wrote the Rebbe a letter describing what he had seen there. I remember as though it were now how the Rebbe answered him: “May his mind be at ease, for he has put my mind at ease.” A report to the Rebbe from Gan Yisroel had put his mind at ease. Exactly twenty-five years ago, when Gan Yisroel marked its silver jubilee—twenty-five years—the Rebbe delivered an extended sicha in connection with Yarchei Kallah and with the Gan Yisroel campus. The Rebbe said then that all the children in camp, both before and after bar mitzvah, fall into the category of “Torah is their occupation.” And at every farbrengen—say, a Shabbos farbrengen,

19:27 Speaker 3 The Rebbe gave mashke and mezonos to take to Yarchei Kallah. And the Rebbe said that we should organize transportation, buses from 770, so people could come and take part in Yarchei Kallah in person. We now have with us one of the distinguished Chabad rabbis, the rabbi of Kfar Chabad and author of many books that illuminate the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, Rabbi Mordechai Shmuel Ashkenazi, to offer words of blessing for Yarchei Kallah. Good week. I want to share how I’ve felt over these past two days here. Generally speaking, this time I had various obstacles and delays in coming here—health matters and other things. I wasn’t sure whether to set everything aside and make the trip. I asked the Rebbe, and received an interesting answer. The Rebbe writes there about the gathering for Torah in America, and says that the public Torah study when people gather in New York, as has been done, strengthens Torah throughout the world. I understood that to mean this gathering. And I must say that each time I come here—throughout the year, back home, one is among anash, amid the redoubled darkness, all sorts of problems, disputes and the opposite of unity, and so on. Each

22:18 Speaker 3 person knows the burden he carries there. But then the gathering comes, and Torah scholars, rabbis, roshei yeshivah and great Torah scholars come together. First of all, simply sitting together for forty-eight hours—or for others, thirty-six hours, sometimes more—and speaking only words of Torah, the living words of G-d, both the revealed Torah and the inner dimension of Torah: that lifts a person out of everything he is caught up in throughout the year. He finds himself in a different environment, a different atmosphere. But that is not the main point. Generally, as we have become accustomed to in recent times, when rabbis and roshei yeshivah get together, someone asks, “Do you have something to say in learning? Do you have a thought on Chumash?” Which is a good thing. But then everyone wants to show that he knows better than the next person, and things get quite lively from the start. Here, though, there was a special atmosphere I wasn’t used to. I hadn’t encountered it at gatherings, at smaller meetings, or even at conferences of rabbis. There was unity. Even when people argued a point in learning and disagreed, it was entirely for the sake of Heaven. The whole thing was about the subject, about the truth—not about oneself. There was no “I” here, and no desire to win. It was as though the Torah belonged equally to everyone. That kind of unity gives us strength for later, when we enter the coming year and go back home to the problems,

24:08 Speaker 3 to the burdens. If only we could carry with us what I feel here: the strength of unity, the strength of everyone together. We feel that we are all carrying a burden. One person works in Torah, another works in the service of Hashem; we are all partners together. “Each man shall say to his fellow, ‘Be strong.’” We all carry the burden, and the shlichus belongs to all of us together. The shlichus the Rebbe placed upon us—each person in his own area, carrying out the Rebbe’s shlichus. We are all together: the leader and the ordinary person, the greater and the lesser, all equal partners. What is happening here, what comes out of these few days—if only I could keep feeling it. I hope that everyone here, all the guests, will take home this burden along with the strength we have gained here. I hope it will make things a little easier, and perhaps even more will come out of it. May we always be able to come together here, to come together in all matters of Lubavitch. And especially now, when we find ourselves in a terribly difficult time. I come from the south. This past month—I don’t know about others; I can only speak of what I have felt—this past month has been especially painful. The pain has two sides, and both are painful. Over the past nearly fifty years, we have gone through various situations, matters of pikuach nefesh, danger to life, and wars. But through it all, the Rebbe was there to tell us what to do. I remember, before the Six-Day

25:52 Speaker 3 War, those of us living in Eretz Yisroel were in danger. There was fear and panic. A note came from the Rebbe: “Do not be afraid, and do not frighten others.” During the Yom Kippur War, which was far, far worse, the Rebbe told us what to do. He told us what to do and what to tell others, both anash and people throughout Eretz Yisroel. Now this truly is a frightening time. What does one do? Flee, leave a place that is exposed to danger? Or perhaps one must stay, keep the shiurim going, keep the cheders and the Talmud Torah open? Who can say that one course of action is right? No one—no one living in Eretz Yisroel—should presume to give an opinion about what to do. About a week ago, one of the leading rabbis in the north called me. With Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur approaching, he was looking for a place where two thousand chassidim could daven. Perhaps he could approach Chabad and get a place for those two thousand chassidim to come and daven. I heard him on the phone. I said it was something to consider afterward. But he was already asking himself: What do we do? What do we do? I don’t want to criticize anyone. [unclear]. He is thinking ahead two months about where they will daven, and perhaps they should daven here. Perhaps the merit and the prayers and the

27:50 Speaker 3 Two thousand Jews will guard this place. The world is crying out: “Where is the Rebbe? What does the Rebbe say?” The Rebbe, [unclear]—millions of Jews are pleading with Hashem. People want to hear the Rebbe’s voice. What should they do? Should they run, should they flee, should they not flee, should they stay where they are? We are here today at a chassidisher farbrengen, [unclear]. This and that comes from Torah, [unclear] the baal hahilula. I once heard [unclear] say this; it goes back, though, to “all in peace.” There used to be a grandfather in the baal hahilula’s home. He shared a thought on this week’s parsha: “And you shall gather your grain, your wine, and your oil.” He said that these three things—your grain, your wine, and your oil—the baal hahilula spoke about them at length. But the point I remember is that they represent three Yomim Tovim of Nissan. “Your grain” is Pesach, matzos. “Your wine” is Purim. “Your oil” is Chanukah, the matter of oil. These are three Yomim Tovim of Nissan. May the Rebbe help that a chassidisher farbrengen can accomplish something here, though I hardly know what we can do. May we hear the Rebbe’s voice, may he be revealed to us. May Jews be helped, as it says in this week’s parsha, “Hashem will place the fear and dread of you upon them.” Rashi says there: “Fear of you upon those nearby, and dread of you upon those far away.” May Jews, wherever they live, see an end to the spilling of Jewish blood. And with that,

29:49 Speaker 3 That is just today; after all, I am speaking in exile. Young men go with such joy and actual mesirus nefesh. They crawl into holes that pose the greatest dangers, the greatest threats, with all the weapons there. And the mesirus nefesh with which Jews go forward, what they cry out—what you hear in the streets, what you hear from all sorts of people—is: “We want to protect our home.” All in all, what can one say? Since the time of the World War, I might say. May the Rebbe help them and may they be protected. May it be a good week and a joyful week, and may nothing happen to any member of the House of Israel. L’chaim, l’chaim.

30:43 Speaker 4 Thank you, Rabbi Ashkenazi, for your words from the heart—both about the situation in the Holy Land and for describing the extraordinary Shabbos and the days leading up to it: Thursday, Friday, Friday night, and the Shabbos meal. These took place here, in a city full of rabbis, roshei yeshivah, and mashpi’im, in a truly extraordinary way. You mentioned earlier the Rebbe’s sicha, which the Rebbe delivered twenty-five years ago, on 20 Menachem Av. Interestingly, the Rebbe speaks there about the mesirus nefesh of the baal hahilula, his father. The Rebbe says that according to Torah law, mesirus nefesh is required only for the three transgressions about which one must be killed rather than transgress. And the ruling is, the Rebbe says—the Rambam rules—that even if someone did transgress and did not withstand the test, he cannot be punished for it. In any case, it is only for those three transgressions that one must be killed rather than transgress. The baal hahilula showed mesirus nefesh not for those three things. He showed mesirus nefesh, the Rebbe says, for tefillin; he showed mesirus nefesh for matzah—things for which halachah does not require mesirus nefesh at all. But the baal hahilula’s complete self-nullification brought him to show mesirus nefesh for such things, and he also showed mesirus nefesh in its literal sense. Before we move on to the next talk, we will ask the Rebbe’s shliach in Texas, Rabbi Shimon Lazaroff, [unclear] Yarchei Kallah, to speak. First, we will sing a niggun together.

00:07 Speaker 1 I heard, uh, the Baal Shem Tov said: We don’t say “this” on Shabbos. I thought, it’s a question for me in general... That’s what Rabbi Shimon said. But, uh—

00:19 Speaker 2 Said.

00:21 Speaker 1 But... what? Tell me, there’s time. Yes. I’m moving faster because of the time. Let me put the question more deeply, in order. Look at the Shabbos prayers and the Yom Tov prayers. On Yom Tov, in the prayers, we say “this day of the festival of Sukkos,” “this holy convocation.” That’s the wording, and we keep saying “this,” “this.” On Shabbos, you don’t find that in the davening. That’s how the wording of the prayers goes. In Retzeh, we say “Your holy Shabbos”; we don’t say “this Shabbos.” The only place we say “this” is in the blessing. Whereas on Yom Tov, in davening and in bentching—everywhere—we say “this,” “this,” “this,” “this,” “this,” “this.” What about Musaf? Yes, on Yom Tov, even in Musaf. But Shabbos itself—yes, yes—but when you mention Shabbos itself, you don’t say “this.” I recently looked to see what the sefarim say about it. Yes. Now, on Rosh Hashanah we say “this,” and on Yom Kippur we say “this,” but not on Shabbos. In any event, a Gemara came to mind. That isn’t a question; that’s in the Chumash, in the verse. I recalled a Gemara in Bava Basra—something quite distinctive. The Gemara discusses it... The Gemara asks whether Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh are mentioned in Birchas Hamazon. In any event, of those three... the Gemara mentions Rosh Chodesh, but not in Birchas Hamazon. The Gemara cites the Tosefta: “A day—

03:03 Speaker 1 “A day on which there is a Musaf offering, such as Rosh Chodesh or Chol Hamoed: at Maariv, Shacharis and Mincha, one recites the Shemoneh Esrei and mentions the occasion in the blessing of Avodah.” That is what it says: “A day on which there is a Musaf offering, such as Rosh Chodesh or Chol Hamoed: at Maariv, Shacharis and Mincha, one recites the Shemoneh Esrei and mentions the occasion in the blessing of Avodah.” In the Rif and the Rosh, too, the Tosefta appears—but in the Rosh? In the... uh, Rif, it says: “Every day on which there is a Musaf offering... at Maariv, Shacharis and Mincha one recites the Shemoneh Esrei and mentions the sanctity of the day in the blessing of Avodah.” Not “the occasion,” but “the sanctity of the day.” Those are two different things. In the Gemara it says “the occasion,” while in the Rif and the Rosh it says “the sanctity of the day.” There is a distinction: the sanctity of the day is one thing, and the occasion is another. Why does one say “the occasion” and the other “the sanctity of the day”? Look closely at those differences. You can clearly see that there is a distinction between the sanctity of the day and the occasion. [unclear]

04:54 Speaker 3 About the matter.

04:55 Speaker 1 [unclear] It says to mention the sanctity of the day in the middle of the blessing, as though one had begun the blessing with Yaaleh Veyavo. In that blessing, in Yaaleh Veyavo, one mentions the sanctity of the day: “for life and peace, on the days of the festival...” It says “festival” there, meaning the sanctity of the day. So why do we need “this festival of Matzos”? [unclear] On Shabbos, one must mention Shabbos first, before mentioning the occasion. That is the sanctity of the day; then comes the occasion. First the sanctity—meaning that one says “this Shabbos” and “this festival.” [unclear] You can see that there is an order: “this Shabbos” and “this festival.” In any event, we say “this festival of Matzos.” “This festival” refers to the occasion. What we see here, in short, is that there is the sanctity of the day and there is the occasion. On Yom Tov, “this day of the festival of Matzos”: “festival” expresses the sanctity of the day; “Matzos”... But “this” points to the occasion, to this particular day. That is what “this” means: the occasion.

07:00 Speaker 4 This.

07:01 Speaker 1 “This”—that refers to the occasion. To put it briefly, there is the sanctity of the day and there is the occasion. For the sanctity of the day we say “His holy Shabbos.” But “this” refers to the occasion—to what happened. [unclear] On Yom Tov, when one bentshes... [unclear] The later poskim discuss saying “His holy Shabbos.” On Yom Tov, when one bentshes, one can refer to “this time.” But one doesn’t need “this” for Shabbos; it isn’t Yom Tov.

08:05 Speaker 4 Shabbos.

08:06 Speaker 1 Huh?

08:07 Speaker 4 Shabbos.

08:09 Speaker 1 When one bentshes, one can say “this time”—yes, the time of the festival of Sukkos. But here it is mentioned... [unclear] One has to distinguish Yom Tov, but [unclear] it isn’t Yom Tov yet. In any event, the Rebbe said this several times. [unclear] But what am I saying? What am I saying? If so, why call it Shabbos at this hour? [unclear] In any event, I’m looking at the Rebbe’s sicha, [unclear], concerning this distinction. There are two categories here: the sanctity of the day and mention of the occasion. [unclear] When a person bentshes on Shabbos, there is the sanctity of the day. But then there is also the matter of mentioning the occasion. Why? [unclear] Since it is already the day of Yom Tov, one can mention the occasion—what took place on that day.

10:09 Speaker 1 The sanctity isn’t there yet, but mention of the occasion is. What practical difference does that make? With this, we can understand another thing the Rebbe points out. For example, among Ashkenazim, when do they daven at night? They daven Maariv early. Think about Erev Purim or Erev Chanukah: how can they say Ve’al Hanissim? It isn’t Purim or Chanukah yet; the day hasn’t even begun. How can they say Ve’al Hanissim? Huh?

10:54 Speaker 5 [unclear] Because it’s the day—the third day, or what?

10:58 Speaker 1 Yes, the answer is that with [unclear], it is still not considered [unclear]. But with [unclear], one is more inclined to say that there is an additional [unclear]. But if one davens Maariv early, how can one say Ve’al Hanissim? It is not yet [unclear]. The Rebbe says [unclear], miracles, in the Rashbag and the Rashba.

11:19 Speaker 5 After Chanukah and the seventh day.

11:21 Speaker 1 Huh? [Unclear] says something here. You know the Rebbe’s position: what is the distinction between Tosefes Shabbos itself, Tosefes Yom, and the Shabbos prayers? What is it?

11:39 Speaker 5 Shabbos.

11:39 Speaker 1 I mean the Shabbos prayers and Tosefes Shabbos. He makes this point: if you have davened the prayer of Tosefes Yom, you have thereby accepted Tosefes Yom. In other words, a prayer can relate to the additional time, just as we discussed regarding the mitzvos of Shabbos: a Shabbos meal can still [unclear]. So, seemingly, one can daven a prayer that relates to Tosefes Yom early. But that prayer is Maariv—the Maariv of tonight. So, as the Sages said, [unclear] earlier. One can therefore mention the occasion. It has nothing to do with [unclear]. So—huh?

12:20 Speaker 5 What about accepting Tosefes Shechinah?

12:22 Speaker 1 What, what?

12:23 Speaker 5 What is the proof from prayer [unclear] and accepting Tosefes Shechinah?

12:25 Speaker 1 Not accepting it—no, no. It is specifically accepting Tosefes Shechinah. I am saying that when I mention the occasion, it is a prayer that [unclear] the mention of the occasion.

12:37 Speaker 5 But that is just a theory. [Unclear] Rabbi Yechezkel Tirai[?] of—

12:41 Speaker 1 Yes, well, the opposite. No, you have it backward.

12:43 Speaker 5 In any case, it is just a theory. So can one mention the occasion?

12:45 Speaker 1 Yes.

12:45 Speaker 5 So can one mention the occasion?

12:46 Speaker 1 Yes.

12:46 Speaker 5 Two days—that is the question.

12:47 Speaker 1 That is the question; [unclear].

12:49 Speaker 5 You are asking the Tanna’s question.

12:50 Speaker 1 [Unclear.] Right, yes. What I am saying is that this is understood. But then there is a distinction—a distinction, a distinction. On the contrary, according to Rabbeinu Tam, if it is a prayer of Tosefes Shechinah, one can mention the occasion even though [unclear]. If it is Yom Tov [unclear], one can mention the occasion. So you could draw a proof from that. But Rabbeinu Tam says that mentioning the occasion means saying “this Yom Tov.” What does it mean to say “this”? You understand the difficulty. The whole approach of [unclear] Yom Tov—why do we need to say those words when mentioning the occasion? Rabbeinu Tam says that mentioning the occasion means saying “this Yom Tov.” So we must say “this”; otherwise, [unclear]. There is no sanctity here. As for mentioning the occasion, I do not [unclear]. The siddur.

13:44 Speaker 5 It says “Yom Tov”; it mentions the occasion.

13:47 Speaker 1 Rabbeinu Tam says [unclear]—Rabbeinu Tam.

13:50 Speaker 5 Tosefes Shechinah.

13:51 Speaker 1 What?

13:51 Speaker 5 The rabbi says that I am [unclear] the wording.

13:53 Speaker 1 [Unclear] from sanctity—what does a reflection of sanctity mean? But we can say that earlier too. Still, he says that a prayer of [unclear] becomes [unclear]. I will give an example. Not from sanctity; Rabbeinu Tam’s point is sound. But [unclear], so even if one says it earlier, one can still mention the occasion. On Shabbos, however, we do not say “this” in the Shabbos prayer. But what about bentching? “Retzei vehachalitzeinu ... uveyom haShabbos hagadol vehakadosh hazeh”—what does this “hazeh” in bentching mean? Good, now you have understood it. The Shabbos prayers, the Shabbos prayers, primarily [unclear] “this day.” “This day” is there even when one says “this.” In bentching, though, [unclear]; and Chazal [unclear], generally one eats the third meal before nightfall. One does not bentch at night. But if one began [unclear], then this “hazeh” in bentching [unclear], because—one could distinguish between [unclear] and “this.” The point about “this” in bentching is that one could [unclear]. What, what?

15:12 Speaker 6 Chabad [unclear] the third meal.

15:14 Speaker 1 Then, then, then [unclear]. But what emerges is that it must be—it must be—

15:25 Speaker 6 Al hamichyah.

15:26 Speaker 1 Al hamichyah. One must also [unclear] eating [unclear].

15:28 Speaker 6 [Unclear] Shabbos [unclear].

15:30 Speaker 1 What?

15:30 Speaker 6 [Unclear] Shabbos [unclear].

15:32 Speaker 1 What is usually earlier?

15:34 Speaker 6 Because [unclear]. [Unclear].

15:37 Speaker 1 That is what it says in the siddur. In the siddur, it says that if one bentches after [unclear]—at the third meal, after [unclear]—one [unclear]. It also says in the siddur, in the latter part, that regarding “Uvenei Yerushalayim,” one should not say [unclear] when Shabbos is at rest. I do not know whether that is [unclear]. That is already [unclear]; it is still a matter of dispute. So this applies to bentching too. [Unclear.] I generally follow the siddur on this. No, do not [unclear]; it is a significant leniency. [Unclear] by calculation. In any case, after sunset it is not yet certainly [unclear]. What did he say? “Mention the occasion.” If one mentions the occasion, [unclear] that Shabbos is a day of rest. One can say the words “Shabbos is a day of rest.” Huh? What? It is written there about the wording; I forgot what it says. But [unclear] one should certainly not say [unclear]. That is the point. There is [unclear]. So what does that mean?

17:43 Speaker 1 Sometimes, when we discuss mentioning the occasion, that is [unclear]. Wait a moment: perhaps one really can say those words, without this significant leniency. It is not [unclear]. The Shulchan Aruch says [unclear]; it was discussed at length. But when someone bentches during the third meal, this question comes up quite often. One extends the second meal into the night. Sometimes the question then arises [unclear]. The Shulchan Aruch says [unclear]. If I remember correctly—and I do not recall the order—if one has eaten the third meal, does that mean the second meal [unclear]? If I remember correctly, [unclear]. Huh?

18:32 Speaker 7 But if he remembers that it is the third meal, even [unclear].

18:35 Speaker 1 No. There is [unclear]; perhaps the third meal [unclear] because he forgot.

18:39 Speaker 7 He remembers to mention that Shabbos is a day of rest.

18:41 Speaker 1 Ah, but it says [unclear]. I, I—

18:45 Speaker 7 He remembers that the Shabbos meal is a time of rest. So if it says to mention that Shabbos is a day of rest, perhaps [unclear]; it is not [unclear].

18:50 Speaker 1 Yes. If Shabbos is a day of rest, then its sanctity is like mentioning the occasion, and [unclear]—

18:56 Speaker 7 That is the third meal.

18:57 Speaker 1 What? What?

18:58 Speaker 7 If it is after nightfall, and he remembers, then it is the third meal.

19:01 Speaker 1 Where, where?

19:02 Speaker 7 It is the third meal.

19:03 Speaker 1 What is the third?

19:04 Speaker 7 The blessing, the blessing.

19:05 Speaker 1 What does he remember? If he forgot Retzei, then [unclear]. What is the Rebbe’s [unclear]?

19:13 Speaker 7 Even if it is the third meal, [unclear].

19:16 Speaker 1 No, that isn’t [unclear]; it’s in the siddur. [unclear] But perhaps one can remember “Shabbos for rest” from the third meal. [unclear] I remember wondering about the wording of the second meal until [unclear].

19:33 Speaker 7 I can say that the siddur is [unclear]. If one doesn’t repeat it, one won’t remember the wording “Shabbos for rest.”

19:39 Speaker 1 Shabbos is for rest, [unclear]. It isn’t [unclear].

19:44 Speaker 7 But there was nothing to—

19:44 Speaker 1 I know that afterward, afterward—I don’t know what, but—

19:48 Speaker 7 [unclear].

19:48 Speaker 1 And also. That isn’t [unclear]. Well, [unclear].

19:51 Speaker 7 If one mentions it earlier—

19:53 Speaker 1 If one mentions it earlier, then what do we say? [unclear] The holiness of the second [unclear]. You know, [unclear]. The wording for Shabbos is “Shabbos for rest”; on Yom Tov—

20:03 Speaker 7 If one mentions it earlier—

20:04 Speaker 1 On Yom Tov, on Yom Tov, on Yom Tov—when Shabbos falls on Yom Tov. What is the wording of the blessing? “Shabbosos for rest, and Yomim Tovim for joy and gladness.” There is a wording for this festival in the siddur. When Shabbos coincides with Yom Tov: “This Shabbos day and this festival of Matzos.” That is the Shabbos wording: “Shabbosos for rest, and this festival of Matzos.”

20:36 Speaker 8 There are the new siddurim. What does it say here about mentioning it at all? [unclear]

20:43 Speaker 1 No, it just mentions it here.

20:44 Speaker 8 It simply includes the whole thing. Yes, it includes the entire [unclear]. Give me the new siddurim. That is the order of the blessing. That’s how it should be.

20:55 Speaker 1 In any case, [unclear]. But in any case—why does it come out this way? What is a siddur? A siddur is only [unclear]. Perhaps the siddur mentions Shabbos [unclear]. All right, both. But after Yom Tov or after Shabbos, [unclear]. Yom Kippur is [unclear]. In any case, yes, yes, I also want to make the point that [unclear].

21:27 Speaker 8 What about Yom Tov?

21:29 Speaker 1 How, how?

21:30 Speaker 8 What about Yom Tov?

21:32 Speaker 1 And Yom Tov with the Shabbos prayer. Yom Tov is—well.

21:36 Speaker 8 Shabbos.

21:36 Speaker 1 Well.

21:43 Speaker 8 Shabbos.

21:43 Speaker 1 No, I’m saying—but this. [unclear] There was a very significant enactment concerning Shabbos. How does that fit here?

21:52 Speaker 8 The siddur establishes this order of the blessing.

21:55 Speaker 1 But [unclear]—is this simply how the siddur arranged it, or is there [unclear]?

22:01 Speaker 8 No, there is. Why is it always [unclear]?