Siman 242 - Taking Care of the Honor of Shabbos - Rabbi Michael Shlomo Avishid shlita

00:02 Speaker 1 You’re listening to “Lema’an Yishme’u,” a podcast of the Machon Halacha Chabad Institute.

00:09 Speaker 2 So we’re going to have a class on section 242, in the laws of Shabbos. You can see that the Tur begins with various sayings of our Sages to emphasize the importance of Shabbos: the reward for delighting in Shabbos and honoring Shabbos, and for observing Shabbos properly. These are all well-known statements of our Sages. One of them says that whoever delights in Shabbos merits an inheritance without bounds. Why? Because the verses in Yeshayahu that speak about honoring and delighting in Shabbos say, “You shall call Shabbos a delight, and Hashem’s holy day honorable.” Then the next verse says, “Then you shall delight in Hashem.” And one of the things it says is, “I will feed you the inheritance of Yaakov your father.” The inheritance of Yaakov your father is an inheritance without bounds—not like Avraham’s or Yitzchak’s, but like Yaakov’s, of whom it says, “You shall spread out westward and eastward, northward and southward.” Everyone knows that... It’s an extraordinary blessing. It isn’t just wealth; it’s literally “You shall spread out westward and eastward.” It’s a tremendous blessing, greater than Avraham’s, greater than Yitzchak’s, for someone who delights in Shabbos. Now, by the way, Rabbi Yitzchak Aboab—you saw in the Beis Yosef that he cites his explanation. He says that since Hashem acts measure for measure, someone who goes beyond what comes naturally to him—our nature, after all, is to hold on to at least some of our money—but someone who makes an effort and goes beyond that, especially beyond our natural attachment to money, since money matters to us: when you invest above and beyond in Shabbos, the response is measure for measure. You went beyond, and you’ll receive wealth beyond the ordinary: “You shall spread out westward and eastward.” That’s how the Beis Yosef begins, citing Rabbi Yitzchak Aboab. By the way, Rabbi Yitzchak Aboab lived in Spain about seven hundred years ago. He is cited many times in the Beis Yosef. He wrote Menoras Hamaor, but don’t confuse them: two people wrote books called Menoras

02:35 Speaker 2 Hamaor, and their books are also very similar, from roughly the same period. For example, in the Alter Rebbe’s laws of washing the hands, in the later edition of section 4, where he discusses the beginning of the entry of the G-dly soul at the bris, the source is Menoras Hamaor—but the one by Rabbi Alnakawa. That is Rabbi Yisrael Alnakawa, the son of Rabbi Yosef Alnakawa, who was also from Spain. So it’s very confusing; he also wrote a Menoras Hamaor, and so on. Now, by the way, one of them was a student of the Rosh, and they were burned. Both the Rosh’s son, Rabbi Yehudah, and he were burned al kiddush Hashem. I think the author of Menoras Hamaor, Rabbi Alnakawa, was a student of the Rosh and was burned at the stake in Spain. There were also riots in the year 5151, and people were burned there. So, in short, Rabbi Yitzchak Aboab explains that this is measure for measure. By the way, there’s a well-known Midrash that says all the other measures have ceased, except for measure for measure. Hakadosh Boruch Hu continues to run the world this way: you let things go, and things are let go for you; you go above and beyond, and things are done above and beyond for you. Measure for measure remains true, including with punishments and so on. So that’s important. Now, it’s interesting: there’s a discussion about why the Alter Rebbe seemingly omitted this. If you want to give us some encouragement to delight in Shabbos, what could be more encouraging than telling a person he’s going to be tremendously wealthy? “You shall spread out westward and eastward.” Yet the Tanya Rabba chose to bring more spiritual things. He says that our Sages said all his sins are forgiven and he is saved from the judgment of Gehinnom, and so on—things more in the spiritual realm. Some have written explanations for why the Alter Rebbe omitted the inheritance without bounds, but that isn’t correct. Quite simply, when you look

04:50 Speaker 2 at Rashi—Rashi explains the plain meaning—what does he say on the verse, “I will feed you the inheritance of Yaakov your father”? He says that the plain meaning, the reason it says “Yaakov your father” and not Avraham, is that Yaakov’s inheritance is without bounds. That’s the plain meaning of the verses. That’s why the Tanya Rabba actually begins with it and says, “And whoever delights in Shabbos—his reward is stated explicitly in the Prophets: ‘Then you shall delight in Hashem,’ and so on.” What does “and so on” mean? It means the rest of it, through the end of the verse. That same verse says, “I will feed you the inheritance of Yaakov your father, for the mouth of Hashem has spoken.” You could perhaps say that he didn’t write it out explicitly because he wanted to highlight the spiritual things explicitly, but it’s clear that he begins with this. That’s the plain meaning of “Then you shall delight in Hashem,” and so on. If it only meant that you would receive a lofty delight, he would have said, as it were, that there’s an explicit reward in the Prophets: delighting in Hashem. No, no. He means that you should look at the entire verse. And its plain meaning isn’t a Midrash of our Sages; it’s Rashi. It’s the plain meaning of the words. Now, subsection 18 begins with the concepts of honoring Shabbos and delighting in Shabbos. Honoring and delighting in Shabbos are written in the book of the prophet Yeshayahu, which the Gemara generally calls divrei kabbalah, the words of the Prophets. That’s why he says its reward is stated explicitly in the Prophets. Today, “Kabbalah” more often means the mystical teachings, but its plain meaning here is the words received by the prophets through prophecy. That’s called divrei kabbalah. So, simply speaking, divrei kabbalah are considered rabbinic teachings, but with a stronger standing. There’s no question that this was stated in the Prophets, yet many maintain that it has the status of a rabbinic obligation. The Tanya Rabba also writes this in section 129, and here too we’ll see that he means it has the status of a rabbinic obligation. But as we’ve had occasion to discuss, since it is written in the Prophets, not in the Chumash, it is rabbinic, so to speak, but with a somewhat stronger standing. For example,

06:50 Speaker 2 [unclear], as I mention regarding the Megillah on page 4: in a case of doubt about divrei kabbalah, we rule stringently; in a case of doubt about an ordinary rabbinic obligation, we rule leniently. True, it isn’t a Torah obligation, but a doubt is treated stringently. For example, someone might say, “Rabbi, I don’t know whether I heard every word of the Megillah. There was some noise during one word, and I didn’t simply read it myself right away to make up for it. So I’m left in doubt.” If he comes at night, we tell him it’s all right, because the nighttime reading is rabbinic. Reading the Megillah by day, on the other hand, is from divrei kabbalah. According to the Prophets, the Megillah must be read by day. So in a case of doubt about divrei kabbalah, we rule stringently. There’s another place, in section 261, where the Tanya writes that during bein hashmashos, at twilight, one may perform acts prohibited by rabbinic decree for the sake of a mitzvah or for Shabbos. But the rabbinically prohibited act of acquiring a place through an eruv techumin is forbidden. Why? Because making an eruv techumin is like acquiring that place, and the prohibition against buying and selling is rabbinic but is written in the Prophets. In Nechemiah, he complains about people who desecrated Shabbos by conducting business on Shabbos. So we see that it’s in the Prophets. Therefore, acts prohibited by ordinary rabbinic decrees can be performed during bein hashmashos, except for something stated explicitly in divrei kabbalah. That has a somewhat higher standing. Now, on this point, the discussion here clearly shows that some opinions hold that honoring and delighting in Shabbos in particular are not merely rabbinic; they may be Torah obligations. Why? Because in Vayikra, the Chumash calls Shabbos a “holy convocation.” What does “holy convocation” mean? It has a holy status; you have to proclaim it holy, as it were, and also take the word “holy” into account. It means setting it apart, right? “Aharon was set apart to sanctify him as most holy.” So how do I set Shabbos apart? Many say: with clean clothing,

08:54 Speaker 2 With eating and drinking. You have to distinguish Shabbos. And some Rishonim—for example, one of the sources is the Yereim, Rabbi Eliezer of Metz. Metz is Metz, not Mainz, right? And where is Metz? It’s in France, near Germany, and he was a student of Rabbeinu Tam. So that’s the chain of the Tosafists. Rabbi Eliezer of Metz, the famous Yereim. In the laws of Shabbos you’ll constantly hear “the Yereim, the Yereim, the Yereim.” That’s Rabbi Eliezer of Metz. He was a student of Rabbeinu Tam and the teacher of the Raavyah, Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Yoel Halevi, who was the teacher of the Or Zarua, Rabbi Yitzchak of Vienna, who was the teacher of the Maharam of Rothenburg. Just so you understand the chain of the Tosafists down to the Maharam of Rothenburg. The Maharam is sometimes mentioned in Tosafos, in a few places. Anyway, he writes that “a holy convocation” means clean clothing—you have to honor Shabbos, give Shabbos its due, and eat and drink. It isn’t an ordinary day. Now, many Rishonim disagree with this. We could quote them too—the Chinuch and many others. They maintain that the plain meaning of “a holy convocation” is a day on which work is forbidden. It isn’t really about clean clothing. What does “holy” mean? You’re set apart from work; you’re not engaged in the world of action. That’s what “holy” means. Now, it wouldn’t be right to say that he didn’t decide the issue here. He did. Why? Often, when a halachic authority presents one opinion and then another, and goes on at length about the second opinion, that tells you something. You see that in the end he says: But don’t dismiss it—it’s an enactment of the Sages. So if “a holy convocation” doesn’t refer to this, and the Torah wasn’t referring there to honoring and taking delight in Shabbos, then honoring and taking delight in Shabbos are based only on divrei kabbalah.

11:02 Speaker 2 It’s written in the Prophets; it’s an enactment of the Sages. So don’t make the mistake of treating it lightly. No—that’s why he says that someone who takes delight in Shabbos receives a reward, and that the words of the Sages are more stringent than the words of the Torah. There’s the Mishnah in Sanhedrin, chapter 8, and many other places where you see the severity attached to the words of the Sages. So why does he go on at length about this? Because this is his final position. If the first opinion were the main one, there would be no need for that emphasis. We took it seriously. What’s the proof? Words of Torah may be sparse in one place and rich in another. In section 529, in the laws of Yom Tov, the Alter Rebbe says that honoring and taking delight apply to Shabbos and also to Yom Tov. And he says, “I have already explained at the beginning of section 242 that this is an enactment of the Sages.” So it isn’t that you discover in section 529 that he contradicts what he said about an enactment of the Sages. He tells you where he already wrote it. He also goes on at length in the Kuntres Acharon. You can see throughout the Kuntres Acharon discussion of “a holy convocation” that he takes pains there, too, to distinguish between Shabbos and Yom Tov. So the Alter Rebbe ruled—and most halachic authorities ruled the same way—that taking delight in and honoring Shabbos are enactments of the Sages. The prophet Yeshayahu tells us to honor Shabbos and take delight in it. There are opinions that derive this from “a holy convocation,” but that isn’t the practical ruling. That doesn’t mean we lose all the blessings stated here, even though these obligations are enactments of the Sages. So that’s one point to remember: the ruling is that they are enactments of the Sages.

12:32 Speaker 3 Is there something that “a holy convocation” does require?

12:34 Speaker 2 Yes, but “a holy convocation” is essentially about work. Okay. Now let’s talk a little about honoring and taking delight in Shabbos, which are discussed here. As for honoring Shabbos, for example, you’ll see in the sections on preparing for Shabbos that there are many things we do to honor it: clean clothes, taking a shower—washing in honor of Shabbos—and making sure the house is tidy, not a jungle. Even if you’re spending Shabbos at home after getting married, and you’re no longer going to your father-in-law’s or somewhere else that Shabbos, you might say, “What do I care?” No, no. What do you mean, “What do I care?” There’s an honored guest here—the Shabbos Queen is here. You can’t say about the whole house, “What do I care? As long as the table is clear. Who cares what’s on the sofa, what’s here, what’s there?” The house is a jungle. That’s a problem. Everything should be set up for Shabbos, with tablecloths and the rest. That’s halachah. So there are many things we do to honor Shabbos. And there are many aspects of taking delight in Shabbos, including the candle-lighting. That’s connected to both honoring and taking delight in Shabbos, as we’ll see at the beginning of section 263. And of course there’s eating and drinking. So here, at the beginning of section 242, honor means clothing, for example, while delight means eating and drinking. But if you pay attention to the Tur and Beis Yosef, to the Shulchan Aruch, and to the Alter Rebbe, don’t get confused. You might say, “Taking delight in Shabbos has nothing to do with honor; it’s about delight. Eating and drinking are about delight, while honor means clothing—that’s something else.” That isn’t right. Even the delight of eating and drinking is connected to honor. In fact, that runs through all the wording. There’s an expression in the Kol Bo, and also in the Shulchan Aruch, about honoring Shabbos with a special dish. When you look at what people ate in the times of the Tannaim and Amoraim, it says—

14:37 Speaker 2 These foods were important to them. So what? What does “important to them” mean? Rashi says it twice: they were foods they valued. So taking delight in Shabbos is also a way to honor Shabbos. And understand very well why I’m saying this. You’ll see what a major practical difference it makes. Don’t separate the two and say eating and drinking have nothing to do with honor. Of course they do. The physical act of taking delight in Shabbos—what’s at the heart of it? The prophet asked us to do it. Why? Why do we need to enjoy Shabbos? Because that’s a way of honoring Shabbos. Like the Gemara in Beitzah that you learned, on pages 16 and 17: they would honor Shabbos throughout the week. Beis Shammai would buy food in honor of Shabbos, and if they found something better, then... What’s that about? You’re talking about food. You might say, “I thought honor was more about clothing, something else.” No! Taking delight in Shabbos—enjoying Shabbos and making it a delightful day—shows how highly you regard Shabbos. It’s straightforward. You see it later as well, when you make bread in honor of Shabbos. You knead it yourself; we’ll come back to that. All of this is to honor Shabbos, including eating and drinking. Don’t make the mistake, when you read subsection 1, of thinking that honor means clothing and delight means eating and drinking. The delight of Shabbos is also part of the way you honor Shabbos. So keep that in mind, because we’re going to examine a simple question—one that people will ask you all the time. I get it almost every week. Here’s an example: “Rabbi, do we have to eat meat on Shabbos? I don’t feel like it. After the Nine Days I’m not feeling so great, and I feel like... I’d feel lighter without it.” Some people have other considerations. They like dairy cakes and ice cream and the like, so suddenly young people will tell you, “I don’t feel like being fleishig.” You know how that goes. Or they have plans for after Shabbos. If you daven early, fine, I can understand that. But for us, by the time we get home and Shabbos is over... I’m not talking about a summer Shabbos in France, but on a regular Shabbos, or in the winter, or in Israel year-round, you finish the meal a little after three and know that Shabbos won’t end for another four or five hours. They don’t want to be fleishig after Shabbos. They want to make crêpes, pasta, cheese and so on, right? Mediterranean food. We’re Israelis. So you want something dairy? “Then I don’t feel like having meat.” And they argue, “That wouldn’t be taking delight in Shabbos. I’d enjoy making something dairy more. I’d enjoy not eating meat more.” So this is the big question, and it’s relevant every Shabbos. Let’s see how the Alter Rebbe actually puts it. He writes that... First, let me introduce something: on Yom Tov, in section 529, there is an important concept of eating meat. Why? Because on Yom Tov there is “You shall rejoice on your festival.” We don’t have “You shall rejoice on your festival” on Shabbos; there’s no command to “rejoice.” Now, delight is... Anyone who studies Chassidus knows that delight is more closely associated with chochmah. Joy is more closely associated with binah: “the mother of children rejoices.” So delight is something more inward, while joy is more outwardly expressed. That’s why, specifically regarding Yom Tov, the Rambam and the Alter Rebbe conclude in section 529 by saying that officers would go around to make sure people didn’t get out of hand. People want to rejoice on Yom Tov and break boundaries, so they took precautions. On Shabbos we don’t have that problem. So rejoicing isn’t prescribed for Shabbos. And I’ll begin—by the way, it’s important here that the Alter Rebbe

16:38 Speaker 2 Some people have their calculations. They like dairy cakes and ice cream and things like that, so suddenly young people say, “I don’t want to be fleishig.” You know how it is. Or they have plans for after Shabbos. If you daven early, fine, I can understand that. But for us, by the time we get home and Shabbos is over... I’m not talking about a summer Shabbos in France, but on a regular Shabbos, or in the winter, or in Israel year-round, you finish the meal a little after three and know that Shabbos won’t end for another four or five hours. They don’t want to be fleishig after Shabbos. They want to make crêpes, pasta, cheese and so on, right? Mediterranean food. We’re Israelis. So you want something dairy? “Then I don’t feel like having meat.” And they argue, “That wouldn’t be taking delight in Shabbos. I’d enjoy making something dairy more. I’d enjoy not eating meat more.” So this is the big question, and it’s relevant every Shabbos. Let’s see how the Alter Rebbe actually puts it. He writes that... First, let me introduce something: on Yom Tov, in section 529, there is an important concept of eating meat. Why? Because on Yom Tov there is “You shall rejoice on your festival.” We don’t have “You shall rejoice on your festival” on Shabbos; there’s no command to “rejoice.” Now, delight is... Anyone who studies Chassidus knows that delight is more closely associated with chochmah. Joy is more closely associated with binah: “the mother of children rejoices.” So delight is something more inward, while joy is more outwardly expressed. That’s why, specifically regarding Yom Tov, the Rambam and the Alter Rebbe conclude in section 529 by saying that officers would go around to make sure people didn’t get out of hand. People want to rejoice on Yom Tov and break boundaries, so they took precautions. On Shabbos we don’t have that problem. So rejoicing isn’t prescribed for Shabbos. And I’ll begin—by the way, it’s important here that the Alter Rebbe

18:55 Speaker 2 The Alter Rebbe writes that delight and joy on Yom Tov are a Torah obligation, according to the view that on Shabbos they are only rabbinic. Right? That’s what he writes here in section 1: joy and delight on Yom Tov are a Torah obligation. So what is he talking about? At first he explains that this does not apply to everything. It applies to meat and wine, not to all the foods and all the things we have on Yom Tov. What you can actually call a Torah obligation is meat and wine. So let me preface this—yes, let me preface this. In the Gemara in Pesachim, page 109, there’s a well-known statement: when the Beis Hamikdash stood, there was no rejoicing except with meat. What kind of meat? The meat of shelamim offerings. When you look in the Torah at the meat of the shelamim they would eat, the verses explicitly call them offerings of rejoicing. So joy is stated explicitly, and the Torah identifies and defines the shelamim offering—the meat you eat—as rejoicing. There’s no need to get confused: the Torah defined it as rejoicing. Incidentally, there’s an amazing, brilliant sicha of the Rebbe. I remember it because we were in yeshiva when it came out. It was on Parshas Behaaloscha 5748. I believe it has already been printed in Shulchan Menachem, in the volumes on the Shulchan Aruch. The Rebbe develops a whole discussion, carefully distinguishing between the Rambam’s words in the laws of Yom Tov and the Alter Rebbe’s words, and we’ll come back to one of the points that emerges from it. But the rejoicing is with meat. Now that we don’t have shelamim, the Alter Rebbe says that nowadays—and this is what the Gemara says—there is no rejoicing except with wine. Who defined wine as something that brings joy? On a physical level, wine brings joy, right? “You shall rejoice on your festival” with wine plainly means wine that can intoxicate. Apart from Rabbi Auerbach, who argued otherwise, all the halachic authorities, Sephardic and Ashkenazic, agree that on Yom Tov, especially since drinking it brings joy—the Alter Rebbe

21:17 Speaker 2 rules this way for Chol Hamoed as well. That’s why we drink a revi’is of wine every day of Chol Hamoed. And it has to be wine that can intoxicate, with alcohol, right? Something that can make you joyful. So it’s important: you can’t say, “On Yom Tov, on Chol Hamoed, I’ll have a revi’is of grape juice.” You haven’t accomplished anything. On Shabbos, by contrast, as we’ll learn in section 242, grape juice is also fine. It’s an explicit Gemara: “A person may squeeze a cluster of grapes and recite kiddush over it,” there in Bava Basra 97. There’s no question about that. What, then? The Magen Avraham says in section 242 that the preferred way to fulfill the mitzvah is to use aged wine. “Aged wine” means wine rather than grape juice—that’s the plain meaning. Leave any wine in a barrel for forty days and it will become wine. Today it isn’t like that, because chemical processes are used to prevent the alcohol from developing. So on Shabbos, aside from the extra care of making kiddush on wine—as the Rebbe also said when he had his heart attack, [unclear], kiddush is made only on wine—that is an enhancement. But on Yom Tov it is actually “You shall rejoice on your festival,” and that... That’s why many people ask, “Rabbi, what alcohol content does the wine need?” Generally, it’s five percent or more, not below five percent. That’s what counts as alcoholic. Even non-Jews know this. In the United States, for example, it’s fine if a child buys grape juice; if he buys something with four percent alcohol, that’s fine too. At five percent—in some states, seven percent—it’s no longer allowed. So people know what is intoxicating and what isn’t. But there’s no question that on Yom Tov there is a reason to drink actual wine; on Shabbos it’s only an enhancement. There is a debate about the four cups. The four cups are described in terms of

23:08 Speaker 2 freedom. There has to be a sense of freedom too, so it should be good wine. But perhaps, because of that freedom, it also needs to be intoxicating. Some have said that. The Pri Chadash, right at the beginning of section 483 in the laws of Pesach, writes that this is not necessarily so. He says: on Yom Tov, fine, it’s about joy; here it’s about freedom. The main thing is that it tastes good. Okay, so there’s a debate about the four cups. We know that people are particular to use wine for the four cups too. For women and children, we needn’t make things difficult for them, and we can be lenient from the outset. That’s our position. The Rebbe also wrote in volume 19 of Igros Kodesh that women can use grape juice for the four cups from the outset. There’s just a question about his saying that they should prepare the wine themselves.

23:57 Speaker 4 Juice.

23:58 Speaker 2 Huh? Grape juice. Yes, the grape juice. He says they should cook the grapes and add sugar and so on. So some wanted to say that the Rebbe specifically held that one cannot fulfill the obligation with grape juice nowadays, because today’s grape juice has its alcohol-producing potential neutralized and cannot turn into wine. Several halachic authorities hold that way. But that doesn’t necessarily follow. Rabbi Braun also disagrees with that, and I don’t agree that you can prove it either, because you have to know why the Rebbe suggested it. Perhaps it was a place where grapes—or grape juice—weren’t readily available. You can’t derive that conclusion from the letter. Okay, back to our subject. On Yom Tov, we no longer have the rejoicing of eating the meat of shelamim, so we have the rejoicing of wine. But what’s the source? It isn’t simply that wine naturally makes people joyful. The Alter Rebbe cites there—and it’s also in the Gemara—the verse saying that wine “brings joy to G-d and people.” That’s a verse in Shoftim. In other words, the emphasis is that this is joy as defined by the Torah. But the Alter Rebbe says that nevertheless, even though nowadays there is no rejoicing except with wine, still... So the obligation on Yom Tov is to have wine, and there is no obligation to eat meat on Yom Tov, but there is a mitzvah to do so. The Rambam also writes that it is a mitzvah, though the Rebbe carefully examines all the differences between the Alter Rebbe and the Rambam. But there is a mitzvah. What is the mitzvah based on? If you read the Alter Rebbe’s words in section 529, subsection 7, superficially, you could make a big mistake. You might think he is saying, “Why, nevertheless, should you eat meat? Because the Torah says, ‘You shall rejoice,’ and you need various kinds of joy. Good meat generally makes people happy, so you can rejoice in different ways.” And that is why meat nevertheless remains part of it.

25:54 Speaker 2 It isn’t the obligation to eat the meat of shelamim that once existed, but there is still a mitzvah, because “You shall rejoice on your festival”: you need to rejoice, and meat brings joy. At least it brings joy to men—that’s what he writes there. So you could say that the meat eaten on Yom Tov has no connection to the meat of the shelamim. But that’s not correct. When you read his words closely—and the Rebbe says this explicitly there; I don’t know, we spoke about it once a few months ago—you can see the distinction. The Rebbe says that even though we no longer have shelamim, we still need to rejoice. There is a mitzvah to eat meat because we need to rejoice with something that the Torah associates with rejoicing. What does that mean? The Torah defined the meat of shelamim as a source of rejoicing. So even though this meat is not from a shelamim offering, the Torah’s perspective still links meat to rejoicing. That’s the basic point, especially since we need to rejoice on Yom Tov, and this really is in the context of joy. So the meat eaten on Yom Tov is also connected to rejoicing. And what difference does that make? Suppose a person never particularly enjoys meat. He doesn’t hate it, but he doesn’t enjoy it. Even so, since we should commemorate on Yom Tov what was done when the Beis Hamikdash stood, there is still a concept of eating meat on Yom Tov. Now let’s focus on Shabbos. Here, in section 242, the Alter Rebbe says that in the time of the Gemara, they wrote in the chapter Kol Kisvei in Tractate Shabbos that people would eat cooked beet dishes, large fish, and so on. Why? Because these were important foods to them, and one should eat them. Incidentally, this doesn’t mean that those were the foods they had at the time but not meat. That’s not the meaning. It would be like saying today that in Israel—because what does the Alter Rebbe write there? He says you should learn from this

28:09 Speaker 2 The same goes for all kinds of things people enjoy in your countries. Right? If cola is what people enjoy where you are, then buy cola. If you’re in the United States and cola is important, then cola is important. If in France it’s Coke Zero, then it’s Coke Zero. Right? And if, in Israel, a Shabbos table without eggplant, techina, and matbucha—the French call it chouchouka—means people won’t enjoy it, because they consider those special salads, then that’s your thing. You need to have them on your table. If they’re among the things people enjoy in that place, then have them. Today, of course, because everyone travels so easily from place to place, on vacation here and there, eggplant has become popular with the French too, and everyone likes cola, Israeli food, and so on. But that doesn’t mean meat wasn’t important back then. Meat always was. Throughout the Talmud, meat and wine were always a big deal. Fatty meat and so on are emphasized; Rav Nachman and others emphasized it as something important. What are we saying? We wanted to give you an example of things besides meat that people consider important. So those should also be on the table. Today it isn’t spinach; it’s eggplant, so have eggplant. The point is that for Shabbos, you should buy things people enjoy where you live, things they attach importance to. Keep that word in mind, as Rashi says: “important”—important to them. Because they consider it important and take pleasure in it, if you want to honor Shabbos, honor Shabbos with that too. Now, what does the Alter Rebbe say about meat? He says we should have plenty of meat and wine. Why? Where is that written?

30:09 Speaker 2 At the beginning of siman 242. Yes, at the beginning of siman 242 in the laws of Shabbos. In section two, in the Shulchan Aruch, and also in the Rambam, it says to have plenty of meat, wine, and delicacies. Right? So why plenty of meat and wine? What’s the connection? There’s no obligation to eat meat on Shabbos. On Yom Tov, yes, there’s an obligation in the original sources, and it became a mitzvah. But there’s nothing of the sort here. So why eat meat on Shabbos—and not just eat it, but have plenty of it? What’s the source? He says it’s because most people enjoy meat. Since most people enjoy meat and wine, they should have plenty of them. People generally enjoy meat and wine. It’s not that meat is inherently required. On Yom Tov there’s an essential connection; here there’s no essential connection between Shabbos and meat. Rather, people generally enjoy it. Since most people do, those who enjoy it should have it. And here we come to the question we raised. Someone might say, “So what should I eat to enjoy Shabbos?” I’ll give you an example. Many people want to eat dairy on Shabbos morning—though for us it isn’t really morning; it’s one or two o’clock. That doesn’t mean they don’t like meat. I’m not talking about someone who doesn’t like meat: you take him to the most upscale meat restaurant, and he orders salmon. You haven’t put any limit on what he can spend. Yes, there are people like that. He has the opportunity, he’s somewhere top-notch—back in America there used to be some place, I don’t know, Reserve Cut or something. You’re somewhere special, and he still doesn’t order meat. You simply see that whenever he has the opportunity, he doesn’t like it. He doesn’t like

32:11 Speaker 2 meat; it doesn’t appeal to him. That’s one thing. But there are people—and don’t worry, even if they usually prefer dairy, it may be because they don’t want fat in their bodies, they’re careful about their health, and they don’t want their arteries blocked one day, G-d forbid. Some people like to eat light. But that doesn’t mean that if they came to a really upscale wedding and a chef carved some hot lamb for them, they wouldn’t enjoy it and get excited about it. They like it. If they came across a real steak—not what they sell here—they might well enjoy it. And more than that, it’s not only that they’d enjoy it. On their scale of importance—let’s call it the Richter scale—imagine your wealthy uncle welcomes you when you visit Los Angeles and says, “I’ll take you to the finest restaurant in Los Angeles.” And he takes you to a dairy restaurant. Even though there are upscale dairy places these days, you’re still a little disappointed. You say, “Well, I thought he was taking me somewhere special.” In the end, the bill might still come to eight hundred dollars, but still. Or you arrive at an upscale wedding and see sushi. “Wow, wonderful—no meat.” No, you’d say, “What a strange wedding. That’s not very respectable. They didn’t serve meat.” So however much you say you’d rather have dairy on Shabbos—

33:56 Speaker 5 Meat.

33:57 Speaker 2 Meat—on your scale of values. That hasn’t changed much this week, because most people will always regard meat and wine as special. A good wine—wow! So don’t confuse things by saying, “No, I prefer cola.” Don’t confuse things. Wine. Now, some people don’t like it; that’s different. But even if you want a dairy meal, let’s ask a simple question. Sometimes there are practical reasons why I’d rather have dairy right now, or something else. Say my uncle just took me to a meat restaurant and ordered every kind of meat for the table. It was Thursday night, and I’ve still got meat coming out of my ears. Now it’s Shabbos. Normally I’d be excited about meat, but after eating every kind of meat, I don’t really want it. I’d rather have dairy. So what should a person like that do? If eating meat is only about pleasure, then right now I don’t feel like it. I’m telling you, I’d enjoy a tiramisu cake more right now. I’d get more pleasure from that. So that’s one argument. Why not? After all, Shabbos was given for pleasure, and I’d enjoy that more. But for people who, on their Richter scale, still consider meat something special, and know they’d enjoy a genuinely good-quality piece of meat—even if they often don’t eat it for health reasons, or because they don’t want to eat much meat, or for reasons of kashrus and added stringencies, so they don’t get to have it often—in my humble opinion, they should still have plenty of meat and wine. It doesn’t depend on your personal preference. Why? Because if it’s something you generally consider important,

36:08 Speaker 2 don’t say, “But I don’t feel like it today.” What do you mean, you don’t feel like it? It’s something very important to you. You were thrilled when you went to a meat restaurant on Wednesday or Thursday. Here you need to honor Shabbos. You’re not alone in this; there’s you and Hakadosh Boruch Hu. After all, the verse about enjoying Shabbos says, “And you shall call Shabbos a delight, and the holy day of Hashem honored.” So delight in Hashem. Don’t forget Hashem in all this. Even though Chassidus says that the work of refining the world doesn’t apply on Shabbos, the Baal Shem Tov once showed his students someone who was eating solely to satisfy his appetite: he showed them an animal with a shtreimel on its head. And that was at a Shabbos meal. So even on Shabbos, you need a little spirituality, a little holiness. You do it in honor of Shabbos. The equation here isn’t just you; it includes Shabbos and Hakadosh Boruch Hu. And Hakadosh Boruch Hu wants you to honor Shabbos through your eating and drinking. Enjoy Shabbos, but with things people consider important. What does “important to them” mean? “If I ate lots of tiramisu on Thursday, why should I eat tiramisu again?” No—but generally it is important. So express that. In this place, people regard it very highly, and you need to honor Shabbos with a fine dish. The language here is about honor too, not just pleasure. So it doesn’t depend on what you happen to choose. “I don’t feel like dairy; I don’t feel like meat”—that’s not how it works. But if someone genuinely doesn’t connect with meat, then of course that’s different. Now, there are two levels. Let’s go through them, because I think it’s important to sum this up too. Is there a reason to eat fish on Shabbos? The Magen Avraham cites the Tikkunei Zohar, which says that one should eat fish on every

38:11 Speaker 2 Shabbos meals. Do you have three meals? At all three Shabbos meals. Huh? So you should eat fish. Why? Here you can see—and anyone who paid attention will have noticed that this is clear in the Alter Rebbe too—that the reason is Kabbalistic. What’s the proof? The Alter Rebbe says there are two cases in which someone is exempt from eating fish on Shabbos: either it harms him—he eats fish and breaks out in sores or gets a stomachache—or nothing happens to him, but he simply hates it. He hates fish. Wow. In other words, otherwise, if you say, “I don’t feel like eating fish,” but it doesn’t harm you and you don’t hate it, you need to eat fish. Even if you don’t hate it but just don’t feel like it, fish is important for Kabbalistic reasons. That’s why there’s a discussion about what to do if non-Jewish sellers raise the price. Can you impose a kind of boycott and say to the whole community, “Let’s not buy fish this Shabbos,” so the seller will bring his prices down? He’ll wonder what happened to all his customers, and lower the price. There’s a dispute about whether a price increase of up to a third is acceptable, or whether you can still organize this boycott even if the increase is less than a third. So the Alter Rebbe says that, for the sake of saving money, you can organize a boycott even when it’s less than a third. He also disagrees with the Beis Hillel, who says this is supposedly a Torah obligation. How could the Shulchan Aruch’s author and the Rambam have omitted something like that, if eating fish were a Torah obligation? But in practice, let’s get back to our question. Fish should be eaten at every meal, and this matters. Sometimes people don’t observe this halachah. They serve fish at night but not

40:19 Speaker 2 fish in the morning. I say that if you don’t serve fish at the second meal, the daytime meal, you have two problems. First, you’re going against that ruling of the Magen Avraham in the name of Tikkunei Zohar, that there is a reason to eat fish. And another thing: it says in the Rema that honoring the day takes precedence over honoring the night. “But we had fish last night.” Still, when you serve two dishes—fish as well as meat—that’s always a more distinguished meal. When you make a smaller bris or bar mitzvah, do you serve fish too, or only schnitzel? When you serve both, that’s a step up: “At our celebration we had both fish and meat.” Wow! So people say, “[unclear], and I tasted a few things at shul, so I don’t feel like it.” First of all, there is a reason to eat fish at both the second and third meals. And you also have to honor the daytime meal more than the nighttime meal. We always try to have a few more salads during the day—sometimes because we didn’t manage to chop everything at night—but to make the daytime meal feel important. That’s regarding fish. Only someone whom fish harms, or who hates it—which is an extreme case—is exempt. Meat is different. When it comes to meat, most halachic authorities would say that if someone you invite has never considered meat important and doesn’t like it—he goes to weddings and other events and eats only the fish, not the meat—that’s one thing. But not if it’s only for health reasons. He may actually be a real meat lover who has decided to stop eating it. So don’t be

42:06 Speaker 2 a meat lover at Shabbos’s expense. In your way of thinking, Shabbos is important, and there is a reason to honor it with meat. So don’t be overly stringent with me; don’t be vegan on Shabbos. But if someone truly doesn’t care for meat—that’s different. Most people enjoy it, which is why I say that most people should have it. But for someone who doesn’t enjoy it, it isn’t on the same level as fish. You don’t have to hate meat; it’s enough that you simply aren’t drawn to it. I don’t mean for some practical reason, like “I want a dairy meal tonight; I’d rather have cake now.” Not that. It’s a subtle distinction. Unfortunately, many people haven’t learned it that way. I’m talking about what I hear in rabbinic circles, and more and more I hear of people giving up the meat. I’m not talking about people who daven very early on Shabbos and get home very early. Obviously, they’re not going to eat meat at nine-thirty in the morning. Fine; I assume those people rest, then get up and have a meat meal. But in principle, for people like us, or many people abroad, who get home at one or one-thirty in the afternoon, don’t give up the meat. And teach the children too. “Tonight I want pasta; tonight I want to go to a dairy restaurant,” or go to Tipas[?] in France. That’s it—they have to go to Tipas[?] on Motzoei Shabbos. That’s not—huh? Yes, the restaurant the French people like there. But anyway, I think you understand the point. It’s an important point. I hope I’ve managed to convince you to pass it on.

43:52 Speaker 6 So do you need meat at every meal? Meat alongside the other dishes too?

43:55 Speaker 2 Generally, yes, people eat meat at night too, and during the day. This isn’t like Yom Tov, where you have to specify it. Chicken wouldn’t be a problem. On Yom Tov, yes, the meat—

44:04 Speaker 6 Chicken too, or beef?

44:06 Speaker 2 On Yom Tov, there’s a particular emphasis on beef. Right? Now, regarding the mitzvah of rejoicing on Yom Tov, people generally buy women various things to make them happy; that doesn’t mean there’s no reason for them to eat meat as well. For a woman who enjoys meat, it can be a positive thing. The proof is that the halachic authorities write, regarding Purim as well as Shabbos and Yom Tov—in siman 198, in the laws of niddah, concerning chatzitzah—that there is a custom not to eat meat on the day of immersion in the mikveh, because it can get stuck between the teeth. But when there’s a mitzvah to eat it, it is permitted, and they’re talking about women. So it’s true that women often aren’t as involved in this as men, but the usual practice is that they eat with us at the meal. If a woman says, “I’d rather have a dairy meal,” then you have to consider whether she truly passes up meat even when she has the opportunity because she doesn’t like it—not merely for health reasons, but because it doesn’t appeal to her. For such people, there’s nothing to be done; you have to respect that. Also, the custom of the Jewish people has the force of Torah. I’m sure you remember your grandmother, and if she’s still alive, ask her—she’ll remember her grandmother. I promise you, in Morocco, in Algeria, in Poland and elsewhere, they ate meat on Shabbos. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. They ate it. Okay?

45:33 Speaker 2 All right. It says that everything is allotted. If it’s allotted, that means that if you spend more on Torah education and the like, you’ll receive extra. But for other things, you have no guarantee that you’ll receive extra. Well, sometimes very heartfelt davening helps, but you have no guarantee. So he says: be careful when you spend money. Who says that in two or three months you’ll still have businesses bringing in a lot of money? You don’t know. So cut back, because your means are limited, and otherwise you’ll put yourself at risk. Okay? That’s according to the revealed dimension of Torah. Then there’s a more developed discussion of emunah, but that’s the point. He also writes this very beautifully. Take a look; it really is beautiful. It’s in the Mishnah Berurah, in the first Biur Halachah on siman 529. There he says, “[unclear].” He sees lots of people going around saying, “I’m going to Eilat, I’m going here, I’m going there”—expenses upon expenses—and in the end they say, “I have debts, I have this problem,” because they go wild with their money. An ordinary person needs to be careful with his money. All right, then there’s the fine line between that and being stingy. Especially today, in our generation, we like to enjoy life, right? Thirty or forty years ago we were careful with bread. Now bread gets thrown out easily. In the past, the bread would be on the counter, and you’d cut a few slices and bring them to the table. Now you put it all on the table, it gets dirty, and you throw out whatever is left. Fine, we won’t get into bal tashchis, and when it’s permitted or forbidden—that’s a whole subject. But in general, we’ve become wasteful. Certainly you shouldn’t be stingy; that also hurts your wife and affects many other things. Nevertheless, what happens in our generation is that people spend left and right, and even—

47:35 Speaker 2 Sometimes, in matters of holiness—but this isn’t said about everything—people feel like traveling to the Rebbe three times a year, or doing all sorts of other things. Guard your money; be careful. Now, if a person is wealthy, thank G-d, and has plenty of money coming in, excellent. We’re not telling him, “Don’t spend.” But as a rule, the Torah says, “The Torah has concern for the money of the Jewish people,” so we need to be like Hakadosh Boruch Hu and save as well, to think about our money. But when it comes to this particular matter, or to the laws of Torah study, or to the laws of Shabbos—on Shabbos and Yom Tov—we tell a person: Step beyond your limitations and your caution, and spend what’s needed. Then, one who delights in Shabbos is spared days of distress afterward. Shabbos and Yom Tov are the time to reach a little deeper into your pocket and do it. Now, in the Shulchan Aruch, you can always see the Alter Rebbe’s exemplary order in the way he arranges the laws. Here, he actually starts with someone whose means are limited. In fact, pay close attention if you’ve studied it in depth: the Shulchan Aruch begins with the Tur’s personal situation. Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher writes in the Tur, in the middle of section 242, at the start of the laws of Shabbos, about how much he debated this with his father: How much effort do I have to make to have a comfortable Shabbos when I struggle to earn a living and need help from others? It pains you to hear Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher say something like that, but “I struggle with this.” And that is precisely the case with which the Shulchan Aruch begins. It begins with a person who receives money from others, yet still makes an effort. He derived this from the placement of the mishnayos. In some versions of Pirkei Avos, there is a juxtaposition

49:36 Speaker 2 between the mishnah, “Make your Shabbos like a weekday rather than need other people,” and the mishnah of Rabbi Yehudah ben Teima. They placed them next to each other. Yes, our version doesn’t have that, but in that version they are adjacent, and he learned from it that one has to make an effort. That’s where he begins, though. The Alter Rebbe starts gradually, speaking first about an ordinary person, who needs to honor Shabbos with meat and wine and all sorts of things that bring pleasure. If you need to buy cola, buy cola; if you need to buy something else, buy it. And there should be plenty of salads on the table—that’s the basics. Then he discusses someone who doesn’t have the money right now, but his salary may come in two days, with plenty of money; or he may have something he can use as collateral. Fine: to make a normal Shabbos, if you need to take out a loan, you take out a loan. And here I’m opening a parenthesis on a discussion that really should be written down and summarized. I think the question is whether you borrow money even when you have no collateral. Say you want to make a nice Shabbos and need 1,500 or 2,000 shekels, and you have no collateral right now. Today, of course, most people have things at home that could serve as collateral for that amount. But theoretically, a person has none. Should he take out a loan? As you saw, the Mishnah Berurah and several other poskim say yes: you borrow even without collateral. The Alter Rebbe does not rule that way. He rules like several other poskim. It’s really a dispute in Tosafos—I’m not sure how to read the Tosafos in Beitzah, page 16. There are two versions there. So the Alter Rebbe says this applies

51:36 Speaker 2 only if you have collateral. Now, why? Let me open a parenthesis. It’s interesting: sometimes you say, “I have self-confidence—I have trust in Hakadosh Boruch Hu.” Not self-confidence; that’s not the right term. Trust in Hakadosh Boruch Hu. So I jump in at the deep end and take on some project, certain that it will work out. Yes, trust is important. In Chovos Halevavos—well, there’s an old debate between the mussar authorities about Rabbeinu Bachya’s position: Does trust mean only that Hashem will do what He considers good for you, or that He will give you the visibly good outcome you hope for? Rabbeinu Bachya lived a thousand years ago; I don’t mean Rabbeinu Bachya, the student of the Rashba—that’s someone else. So he writes about trust. But what happens when your trust is on someone else’s back? A person says, “I’m opening a school. I don’t know where I’ll get the money to start a Talmud Torah,” and he tells lots of people, “Come work for me, come work for me.” “Wait—if I commit to this, I won’t be able to find another job.” “No, no, you’re with me in September.” And there are lots of people coming to work for you, while you still don’t know where the money will come from. Many have said that trust is for yourself, not at someone else’s expense. “Lend me money; Hashem will surely provide, and I’ll pay you back.” That’s another obvious problem. Now, the Alter Rebbe doesn’t give this as the reason collateral is required. He simply says that someone without collateral has no obligation to borrow and provide for Shabbos in that way. He simply has no obligation. Perhaps the deeper reason he has no obligation is that you really can’t place your trust in Hashem on someone else’s shoulders. Trust is—don’t drag someone else into it.

53:30 Speaker 2 You want to trust in Hashem and take a leap? Sometimes, go ahead. But not at someone else’s expense. You see an apartment renting for twelve thousand shekels a month. Wow, what a big villa! You have no idea where the money will come from. “I hope so. I’m sure. I’ll find a livelihood.” Why are you making plans with someone else’s money? Okay, we can always learn a lesson from this for all sorts of situations, but in the meantime, there really is a disagreement between the Alter Rebbe and the Mishnah Berurah about whether collateral is required. In any case, the Mishnah Berurah concludes, “It all depends on the circumstances.” In other words, presumably you at least have some idea, some reasonable prospect of a good deal. If a person knows money is coming in, then even without collateral, that’s certain and it’s fine. You know your salary is arriving in two days, and Shabbos is coming, but there’s no money in your account right now. You can’t spend because you’re already overdrawn, but you know the money will come in. Fine, it’s also okay to borrow, okay? And it says that one can even do this with a form of interest prohibited by rabbinic law, and so on.

54:42 Speaker 7 What is interest prohibited by rabbinic law?

54:43 Speaker 2 It means interest that isn’t fixed in advance. All right, we’ll give examples later. So now let’s go through the levels set out in the Shulchan Aruch and the Tur, according to the understanding of most poskim—the Alter Rebbe and the Mishnah Berurah as well, unlike the Taz. The Taz, in subsection one, understood it in a very unusual way. A person who needs to draw from a communal charity fund—in the old towns there was a charity fund. It’s discussed in the Gemara in Bava Basra, and there are whole sections about it in Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 253. Today it doesn’t work in such an orderly way. There are local charity funds, but it doesn’t work like that. In the past, on Friday you would arrange what you needed for the coming week, right? Incidentally, in the United States people are often paid weekly; they get a check once a week. That used to be more common—is it still like that? In Europe and elsewhere, it’s a monthly salary, once a month. But a person would make arrangements on Friday for the whole coming week. People would eat two meals a day; that was the norm. Today we have about three, but back then it was two. You finished davening in the morning, went from shul to the beis midrash, then ate something and went to work. In the evening, when you got back from work, you ate. That was it: two meals. Now, the fund distributed food for the week. You came on Friday, and it gave you food for Shabbos and, in fact, for seven days, until the next Friday, when you would come back. Who was eligible to receive from the communal fund? People defined as poor. There are definitions in the Tosefta, in Bava Kama, in the Mishnah—various criteria, such as whether you earn two hundred a year, and so on. Now, you come to receive food. What does two meals a day mean? They could give you bags of food. They—you’re one person,

57:05 Speaker 2 They make up portions, more or less, of peas or other legumes, rice, corn, or something like that. They make you a bag for each day, for two meals. Say, fifty grams for breakfast and fifty grams for supper. Right? Plus something to make bread from, flour or— So bread and legumes. You have enough, or enough money to buy it, for two meals. Now what about Shabbos? On Shabbos you need to eat three meals, and the meals are more substantial. That’s exactly what we were talking about. The Tosefta says that if a person lives in Beit Shemesh and now finds himself, I don’t know, in Tel Aviv, and goes to the Tel Aviv communal charity fund, how much do you give him? You give him fifteen meals. Meaning, not just fourteen meals for the week; you give him three for Shabbos. And for Shabbos you add something too—not just bread and legumes. You add vegetables and fish, so he’ll have a little honor for Shabbos. That’s what it says; you can’t dispute that. But the Taz understood—this comes from the Rambam and so on—that this is talking about someone who doesn’t live here. For someone who does live here, there’s no such thing. It says, “Make your Shabbos like a weekday rather than depend on others.” Don’t make Shabbos at other people’s expense. No, here it’s a visitor, so they give him that. But if you’re someone who takes from the city’s fund every week, there’s no such thing. If you don’t have money, cut back a bit for Shabbos. You’ll get your meals—fourteen meals. Period. Now, that’s one point. You could also, instead of eating later, have a meal earlier, and so on; there are various solutions. But in practice, that’s how the Taz understood it. Most halachic authorities did not understand it that way—the Alter Rebbe and the Mishnah Berurah.

59:19 Speaker 2 No, most halachic authorities didn’t understand it that way. Why? Because, as the Magen Avraham says in subsection 3, “The poor of your own city take precedence.” In other words, if a person who is just visiting can take from the fund, then all the more so: if you give him fifteen meals, you certainly give fifteen meals to someone who actually lives in the city. It’s straightforward. So everyone says that if you’re already receiving assistance, you receive it. Now, there are several levels of oneg Shabbos. There’s the kind where you say, wow—ten salads, salmon, everything on the table, wonderful, and dessert. Then there’s making something nice anyway. You don’t have twenty salads or all that, but it’s still not just bread and legumes. You have fish too, and a little vegetable, so that’s something. Then there’s an even lower level: bread and legumes with kasa deharsena—something like sardines. That’s about the smallest addition possible. When they gave people food, they gave more than that. When they say fish and vegetables, that’s more than kasa deharsena, but it’s a level. And then there’s a level where your Shabbos is like a weekday: just two meals, bread and legumes. Now, someone who has money should make a wonderful Shabbos, with lots of salads and all that. Let him enjoy it, and Hashem will grant him a boundless inheritance, and so on. But someone who needs to take from the fund to live—now, it’s not mathematical, an either-or. There are people who earn a little, but not enough. Some people don’t have that kind of luck, and they don’t know how to do various jobs. Sometimes it works out that someone needs goods moved from one place to another and says, “Come help me. I need to get these goods from here to there. If you

1:01:31 Speaker 2 can help me, take a little money.” So sometimes you make ten shekels here, fifteen there. Let’s say a person needs a thousand shekels for a normal week and fifteen hundred for Shabbos, for example, but I manage to bring in five hundred a week. What do I do? What happens with this person? Even if I—someone brings me his child to study with, and sometimes he gives me a little money, and I do something else here and there. Fine, altogether I occasionally manage to gather five or six hundred. I can’t live on that during the week or on Shabbos. So what do you do? You’re allowed to receive help. How much help? If you’re already going to receive help, you can receive the meals with the extra things. Right? You don’t have to—because you don’t know how much you’ll have. Even if you had two thousand shekels—or five thousand shekels—it’s sometimes worth keeping a little money aside. You don’t know what expenses will come up. So here’s this poor fellow with only some three or five hundred shekels. You don’t have to say, “Listen, a week costs a thousand, and this costs that, so hand over the five hundred you already have, and—” No. If you’re in that situation, you take from the city’s fund, and they’ll provide for you. They’ll provide all your meals for the week; you’re allowed to do that. It still works that way today. With someone who’s genuinely in that situation, they don’t scrutinize every last detail: “What, you did nothing? You don’t even have two thousand shekels?” No. If I have a family with four children, I go to the city’s fund for help, and I receive the same

1:03:04 Speaker 2 [unclear]. It’s still like that today. It isn’t as organized as it used to be, but it’s still like that. So a person comes and tells me he has five hundred shekels. He can’t manage through the week or Shabbos, and they give him everything he needs. Now what should this person do when Shabbos comes? He could say, “Wait, you’re already living on miracles.” And who knows about the city’s fund? Maybe they won’t have money. It doesn’t work mathematically; it’s not a bank with unlimited funds. So perhaps he should save those five hundred shekels for a time of need. Or he might say, “No, I’ve just learned an entire lesson about oneg Shabbos, honoring Shabbos, and a boundless inheritance. I want to get out of this rut. I want to be rich. I want to make Shabbos a delight.” This is exactly the question the Tur faced. The Alter Rebbe explains it beautifully in Kuntres Acharon. This is precisely the Tur’s question. It’s the first case the author begins with: a person who is supported by others. The question is that he has a little money of his own, but such a tiny amount. Should he put it at risk? You’ve been given food! You’ve been given three Shabbos meals, and not merely kasa deharsena; they’ve given you vegetables and legumes, vegetables and fish. But should you nevertheless buy a few eggplants, a little salmon, something extra, or not? So the Alter Rebbe says that, according to how he understands the Tur, this is what the Tur held: you have to push yourself. If you have a little money of your own, yes, make a nice Shabbos. You don’t have to go overboard, but make an effort. Don’t— The alternative is in section 6, the Tur’s case. So yes, you have to make an effort. Of course, someone who has a bit more should certainly make a greater effort to have a beautiful table

1:04:58 Speaker 2 as well. And this is not included in the expenses set on Rosh Hashanah. You’ll get that money back; it will return to you, and it also brings you a blessing of wealth. But sometimes you don’t have that obligation, so you don’t have to do it. For now, though, this person does need to do it. But what happens if he doesn’t even have money of his own? If he has none, then he has none, even though he has received assistance. So the Alter Rebbe writes about this case: “But if he has nothing of his own, he need not ask others to give him something with which to honor Shabbos, for they have already said: ‘Make your Shabbos like a weekday rather than depend on others.’ Nevertheless, he must do some small thing in his home to fulfill the mitzvah of oneg.” Do something that will bring you a little joy. Sometimes that takes effort. Go try to do a small job for someone. Try to do something so you can make things a little better. Then there are situations where even the city’s fund doesn’t have enough money to give you everything you need. So if you have nothing, and what they give you isn’t enough even for a small addition, “he will have to cut back a little on the other days.” What is a small addition? It means you don’t even have something with which to honor Shabbos. In that situation, a person really does have to push himself—to the point where sometimes he has to say, “Wait, they gave you a certain amount of bread and legumes for two meals on weekdays, so take less. Make your plate even smaller during the week, and that way you’ll have more left over. At least you’ll have something a little more fitting.” They gave you money; you know it’s fifty shekels for a meal, or whatever the amount is, so put ten shekels aside and manage with even less. Cut back, because it’s very, very, very important.

1:06:46 Speaker 2 Basically, to get to... But broadly speaking, what does “Make your Shabbos like a weekday rather than depend on others” mean? Take someone who doesn’t actually need to ask the communal fund for money. He doesn’t need to, but he doesn’t have enough. Let’s say he has nothing beyond what would let him observe Shabbos like a weekday, with two very basic meals, and that’s what he earns. You certainly don’t go to the fund for that. If you do go to the fund, what is it for? To honor Shabbos. About that they said: “Make your Shabbos like a weekday rather than depend on others.” Even for [unclear], you don’t do that. It really is... So there’s room to discuss it. It’s true that today the calculation is much more complicated, because in the past, when food wasn’t abundant, people really counted out quantities: today I have this much rice, this much of something else. Sometimes there are still young men for whom this is a reality—people with mesirus nefesh, young married men. I remember a friend from Slovakia, many years ago. [unclear] Truly righteous people. He had many friends; they really lived with mesirus nefesh for many years in order to learn in kollel. They wouldn’t use electricity at night, just a few candles. They ate very, very little, a bit of [unclear]. Some people didn’t have families behind them who could give them lots of money. And there are still people like that today, all kinds of righteous people who live on flour and water. But today it’s a little different; generally it isn’t like that. So the point is to take the principle, even though the situations can’t be compared. Many people can manage, but if they want to make a very beautiful Shabbos, they may need to ask the fund for help. And today people easily go to the communal fund and want

1:08:44 Speaker 2 to receive help. About that it was said: “Make your Shabbos like a weekday rather than depend on others.” The principle still applies, even though circumstances have changed greatly. It would be very hard to find cases that fit the definition exactly, but broadly speaking, it concerns taking from the communal fund. And by the way, I just want to add a point as we discuss assistance. I’m not talking about young married men who simply don’t have enough money to live on and can’t do anything about it. Of course, they learn in kollel during the day and in an evening kollel, and there’s a paycheck here and a paycheck there. Fine, that’s not what we’re talking about, because that person is somewhat like the case described by the Tur: “I don’t have enough to live on.” But there are people who do earn a living, though money is tight—or because of the things they dream of having, as he gives examples here. Even when you have money, don’t spend so much that it leads you to ask others for money, because about that they said: “Make your Shabbos like a weekday.” Now, if someone offers a gift, that’s permissible. If you feel like giving someone something to help him, it’s not that you’re forbidden to help him. But asking the communal fund is no simple matter. People do it much more readily today, and we should remember: “Make your Shabbos like a weekday rather than depend on others.” Now, let’s discuss two more small points that are very relevant in practice. One is laundering clothes. There’s the well-known Gemara in Bava Kamma, page 82, about Ezra’s enactments. Ezra made a number of enactments, and one of them was that people should do their laundry on Thursday in honor of Shabbos. That means laundering on Thursday, not Friday, in honor of Shabbos. There are two ways to understand this. We can divide them between the Magen Avraham and the Eliyah Rabbah. The Eliyah Rabbah learns it from Rashi, but the Magen Avraham says this, in subsection 3: What is the honor

1:10:56 Speaker 2 of Shabbos here? No, it’s not that the laundering itself honors Shabbos by giving you clean clothes—that isn’t the point. Rather, the enactment was aimed at the fact that people—many people... The point is this: the enactment says, “Don’t do the laundry on Friday.” What was doing laundry like in those days? It was a whole undertaking. Some homes had water you could go down to, and wealthy people even had it at home. But in many homes you had to walk some distance to the river and stay there a long time, hang the clothes on tree branches, then come back and clean up. It took time—possibly several hours. So Ezra enacted that you don’t have a choice. You want to do laundry on Friday? You can’t. Do it on Thursday. Now, many say Thursday isn’t meant precisely: if you want to do it on Wednesday, fine, but not on Friday. Why? Because you need to honor Shabbos. The house has to be clean, there has to be good food, you have to cook, and sometimes you have to shop at the market. All that takes time. If you do laundry on Friday, you’ll end up spending hours on it, and you won’t make enough salads for Shabbos, won’t manage to buy what you need, will miss the market, and so on. That’s the plain meaning presented by the Magen Avraham. In other words, “Do laundry on Thursday in honor of Shabbos” means preserving the honor of Shabbos by leaving Friday free for preparations. So they told you: Don’t do the laundry on Friday; do it beforehand. That’s one interpretation. The Eliyah Rabbah says no, that isn’t the meaning. He rejects the Magen Avraham’s explanation and learns it from Rashi as well. On page 82 of Bava Kamma, where it says to do laundry in honor of Shabbos, Rashi says... On Thursday, he says, they do laundry in honor of Shabbos. Meaning what? The Gemara says to do laundry—no! He says the laundering itself is in honor of

1:12:56 Speaker 2 Shabbos. Ezra was concerned that you would come to Shabbos wearing clothes that weren’t clean, so he said to do the laundry. Why did he say to do it on Thursday? It’s not that there’s a problem with Friday. That’s not it. Rather, people are very busy on Friday, so they might not do the laundry and would arrive at Shabbos in dirty clothes. People will prioritize cooking; as the Rosh says, the Jewish people are devoted to the mitzvah of oneg Shabbos. People love putting effort into it. So on Friday you put effort into Shabbos shopping and cooking. What happens then? You won’t have clean clothes. Ezra therefore enacted that you should have clean clothes; make sure of it. We know we need clean clothes for Shabbos, but sometimes, if you don’t have time, you don’t have time. So the enactment looks out for you: do the laundry on Thursday, because I’m concerned you won’t have time on Friday. According to this explanation, there’s nothing against Friday as such. The concern is simply that, since people are busy preparing for Shabbos with cooking and shopping, they won’t do the laundry. So they said to do it on Thursday to make sure it gets done. But on this explanation, Friday isn’t such a strict issue. Today there’s a question even if we follow the Magen Avraham. People ask: We have washing machines today, so the whole problem has gone away. Ostensibly, Ezra’s enactment was because otherwise you wouldn’t properly honor Shabbos. But I have time: while I’m putting the food in the oven, I press the washing machine’s button, and it runs by itself. Some then said, “Yes, but hanging the clothes takes time. Perhaps that’s included in Ezra’s enactment?” Well, hanging them outside takes two minutes. Then someone said, “If you have a clothes dryer, that doesn’t take time either.” But some... A number of leading rabbis of the generation have addressed this. I remember Rabbi Elyashiv, or one of the leading poskim, saying, “No, Ezra made an enactment.” He understands it like the Magen Avraham: no laundry on Friday. That was the enactment. Fine, things have changed somewhat today, but the enactment remains. Most poskim today are lenient, though. But according to the Eliyah Rabbah, in my humble opinion, the question doesn’t even arise. If the honor of Shabbos, as he learned from Rashi, was the purpose, then Ezra merely made an enactment—good practical advice—to ensure that you have clean clothes. Make sure you have clean clothes, so do the laundry on Thursday in case you don’t have time on Friday. But if I expect to have time for both this and the other preparations, what’s the problem? There’s no fundamental issue under the enactment. Now, if you look at the Alter Rebbe, although he often follows the Magen Avraham, here he explicitly understands it like the Eliyah Rabbah. He says that the reason for laundering is that Ezra enacted that clothes be laundered on Thursday in honor of Shabbos. What does that mean? So that people wear clean clothes on Shabbos. But on Friday there’s no time to do laundry, because one must attend to Shabbos needs. So they wanted you to come to Shabbos in clean clothes, and advised you to do it on Thursday. That’s the Eliyah Rabbah. And, with the Alter Rebbe’s brilliance, he also cites Rashi. The Eliyah Rabbah derives this precise point from Rashi, but, in my humble opinion, someone mistakenly inserted a note citing “Magen Avraham, subsection 3.” How can that be? The Alter Rebbe cited Rashi. Why insert the Magen Avraham here, when he says the opposite? Write “not like the Magen Avraham, subsection 3.” That’s... The Alter Rebbe specifically takes the Eliyah Rabbah’s position against him. Therefore

1:14:55 Speaker 2 So it doesn’t take time either. But—there are some—there are several of the great rabbis of the generation who said no. I remember Rabbi Elyashiv, or one of the leading halachic authorities, saying: “No, there is an enactment of Ezra.” He understands it like the Magen Avraham: no laundering on Friday. That was the enactment. Fine, things have changed somewhat today, but that is the enactment. Most halachic authorities today are lenient, but according to the Eliyah Rabbah, in my humble opinion, the question doesn’t even arise. If honoring Shabbos, as he understood it from Rashi, means that Ezra merely instituted a practice as good advice—make sure you have clean clothing—then do it on Thursday, because you won’t have time on Friday. But if I have time for both laundering and Shabbos preparations, what’s the problem? There is no fundamental issue with the enactment. Now, if you look at the Alter Rebbe, although he often follows the Magen Avraham, here he explicitly understands it like the Eliyah Rabbah. He says that the reason for laundering—that Ezra instituted laundering clothes on Thursday—was to honor Shabbos. What does that mean? So that people would wear clean clothes on Shabbos. But on Friday there is no time to launder, because one has to attend to the needs of Shabbos. So they wanted you to come into Shabbos with clean clothes, and advised you to do it on Thursday. That is the Eliyah Rabbah. And, brilliantly, the Alter Rebbe also cites Rashi. The Eliyah Rabbah’s precise reading comes from Rashi. But someone mistakenly, in my humble opinion, inserted a note citing Magen Avraham, subsection 3. Why? The Alter Rebbe cited Rashi. Why bring in the Magen Avraham here, who says the opposite? Write “not like Magen Avraham, subsection 3.” This is— the Alter Rebbe follows the Eliyah Rabbah precisely, against him. So

1:16:50 Speaker 2 He quoted only Rashi. He doesn’t bring the Pri Megadim, the Eliyah Rabbah, or the others at all. Usually you’ll see that more in the later halachic authorities, but in practice he brings the source here, and that is precisely the plain meaning of the sugya. So, as you’ll see, it’s a wonderful book; it does have many interesting notes. They also worked on a book that Rabbi Ashkenazi put together. There are all kinds of notes, but you can see that quite a few were apparently written without studying the sugya closely enough. There’s no need to quote the Magen Avraham here—it says the opposite of the Magen Avraham. Okay, so according to the Alter Rebbe, today, especially when there’s a washing machine, the question doesn’t even begin. Clearly, you can put in loads of laundry on Friday too. Okay. Now, one last subject, which also comes up a great deal. You understand that all these things will become questions. If you’re giving a class, you don’t have to go through every fine distinction. But when you give a class to a community, you have laundry, oneg Shabbos, meat and wine on Shabbos and Yom Tov, and so on. These are subjects everyone needs to know. And regarding honoring Shabbos, there is a custom to knead bread in honor of Shabbos. Here too, there is a major disagreement about how to understand it, between the Eliyah Rabbah and the Magen Avraham. The Alter Rebbe actually brings the Eliyah Rabbah’s explanation as the main text, and brings the Magen Avraham in parentheses. So let me explain. First of all, there are two parts to the custom: knead it yourself—don’t buy bread from a store; make it yourself. That’s one. Second, make enough dough to separate challah. So that’s

1:18:51 Speaker 2 another reason not to buy from a store, because even if the people there are Jewish, they separated challah, not you. You need to separate challah. Why is there this idea of separating challah? As you’ll learn regarding Rosh Chodesh Elul, it says that, seemingly, the obligation to light candles rests on the husband. But why do women take it upon themselves? Because she extinguished the light of the world. “The soul of man is the lamp of Hashem.” She caused Adam to sin, so she rectifies that. The Yerushalmi also says that she damaged the challah of the world. After all, the world was like a great mass of dough—the earth—and Hashem took from the earth to make Adam. So Adam was the challah separated from the world, and she damaged it through the sin she caused him to commit. And when did that happen? On Friday. She caused him to sin on Friday, three hours before Shabbos, extinguishing the light of the world; and it was on Friday that she damaged the separated challah too. That is why there is a special reason for a woman to light candles on Friday, to rectify the extinguishing of the world’s light, and to separate challah. Now, about the measure I mentioned: Baruch Hashem, I made quite a stir in France over the position of the Rebbe and the Tzemach Tzedek, and by now it has really caught on. But the amount for separating challah in Chabad used to be—and some people still don’t know otherwise—1.666 kilos according to Rabbi Chaim Naeh. That’s what many in Chabad would use. For Sephardim it’s more like 1.56 kilos, something like that. And according to the Chazon Ish, to separate with a bracha it’s over 2.2 kilos, and so on. Yes. In Chabad, then, the well-known amount was 1.666 kilos. But there is an explicit ruling of the Tzemach

1:20:38 Speaker 2 Tzedek that we found, particularly in the supplementary material and so on, which says it’s 1.23 kilos with a bracha. Today many people separate challah from 1.23 kilos without a bracha, but we make a bracha from 1.25 kilos of flour—and from 1.23 kilos with a bracha. So, about twenty-five years ago, I publicized this ruling of the Tzemach Tzedek everywhere and made a big stir about it. In Israel, most of the rabbis, once they saw the Tzemach Tzedek, adopted it fully right away. It turned out that in the United States they had always separated from 1.23 kilos with a bracha. Many people didn’t know that. Rabbi Dvorkin wrote that it’s 1.23 kilos with a bracha, and said he had received it from one of the rabbis who went to meet the Rebbe at the ship—well, Rabbi Levitin. He had heard that in Lubavitch too they separated challah, as the Tzemach Tzedek says, from 1.23 kilos with a bracha. Okay? So that helps a lot, because it’s less than the 1.6-something kilos needed for challah. So you should try both to bake and to separate challah. Now, regarding baking, beyond the reason of separating challah, there is another reason on which the Magen Avraham and the Eliyah Rabbah disagree. The Eliyah Rabbah says you bake because it shows greater honor when you make the challahs yourself. You can always feel that at home. When a family only buys challahs, and then suddenly the mother starts baking, you’ll see what a feeling that creates. When you bake challahs, it’s a different world. Everyone still feels it today—it’s magic, right? There’s a special feeling to Shabbos challahs. So, to honor Shabbos, you should bake. The Magen Avraham says no. The point is that most people buy bread from non-Jews. After all, there’s no prohibition against buying a non-Jew’s bread. Bread baked by a private individual is another matter, but bread from a baker, if there are no other problems—today there are many issues with foods, but bread itself is permitted. The Beis Yosef is somewhat stricter about a baker’s bread. According to the Beis Yosef, you may buy it only if you can’t get bread from a Jew; if you can, you have to make the effort. Even if it means walking a little, you have to. According to the Rema, on the other hand, even if you can get bread from a Jew, if you prefer the other bread because it’s closer or tastier, that’s enough. So when were people particularly careful about bread baked by non-Jews? On Shabbos, and also during the Ten Days of Teshuvah, as it says in section 603. So the reason to knead bread for Shabbos—by the way, I’ll point out that words of Torah are sparse in one place and rich in another. Here, the Alter Rebbe says to bake challahs, but doesn’t say when. He says it’s in honor of Shabbos. When? Maybe Thursday night, maybe Thursday. A woman wants to get ahead; she has other things to do, so she wants to bake challahs. It doesn’t say specifically Friday. Words of Torah are sparse in one place and rich in another: in section 529, the Alter Rebbe explicitly says that the custom is to knead on erev Shabbos and erev Yom Tov. Okay. Still, it’s better to do it than not to. If someone says, “I’m a teacher, and when I get home I won’t have time to make challahs before things go into the oven,” that’s one thing. But for someone who can make challahs on Friday, that’s best. It says so explicitly: on erev Shabbos and erev Yom Tov. Now, then: according to the Magen Avraham, what does baking challahs mean? Don’t buy from non-Jews; have Jewish bread in honor of Shabbos. That’s the meaning. But the halacha says to bake it yourself: even if you buy from a Jew, bake it yourself. It shows greater honor when you bake for Shabbos. But

1:22:39 Speaker 2 There are many issues with foods, but bread is permitted. The Beis Yosef is a little stricter about a non-Jewish baker’s bread. According to the Beis Yosef, it’s permitted only if you can’t get bread from a Jew. But if you can, you have to make the effort—even if you need to walk a little. According to the Rema, by contrast, even if you can get bread from a Jew, if the other bread is closer or tastes better, that’s enough. So when were people particularly careful about non-Jewish bread? They were more careful on Shabbos or during the Ten Days of Teshuvah, as it says in section 603. So the reason to knead dough for Shabbos—by the way, let me point out that words of Torah are sparse in one place and rich in another. Here, the Alter Rebbe says to bake challahs in honor of Shabbos, but he doesn’t say when. Maybe Thursday night, maybe Thursday. A woman wants to get ahead; she has things to do, so she wants to bake challahs. It doesn’t say here that it has to be on Friday. Words of Torah are sparse in one place and rich in another: in section 529, the Alter Rebbe explicitly says that the custom is to knead the dough on Erev Shabbos and Erev Yom Tov. Okay. Still, it’s better to do it than not to do it. If someone says, “I’m a teacher, and by the time I get back and put things in the oven, I won’t have time to make challahs,” fine. But for someone who can make challahs on Friday, that’s best. It says so explicitly: on Friday—on Erev Shabbos and Erev Yom Tov. Now, what does baking challahs mean according to the Magen Avraham? Don’t buy from non-Jews; have bread baked by a Jew in honor of Shabbos. That’s the meaning. But the halachah says that baking it yourself—even if you could buy it from a Jew—is a greater honor to Shabbos. But

1:24:32 Speaker 2 according to the Magen Avraham, if a Jew sells bread, you can buy from him; there’s no problem. Fine, you’ll have the issue of separating challah. But let’s say you don’t have enough flour to separate challah and you simply want to buy bread. The main issue is bread baked by non-Jews. So how did the Alter Rebbe understand it? In the main text, the Alter Rebbe follows the Eliyah Rabbah: he says you bake the challahs because the baking honors Shabbos. Only in paragraph nine does he bring the Magen Avraham in parentheses. What does it mean when it’s in parentheses? That he’s uncertain whether we should also take the Magen Avraham into account. What practical difference does it make? It’s very interesting. Let’s say someone baked challahs for Shabbos. That’s it—I’ve honored Shabbos. But I also bought a baguette from a non-Jew. So am I allowed to eat it on Shabbos? I have enough challah, but I just feel like having a baguette now. Say you’re having lunch on Shabbos in France. You’ve already had a long sleep, and Shabbos doesn’t end until eleven. You say, “I’ll do it the French way: bread and Camembert,” right? A baguette. So that’s what you want to do. The Magen Avraham would tell you, “No, sorry. On Shabbos we’re careful not to eat bread baked by non-Jews, only Jewish bread.” But according to the Eliyah Rabbah, what’s the problem? I baked bread; I honored Shabbos. Now I just feel like tasting a baguette. So that is why the Alter Rebbe brought the Magen Avraham’s view after all, even though he’s uncertain about it: to say that we can also take his reason into account, and therefore it’s preferable not to eat bread baked by non-Jews. Today, Baruch Hashem, in our country—we don’t have that problem. In our country, or rather, abroad today, there are many Jewish bakers. So, Baruch Hashem, everything is fine. But there is something that is very much

1:26:28 Speaker 2 There’s a problem in Israel that many people don’t know about, and also abroad in Jewish communities. Sometimes, even if a Jew didn’t light the oven, someone says, “Well, after the fact, it’s fine. After all, halachah permits bread baked by non-Jews, and all the ingredients are fine.” But the Shulchan Aruch forbids it. The permission to buy bread baked by non-Jews applies when the owner is a non-Jew and the baker is a non-Jew. But if the baker is Jewish, you can’t use that permission. So you have to be very, very careful about this. There are places where a Jew lit the oven, but every time they open it—there are ovens that switch off when you open them—so they need to keep a burner lit inside the oven at all times, so it’s always heating. Because if an Arab puts in the bread and the oven turns on when he closes it, or he turns the oven on, you can’t say, “Well, after the fact, it’s not so bad; it’s bread baked by a non-Jew, which is permitted.” Not at all. The owner of this bakery is Jewish. There’s no permission here. The only one who offered some grounds for leniency was Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. He wanted to say there was a basis to permit it, but that view wasn’t really widely accepted.