פנורמה של הלכה 34

00:08 Speaker 1 Good evening. We'll start the shiur now. We'll start off with saying Tehillim, particularly, uh, for Sara Hinda, Bat Chana Chaya Mushka, for Sh- for Shlomo, We'll start with the Kapitel Chof. And we'll... And then we'll put in some , and then we'll start the shiur. Okay. So let's come to our shiur. And the first question we want to deal with is about Rabbeinu Tam's tefillin, Rashi's and Rabbeinu Tam's tefillin. And we have a, uh, loshon. On the right, you have a loshon of the Alter Rebbe. Before we read the loshon of the Alter Rebbe, the Mish-- The, the pasuk says, , that tefillin should be between your eyes. And we know that the Tzedukim, they took this literally, and they would have that tefillin between their eyes. And Halakha is not like that. Chazal learned from Sukkim, just like by Korcha, the issue of ripping out your hair in grief. It says, , and so you can't rip out hair on the forehead or in the, um, over here by the bridge of the nose because it's not a makom where hair grows, uh, in abundance. Therefore, we understand the, that the makom hatefillin ben eineicha is on the, above the hairline. So it's ben eineicha. But exactly how, where, uh, the, the, to be mamash on the center, that doesn't have a strong source in, in, in Halakha. There is actually very interesting. In the Levush, he says that the, the kesher of tefillin, there's a loshon Chazal neged ben eineicha. Now, it's a

02:44 Speaker 1 bit-- might be a bit surprising, but if you actually... If you'd take, look at a person standing ere-erect, the top of the neck, where the neck meets the skull, where the she-kesher rosh is, is the same level as your eyes. Your eyes are in the, uh, halfway, half the size of the skull or the, or the head. From the, from the chin till the, till the top of the skull. Halfway, that's where the eyes are. And the top of the neck is actually level to ben eineicha. So it's neged ben eineicha. So the m- Levush says mamash neged ben eineicha. That's, uh, but still that's, that's talking about the height, and that's talking about the kesher. About the, the placement of the tefillin, they have to be mamash in the middle, not a little bit to the s- one side, is not so evident. To the point that you have a ch- famous tshuva from the Tzanzer Rav in Divrei Chaim, where he says that people who use a mirror to see that the tefillin should be in the middle is li- He says it, um, it's, it's baisus. It's an ignorant behavior. And he supports this because it says in Gemara, when everybody had not, um, it said, "tefillin." So there's place for two tefillin. So he understood that the two tefillin are side by side. Obviously, we, uh, generally follow it the other way around. There's one be-behind the other. But it's not so strongly evid- there's not so strong evidence that

04:09 Speaker 1 the tefillin have to be in the center. And here we have the, the Alter Rebbe has a loshon, uh, emphasizing that tefillin have to be in the center. So let's read this insight. This is a loshon in the siddur. It's not in the Shulchan Aruch. It's in the siddur which the Alter Rebbe, uh, published, uh, in his lifetime, and it has a lot of chidushim in him. Sha'arei, oh, uh, what's the proof that the tefillin have to be mamash in the middle? Sha'arei, oh, because it says in pasuk-- Sorry, sha'arei, it says in Gemara. The two parshas of Kadish have to be on the right side. and the two parshas should be on the left side of a tefillin, the Rashi. In the tefillin, the Rashi, the way the parshas are, in the order as they appear in Torah, not like Rabbeinu Tam, which we'll discuss in a moment. There's only a, a, a mamash fraction of space between the left and the right. What is the gap between left and right? The groove of, in the, in the compartments of the tefillin. Therefore one has to be very careful. So let's take a look at the diagram, which I managed to, um, borrow from some, some sefer. And so we've got here a, a, a diagram showing the four parshas of a tefillin. Now, just to clarify, we've got those arrows at the top. et cetera. When we talk about from right to left, the-- we're following not the wearer, the right of the

05:54 Speaker 1 wearer, but the ri- the right of the one who's looking opposite, from, from opposite. So Kadish, so this is the, the... If you're looking at the, the, the tefillin- So you'll see Kadesh first, then VeHoye Ki Yeviya'ch. Then according to Rashi, it then goes on to Shema, and then it goes to VeHoye Mishomaya. Rabbeinu Tam says, Kadesh VeHoye Ki Yeviya'ch agrees with Rashi, but then Shema and then VeHoye Mishomaya. Shema is the outer parshah, and VeHoye Mishomaya is the inner one. So if you'd go in, in sequence, it'd go... it'd be one, two, four, three. Whereas according to Rashi, in the sequence as they appear in Torah, Kadesh VeHoye Ki Yeviya'ch is in parshah, it's Parshas Bo. Then Shema is in Parshas VaEschanan. VeHoye Mishomaya is Parshas Ekev. So it's in the sequence as it appears in Torah. So now the Alter Rebbe is looking at, at Rashi's tefillin, and he's saying, "We must say that the space which you have, the, the, the, um, the tefillin have to be mamash in the, in the, in this center." Why? So I, um, had written this and someone-- um, I want to clarify because it seems to be misunderstood. When we have this lashon, mi min and mi смоль. What does the word mi min mean? It can-- It's, uh, actually a bit ambiguous, and I, I believe that is the machloket between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam. Mi min can mean on the right or from the right. And mi смоль can mean on the left

07:37 Speaker 1 or from the left. And Rashi says, "Mi min means these two parshiot are on the right. Kadesh VeHoye Ki Yeviya'ch are on the right. Shema VeHoye Mishomaya are on the left." Now, the distance between your right and your left is a fraction. If these two parshiot have to be on the right of the person, and these two parshiot have to be on the left of the person, so what space do you have to play with? You only have the thickness of the, uh, of the leather, so to speak, which is-- and the, and the groove, really. Uh, Alter Rebbe says the chareitz. The groove which is between the two, which is mamash, uh, uh, halavai it would be a, a, a, even a millimeter. It's, it's less. It's a fraction. Okay. A kol ponim, not going into the thickness of the leather, but at least the parashiot. In some, the Alter Rebbe talks about the chareitz. But the parashiot, these have to be on the right. Rabbeinu Tam says, Shema VeHoye Mishomaya. He says, "We'll go-- We're gonna start from." Now, let's read. Kadesh mi min, from the right. We'll start from the right, and then we'll proceed inwards. Shema VeHoye Mishomaya, mi смоль will start from the left and proceed inwards. So according to Rabbeinu Tam, with-- so long as the Shema has started on the left, it's not imperative ev-evidently that VeHoye Mishomaya has to be on the right or on the left of the person. It can-- So long as you started,

09:09 Speaker 1 the Shema has been, has started on the left and Kadesh has started on the right, so then, then you're good. So that's what the Alter Rebbe is saying, that the evidence that the tefillin have to be mamash be'emesa is particularly according to Rashi. That's what he says, "B'tfilin deRashi." According to this, taka, it, it would, uh, follow that it's not so vital in Rabbeinu Tam's to have them be'emesa. It doesn't have to be broadly, but the, the, the, uh, to be so fussy about this may be there's room for a bit, a bit of leniency. Having said that, having understood the difference between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam and the evidence. But then we have this story of the Alter Rebbe when he was, he was, uh, in, when he was a, arrested. And he-- When the Alter Rebbe came to the cancelleria, he came into some, the office, the chancellor, chancellor, chan- I don't know what you call it, chancellery. Um, they started laughing because people had-- the accusation of the Alter-- against the Alter Rebbe was that he's trying to be a, uh, take place, overthrow the tsar. And they saw this, uh, this, uh, you know, fine, uh, uh, heilige Yid that didn't have any-- didn't look anything like a person designing to take over the, uh, the, the king, the tsar. Then he says the following: "Ha tallis vatfilin hoya beyodeh shel Admor Hazaken." The Alter Rebbe, he had in his hand, he had his, uh, his, uh, tallis and tefillin. "Vehizchil

10:35 Speaker 1 l'ha niach tefillin deRabbeinu Tam." As he's in, is, is-- as in the office there, he started putting Rabbeinu Tam's. "Ka'sheh iniach tefillin shel reish." When he put on these t-- his head tefillin. "Hehibit in ha dekhel fun a zilberne pushke." And he took out from his tallis bag, he had the lid of a silver, uh, box, a silver snuff box. "Im ha tefillin shel reish mechuben." He just checked to see that his tefillin are, the tefillin shel reish are, are accurately in the middle. "Ve'ot ha'reish el kano v'el ka." He looked this way and that way. "Iz der vos iz gishtanden lo hoya yochal leishav un der vos iz gezes lo hoya yochal lamit." The people were so entranced, whoever was standing couldn't sit. Those who couldn't sit, were sitting couldn't stand. "Veyomar Admor Hazaken," which says, "Ve'ro kol ha'am ha'aretz," um, she, uh, that it's, uh, the kolal tefillin shel reish. The Morah says, "The nations of the world will see the Yidden wearing the tefillin and they will be, be, um, uh, taken over by fear." "Hayinu shenitzov k'moine." They'll stand like a, like a bottle. "U'veert farglibt." They become like jelly. So a couple of-- just to add to the story. Um, number one is, what's this lid? So there's a story of a Hasid who wanted to give the Alter Rebbe a gift. So he gave him a s- a snuff box. And the Alter Rebbe would always speak in a sing-song. "There's one organ of a person which doesn't have

12:09 Speaker 1 a drive, doesn't have a passion." I must smell this one. You don't have-- You, you're hungry, you have a, you want, you want to taste food, you want to look at things, but the, the, the nose doesn't have a passion. I want to smell things. You enjoy it when it comes, but it's not as if you have a drive for it. So the Alter Rebbe says, "What? I'm the organ of a person, and now you want to stuff that one also with a patayva?" So he didn't want to use a snuff box. So then he took the lid. He pulled out the bar of the hinge, and he used the lid of the snuff box, he used it as to, to keep his tefillin, to check on his tefillin. But the Chidush is, this story is mentioned in the Kuntress, but here the Hashim is, it says it was Rabbeinu Tam's tefillin, which is not so well known. But just I'm bringing this story to show that the Alter Rebbe, despite the lamdus, which he just said, he was particular with the Rabbeinu Tam's also that they should be dafka in the middle. Then there's also another piece of information about this story. When the Hasidim asked the Alter Rebbe, "Why is it that we wear the tefillin and we don't see that this has this amazing effect on the Goyim around us?" The Alter Rebbe says, "The lotion of the Gemara is, tefillin sheberesh. It doesn't tefillin, it says tefillin sheal haresh. It's tefillin

13:15 Speaker 1 sheberesh. It's tefillin which are in the head." See, the tefillin are just a superficial thing. It may not have that effect. When it's, when it's beresh, which is in the head, so then it becomes part of you and it has that tremendous effect. So meanwhile, so just to summarize this point, that there is in Lamdus the proof that the tefillin have to be mamash in the middle to the point of having, of u-using a mirror to see that it's in the middle. That is, um, particularly from Rashi's tefillin. But l'maase, we also are noyhuk to be medayek with particular, uh, also in Rabbeinu Tam's, they should be in the middle as we see the story of the Alter Rebbe. Let's go on. Let's go on to our next point, and that is... Okay. Someone, um, I was checking a piece of, uh, an article, and it came up this week about the m- the article is, uh, actually on Chabad.org. Uh, they have a whole series on the Lammed Tes Melachos. So now they're on for kosiv and moche. The Melacha of, of writing and the Melacha of erasing. So as a practical example, it came up about, about, uh, eating biscuits or fruit or chocolate, let's say, which has writing on it. And just to tell you what, what caught my attention, that the, he, the article had-- the writer had written that to break a biscuit with your fingers is, uh, which has got writing, it shouldn't be done, but to put the

14:49 Speaker 1 whole thing in your mouth, uh, with the writing is okay. And here's his quoting from Rav Farkash. Rav Farkash has got a Sefer, a series now, a four-part in Shabbos Kohalacha. In volume Three, that's his conclusion. He's basing upon Rav Chaim Noah. But I'd, I'd like to go through this carefully. And so let's go first to the Shulchan Aruch. This is in Siman Shin Mem. That's Sif Gimel. It talks about erasing, uh, ink from a parchment. Then the Rashi writing, that's the Rama. Says the Rama, "Also, lishber ugos." You're not allowed to break on Shabbos, you're not allowed to break cookies. "She kasuvos alav kemin osios," which have writing on it. "Afal pi sheeino merabbe raklia laachilo," even though you're just interested in eating. "Dehavi moche." It's a form of erasing. You're era- By eating, by, by breaking the cookie with the writing, you're erasing. This is the Rama. This source is in the Mordechai, which I think is in the name of Maram Rotenburg. And it, it seems to be related. I may have mentioned it not too f- long ago, where they would do the Hachnosas Lacheder, and they would do it on Shavuos. And it was an issue of giving the children. You know, when you bring your children to the cheder, they have tsukim on the, on a cake. And so it came up, they're bringing the children to the Hachnosas Lacheder on, uh, on Shavuos, and they're giving the children the cakes which have got the writing on it. But

16:20 Speaker 1 meanwhile, that's-- Well, are you interested in the writing or not? So meanwhile, Maram Rotenburg is saying, the Rama is saying, "You shouldn't break a cookie even though you're just interested in eating." So to explain. With the children by Hachnosas Lacheder, they have a kavana that the child should eat a ch- a, a cake which has, has a stick of pasuk. So there's a kavana, it's a zula to have that, that pasuk on the cake. Um, but here it could be stam. Now, he said, "Even if you're, you're not interested in the writing." And he still, he says, "It's moche." By erasing the writing. So we have the Melacha in HaTorah is, um, the Melacha in HaTorah is moche, um, moche, uh, al manas lichotev, to clear space to write. And then moche shelo al manas lichotev, to erase with no intention of writing. It's obviously not also in HaTorah, but here that he says, the Marama says it's also Midrabanel. We go then further. Then the next thing beneath that is a quote from the Magen Avraham. He's quoting from Maharah HaLevi. He says like this. "Ve'osasav oyd shom de davka keshe kosmin al ha'ugos osios midovar acher." The objection is only when the material of the script is a different material to the cookie, like icing on a cake. "Avo keshe hakesivo hi mei ha'uga atsmo." But if the writing is part and parcel of the material of the cake itself, in other words, gr- engraved or embossed, it makes no difference. "Betfus oy

17:54 Speaker 1 be odayim." Important point. Betfus, which means you're using a, a mold to bang on it, and that creates probably engraved. Oy be odayim, you can pops, pats, pinch it to create a, a, uh, letters. Shori. He says, says the Magen Avraham, from the Maharah HaLevi, that's okay. It's not... That's not a problem. That's why people do eat on Shabbos and Yom Tov cookies which have got designs, which have pictures. Before we go further, uh, we learn, talking a bit of Chassidus here. What's stronger, or ? Engraved lettering or wr-writing with ink. So we learn in Chassidus, from the Lubavitcher Rebbe, that is a stronger writing than . So how can you come up with a to say that engraved letters in the cookie is less than, uh, than, than if they were written with, with icing, with a s- with different material? And the explanation is poshut. Man, I agree that engraved li- writing is a stronger form of writing, but we're not talking about , we're talking about . And we're saying, if you're allowed to eat the cookies and then person will say, "See, oh, well, I erased this writing. You might c- come to erase other writing." The temptation, the likelihood of erasing is much closer than coming to erase . So that could be the which he's saying o- for what he's saying here. That because... Yeah, we, we, we, we're saying don't eat the icing on a cookie, the writing o- on a, on a cake because it's . No.

19:49 Speaker 1 If there's icing which says on it... W- With, with chocolate icing on a white surface, let's say, there's more of a concern of . It looks more like to y- to, uh, to, um, rewrite on the surface. Engraved letters is less likely. Pos- Possibly might be other . Be that as it may, this is the Shulchan. This is the Rama. This is the Magen Avraham. Lower down, for me, it's a bit of a struggle to read. I hope you can. It's in the Shulchan Aruch we have the mar-- on the margin, we have comments from the Noi de Bihuda, and his comments are under the name Dogal Mirvovo. He's got various parts of Shulchan Aruch. And so he writes the following. It's part of a long note, but this is the part which I want to focus on. He brings various for eating these cookies, and he introduces a new concept. If you're not breaking the cookie with your fingers, with your hands, you're just putting it in your mouth and eating it. So that for sure should be okay, should be permitted. Because it's erasing with no intention of writing. So he says that's okay. He has a whole discussion earlier where the applies by . Let's not get into it. So meanwhile, we've seen here, the Rama says not to break the cookies when you're eating them. The Magen Avraham brings us to differentiate between and . The Noi de Bihuda in, in Dogal Mirvovo, he want... He sugges- He introduces, if you're

21:36 Speaker 1 eating it, , it's okay. All right. Let's now move over to the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch. This is also in Siman Ayin Mem, so that's on the left of the page. The Alter Rebbe writes, . Erasing with no intention of writing is also . That's why you're not allowed to break a piece of cake which has got write-- letter on it, uh, letters on it. Even though you're just not interested in writing, you just want to eat. Then he says, , and give it to a child because the child is doing it . You don't have to be . Okay. So what's, what's, um, what's is, is, is very remarkable. The Alter Rebbe, as a general policy, which we could say he saw himself as a Melakhit to a large degree, to collate the Poskim before him, the words of the Poskim before him. Particularly, we know that he had a special, um, respect for the Magen Avraham. So he writes the words for almost verbatim of the Rama. We have a problem of breaking the urah, the cookie, which, um, and y- eating it with the writing, so it's a . Then he doesn't mention that there's a difference between engraved writing and not engraved writing. So he's ignored that, that, that, that, uh, that change, that comment of the Magen Avraham has been ignored by the Alter Rebbe. So I'm sure many of those who are listening know, uh, the Rosh Yeshiva in Melbourne called Rabbi Yomen Cohen. So when he was a

23:23 Speaker 1 young man, so he was analyzing this Halakha, and he wrote up a , the fact that the Alter Rebbe doesn't bring the distinction between engraved lettering or, uh, or, or separate, you know, with, with ink, with, with icing is a proof that the Alter Rebbe disagrees and rejects this distinction. He wrote it into the Rebbe. And now on the lower part of this page, on the screen, you can see here, this is a quote from Rabbi Cohen's kuntras, Yismach Yisroel, where he writes this down. And he had mentioned this to the Rebbe, and the Rebbe... And the Rebbe answers him, . The Alter Rebbe is almost word for word from the Rebbe. Now, this is the very surprising piece. There's numerous places. There are many places where the Tas-- the Mag-Magen Avraham, these classic commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch, they make distinctions, and the Alter Rebbe doesn't quote their distinctions. Look at that. The Rebbe says, "I'm, I'm, I'm baffled, perhaps. I don't know. What's are the rules? Uh, what's the reasons?" But the Rebbe rejects this kind of approach. That because the Alter Rebbe didn't bring it, is that I, he doesn't agree. So could be, even though the Alter Rebbe doesn't bring the distinction between engraved or, or not, could be he does agree with it. He, perhaps he does it, does, does go along with it. That, that's, that's as far as we can read in Shin, Shin, Shin Mem. The problem is, though, that this comes up in those who have

25:25 Speaker 1 recently learned Gemara Pesachim, will know that there's a discussion in Gemara Pesachim about making matzahs. And there was a question of making designs on the matzahs. And there's also, he brought the Alter Rebbe Shuchan Aruch and Siman Taf Nun Ches. There used to be a minhag of making a, a, a, a, uh, mark on the matzah. This is the Kohen matzah, this is the Levi matzah, and this is the Israel matzah. They'd have markings on the matzahs. Now, the Rebbe talks about it, but he says that don't make those markings with letters. Because, uh, because it's-- then there's gonna be a issue of eating the matzahs. It's gonna be, uh... All right. So we s- so there we see, although the matzah is obviously engraved writing, and he still has a problem with it. So although from Shin Mem, it's not so evident. All right. So he-- the Alter Rebbe looks like, from Huchas Pesach, that he holds that, that the distinction of engraved writing or not engraved writing makes no difference. So then we have, what's the other heter? So we just said that the mo- the mo- the Nogea Behuda says there's a difference whether you're eating or not. Okay, so now let's go on to our next quote. Okay. Um, here in Siman Shin Mem Gimel, it's talking about Chinuch and giving a child non-kosher food. And the Alter Rebbe opens Sif Yud in saying that is only about food or other Issurim. Uh, if it's a Issur like Chametz and Pesach,

27:04 Speaker 1 which is a Issur of food, which has got to do with. «Avel mutar liten l'tinok b'Shabbos chafotzim sh'yochel laasot bahem melacha le'atzmo.» You are allowed to give a child something which he would do a melacha with. Now, "Af illu im yadu a she yaseh bahem." And he says an example. "K'goen liten l'tinok ugos she ksuvim aleiha oisis she oso leochlo b'Shabbos." He says you're not allowed to eat it on Shabbos. So whereas in Shin Mem Gimel, he had said, "Osei l'shovrah," but here it says, "Oso leochlo." And I looked up the Mordechai where the whole source, the source of this whole thing says, it talks about ochlo. So although the Rama uses the words of lishbeh, of breaking, but we're seeing earlier and later that the Issur is-- it doesn't matter whether it's breaking before eating or during or, or, or eating it, putting it in your mouth. There doesn't seem to be a difference, at least according to the Alter Rebbe. Again, the Nogea Behuda does make that distinction, and the, the Mishnah Berurah therefore follows him, but the Alter Rebbe doesn't seem to buy that distinction. So what, what we're remaining with is that we would not make a difference between Oisis of Chiki or not. We wouldn't make a difference between a Derech Achilah or not. And actually, I, I don't see any logic at all. I actually wrote to Rav Farkash, and he apologized that it's ten years ago since he wrote this, uh, piece of, uh, Halacha. Uh, give me

28:36 Speaker 1 an explanation. What's the difference if, if the Alter Rebbe does not bring the n- the, the Nogea Behuda? What's the difference whether I, I, uh, break the cookie in my mouth or out of my mouth? I don't see any difference. If we s-- and on the contrary, you could-- if you put that piece of chocolate in your mouth, it's got written on it, "Kamil Bloch," and then it's engraved, yeah. Engraved, embossed, it doesn't matter. Then you take it out after... And, and, and, and Kamil Bloch is, i- has gone, uh, Keder Chalales. So, uh, you see, so you, you've erased the writing, and then you've now got a blank piece of chocolate. Kapom, I don't see any, uh... And actually, the-- I'm, I would like to just add, which I've given you a reference to on the sheet, that you also have another very great Talmid Chacham in Lubavitch by the name of Rebbe Levin. He published a series of Sfarim, Tusfa, Tusfarim called Shiurei Halacha Lamaisor. And he goes through this. I mean, he's the, uh, you know, the editor of the new edition of the Alter Rebbe's Shuchan Aruch. And, uh, he goes through this, and he comes to the same conclusion. There's no difference between eating. According to Alter Rebbe. Of course, there are other Po- Po- Poskim, but we're talking about, uh, the Alter Rebbe. I don't see any difference between writing on a, um, piece of chocolate that you put in your mouth at once or, or, uh, or a

29:55 Speaker 1 biscuit which you break in your hand. Okay. Um, I once had a-- which I want to share with you. Someone's writing about Rov Poskim. I had once a bit of a, a challenge from Reb Yossel Patras, a He said to me, he asked me, "How come that Lubavitch Poskim like the Re-- Alter Rebbe sometimes is against Rov Poskim?" So the Alter Rebbe is a Das Yochid. So how do you Poskim like a Das Yochid and like an individual against the majority? So he said, "He's a Yochid, but Rabim tsrichim lei." He's a Yochid, but there's a Rabim, there's a Rabim who are dependent upon him. He, he, uh, he quoted, he quoted it afterwards. He liked it. Okay. Let's go on to our next question. Okay. Uh, here's a interesting question. A family, this quite-- this is a question from someone overseas. They're going on holiday, and they found a place, a nice cottage, which has an open-air swimming pool. And they, uh, from families, they're not gonna have a s- s- a mixed men and women session, swimming session. They're gonna have separate times. The men will swim separately, the women will sw-swim separately, the girls, whatever. The only problem is, because it's an open-air pool, well, there, there's a neighbor. There's a neighbor, and he says the neighbor-- Actually, in my la-last conversation, I didn't give him an answer in a, in a rush because it's, uh, a great Sukkis here. He says a neighbor could look with a pair of binoculars. It's

31:27 Speaker 1 not like a neighbor from the, you know, uh, two floors up. He's so far, the neighbor's so far, if he would look through a binoculars, he'll be able to see, um, more detail. So what is the question here? I'm doing-- I'm go-- I'm, I'm, I want to have, I want to have a, uh, I want to go swimming in my own pool, in my own premises, and there may be someone snooping on me. Am I allow-- Am I exposing myself, um, you know, or, you know, I mean, legitimately, or is it wrong what I'm doing? That's really the question. So I, uh, looked around, and this is what I found. Actually, there's a few Seferim which are specialized on holiday-making. There's a Sefer called Vahibon Soya. There's a Sefer called HaHalich Bamitecha. There's a s-s-- another one. I, I have a couple of Sefer in the bottom shelf. They don't comment on this. It's interesting. They don't make any comment. I mean, I was in Italy, and I was driving up the coast from the Australian place till the airport. Hadn't been in Mikvah for, for a couple of days. We stopped off, and we used the sea. Um, well, how, uh, what are the parameters for such a thing? So there we go. So here we have, the only place I could find was in the Dinim of Beis Hakesef in, uh, in Siman Gimel, the Alter Rebbe of Shuchan Aruch and Shuchan HaLevi. It's all the same. There are, there no, no, not

32:44 Speaker 1 much difference. If a person, um, is relieving himself in a Makom Megula, in a exposed place, so Tzarich Lehisrachik, he has to be so distant that Shelo Yuchal Chavero Lirot Et Peruai. That he should be so distant that s-someone else should not see his being exposed. Ma SheMegala B'Basaroi L'Fanov Hai Melacha. That which he reveals when he needs to relieve himself. VeEin Tzarich Lehisrachik Yotzeh SheLo Yiduen. But he doesn't have to be totally out of sight. So what we're seeing here is that there is a degree of exposure which is permitted in a, um, in the, in the circumstances. The fact that someone from far away could see a general profile but not see detail, that seems to be acceptable. So I think certainly the story with, uh, the fellow being able to see only with a binoculars, I think that's-- I don't, I don't think that's, that's a reason not to, uh, use the, the swimming pool in this case. Okay. Um, someone mentions about the Midrashim about Dovid and Bat Sheva. I want to share with you. Since you mentioned that, a Moed de Kevod. It says, I think, the Zohar. "Lechol Levadcha Chotasi Vehara Beeinecha Afsisi. Lema'an Titzzak Bedovrecha Tizkeh Beshovtecha." Says the Zohar that Dovid was like the court jester. The Aibishter, he had said, "Bechoneni Hashem Venaseini," test me. And the Aibishter said to him, "It's not a good idea. Don't expose yourself to be tested." Afu Piken. So the Aibishter send him a test. So Dovid, he thinks like

34:44 Speaker 1 this: If I will withstand the test, I will be right, and Hashem will be wrong. So instead, he succumbs, and he fails the test that Hashem should be right, and he should be wrong. Lechol, and, and we know the story in the Gemara. It says, "Kol Ha'eme Dovid Chata El Netoya," because there was a get in, um, you know, Kol Ha'eme Beis Dovid. There was a get in place. There wasn't a, an, an act of adultery, but it was still obviously immoral, et cetera. So he says, "Lechol Levadcha Chotasi." Not, I didn't, I didn't violate someone else's wife. "Lechol Levadcha Chotasi," because there was a get in place. "Vehara Beeinecha Afsisi. Lema'an Titzzak Bedovrecha." That you, Rebbe Yisroel, that you should be right, and I should be wrong. So it states in Zohar, and it says, "Dovid Bedicha DeMalcha Hava." He was like the court jester. And so Akapanim, that was a side comment. Let's go on. So someone asked me a question. Again, I don't remember where it was from. But is there a preference-- Actually, it was from France. Um, is there a preference to have a haircut from a Yiddish barber? So even in Stamford Hill, there's a shortage of Jewish barbers. Baruch Hashem, one of-- actually, one of our Ingalite has, uh, do-does offer this service. So if someone wants to have a haircut in Stamford Hill, ask me separately, and I'll, uh, introduce you to our Ingaliman who, who is happy to do it for you. Okay. So now this

36:18 Speaker 1 is a quote from the Nittei Gavriel. He has a whole Sefer about Opsher. So he says, "Min Hadin," you are allowed to have a haircut by a Goy. But according to Kabbalah, one shouldn't have a haircut by a Goyishe barber because it removes from him the Tzelem Elokim. I don't understand what those words mean, but that's okay because it's from Kabbalah, and I don't purport to understand everything Ka-Kabbalah. He quotes here from the Kaf HaChaim, quoting from the Mishnas Chassidim. Mishnas Chassidim was one of the, like, uh, uh, a Mekubal. Not direct. He was like a, should we say, an Einikol or Or Einikol, so to speak, of the Arizal, Rabinu HaChay-HaChayiki. And the Alter Rebbe has very-- He, he sees the Mish-Mishnas Chassidim. He says, Alter Rebbe has a, is quoted as saying, "Everything which he says is from the PR Arizal." So Mishnas Chassidim has it that one shouldn't have a haircut from a Goy, et cetera. So we have here a, a Hidur, of course. Um- I once had a shailah. I'm going to digress for a moment. I had a shailah, a shliach. He, uh, asks me-- He's somewhere in, in some Midwest in America, and he says, "What do I do about..." He was a Shnas HaVeis leader, rachmanu l'tzlan. And, um, there's a shiur that after you look, uh, until someone says, "You look, you look, you look like a, like a tramp." So he says, uh, "In my place, it's 」。What's a short, a short haircut. Like, yeah,

37:47 Speaker 1 this is the normal to have long hair. So I told him that it doesn't mean your, your mishpochim in the Beis Chabad. Your is your colleagues, your peers, your chaverim who you learned together with in seven 70. Those are your chaverim, and if you would look like a tramp in their eyes, that's the heter for you. So coming back to our point that, uh, okay, if he... I, I presume he would have to have a haircut by a Goyshe barber because there's no Yiddishe barbers around there. Let's move on. This I got-- Someone knocked on the door on Motzaei Shabbos. Um, someone, and he said he had made or heard Havdalah, but he hadn't daven Ma'ariv. Does he have to say, um, At Chachalatanu in Ma'ariv, which is going to daven after Havdalah. So in other words, he's, he's Havdalah-ed already. Does he still have to do Havdalah again at davening? So it's a mufrah. I told him r-right away that he does have to. But afterwards, I, uh, wanted to look it up, and I'm, I'm sharing it with you. So here we have from Alter Rebbe Shulchan Aruch, and that's Siman Res Chad in Daled. The one who makes Havdalah, uh, on a cup of wine before davening Ma'ariv. He still has to say At Chachalatanu in Shemoneh Esreh. The original zakona was to make Havdalah in, in davening. And therefore, although you made Havdalah later, they were, were more, uh, comfortable or were able to afford to make a Havdalah and a

39:22 Speaker 1 cup of wine, but that doesn't detract from the original zakona. The original institution was to make Havdalah in davening, to say At Chachalatanu. So even if you said Havdalah with a cup of wine, you still say At Chachalatanu in, uh, in Shemoneh Esreh. The next piece is actually quite, uh, interesting. If a person, for some reason, overslept and he did not daven Ma'ariv or Motzaei Shabbos, and therefore Shacharit, he's gonna say two Shemoneh Esres. So the second Shemoneh Esreh is gonna be the compensation for Ma'ariv. So he would have to say At Chachalatanu in that second Shemoneh Esreh. Let's move on. Right. So here's another, uh, discussion which I had this week about , at Tachnun. How does it work? So now we have here in the-- This is, this is in Siman Kuf Lamed Alef in Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, the dinim of Tachnun. Now, this is a quote from the Rambam, actually. After the nefilah of the prostrating oneself, which we do by, um, lowering our head over our arms, um, right or left arm, whatever, Shacharit, Mincha. After nefilas apayim, you raise your head. You, you, your, your face was down, and now you raise your head. And then you will say a bit of supplications while seated. Fine. So we say Tachnun, nefilas apayim, sit up, say a few phrases, and then we stand up, I presume. Doesn't say how much, what to say while you're seated. And I have a problem with this, by the way. What do you do on

41:13 Speaker 1 Mondays and Thursdays? Because right after you-- nefilas apayim, you stood up for Vehu Rachum, and that's actually very strong emphasis. In written Shulchan Aruch, very strong words, that Vehu Rachum has to be said standing. Um, in Vehu Rachum, there are inyonim which are greater than some stuff which we say on Yomim Noraim. It's said every Monday or Thursday, therefore, people don't give, give it the full seriousness or, or attention. Vehu Rachum is a very exalted prayer. That I, I, I don't have an answer to. I heard that Rav Sholom Arzov used to, at the end of Vehu Rachum, he would sit down for, for Avinu Malkeinu hakotzer. But Rov annash, I have never, never seen this, and including the Rebbe, we didn't see him doing it either. Okay. Having said that, now Magen Avraham. Here we've got the Magen Avraham. It looks like tach-- nefilas apayim is said quietly. And now you say, "Vanachnu l'neida, ma'aseh," aloud. But then the Shulchan Aruch quotes from an earlier source. He says-- He doesn't give an explanation. I looked it up in the, in Shulchan Aruch. That the words, "Vanachnu l'neida," are said seated. "Ma'aseh" is said standing. Okay. So here, like we had before with the cookies, here we have a similar situation. We've got a Shulchan HaRamol, and we've got a comment of the Magen Avraham. And this comment is not brought in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch. So it's the, it's the same situation. We're gonna read the Alter Rebbe in a moment. And I

43:02 Speaker 1 want to say is that in the Kol Sidur, the annotated edition, it was included in the instructions, this bit about van-- to rise by Vanachnu l'neida ma'aseh. It was right. I don't remember the detail, but it's, it's mentioned over there. One of our Managed to read a bit of English, I guess. And he said, "Where'd they get this from? The Alter Rebbe doesn't bring it." Held Rebbe that also in the Chabad Siddur, which has got lots of notes. I find it actually very, um, disturbing to have... As you're davening, you've got all those notes at the bottom. I'm sure you get used to it after a while, to ignore the things. I mean, you ignore , so why should you be worried about a couple notes at the bottom? Um, but, but in Chabad Siddur, they also write that the Rebbe would rise at this point. they would rise at . So now let's read the Alter Rebbe. and this, as I said, is the of the Rambam. After having had your face down, you raise your hea-head up, and you continue saying a bit of Tachananum seated. it's word for word from the Rambam. Now, . It's common to say the . Now, h- I, I, I'm gonna ask you, is he saying that the Minchah Poshet is to say seated, or is he saying it's a Minchah to say that Poshet? Now, let's read further and, and, uh, uh, at first it looks like it. You mention, say, say , and you say

44:43 Speaker 1 it was Poshet, Minchah to say the Poshet . But let's read further. What's the Remez in the Poshet ? What's happened? We've davened in all different formats. we've been davening seated, as in, I believe, Birkat Keriat Shema. we've been davening standing. we've prostrated ourselves. I was seated. And it's interesting, the Alter Rebbe doesn't bring , which is brought in the earlier sources. and I fell, I prostrated before Hashem. So we are emulating. Seating, sta- seated, standing, prostrating. we have no... We've tried all different, different postures. So we declare we don't, we don't know, we, you know, we've done what we can. That is all, as much as we know. That is why we're saying the Poshet. So what-- Having now read it, I think it's not coming to say that the has to be said seated. He's saying why we're saying , because we've tried these different positions. Now, back to the Minchah, which the, the, uh, Shalo quotes. Yeah, there is a, something which said seated and said seated. Um, and in addition to what you were before, you were seated by Keriat Shema. And you were standing. So now in this Poshet also, you've got the variations of seating and standing. Maskim. So, so coming back, having read the answer of the Rebbe to Rabbi Cohen, the fact that the Alter Rebbe doesn't quote this-

46:36 Speaker 2 That's the answer to Monday and Thursday.

46:38 Speaker 1 S- no, it's not... That, that, that still remains a take for the moment. Meanwhile, what I'm saying is, the fact the Alter Rebbe doesn't bring this distinction of the, this extra, extra, uh, you know, which the Shalo quoted the Mogan Avrohom, that we don't follow it. That's the answer which the Rebbe said to Rabbi, Rabbi Cohen. The fact that Alter Rebbe doesn't bring something, it doesn't mean he doesn't agree. And the vort is then, then we say that the, and, and the puyul we saw came by Kodesh Hazeh Sicha, and the Rebbe was knowing to do it. And therefore, that's good enough for me to say that that is, uh, the correct Minchah. And it's-- Why should the Chabad davka be... I mean, it's enough with things where we're different to have Minhag Olam. We follow Minhag Olam. Right. So now I see here on the chat, a later Lubavitch Siddur states not on Monday and Thursday. This cannot be due to the order even on other days. Right. And Nusach Ashkenaz, they, they, they have a different order. For them, it's easy to work this out. And then in the, the Rabbi Yaakov Emden siddur, he says that the first part of Uricham is said standing, and then you've got the piyut of . He says from that point, you should be seated. So that's how he's Mekayem the Inyan of the . But as I... Again, Mais... We have Maase Rav. We see what we, the Minchah has been. And, and Ruba KeKula

48:06 Speaker 1 from Anash have, do not sit down after Uricham. So that is the Minchah at least in Chabad. It, it's fallen away. Fine.

48:17 Speaker 2 Dayan.

48:19 Speaker 1 Go on.

48:19 Speaker 2 As, as you said, we-- Even the Inyan is lav davka to sit and stand by Vaanachnu LeNeida. We're saying we've already sat down by-

48:30 Speaker 1 No. Sure

48:30 Speaker 2 ... that time. We stood up by, by Uricham, and we don't know what to do else.

48:35 Speaker 1 Yeah. But-- Right. But then we've got this Mogan Avrohom by Shem HaShalo, that there is a Minchah-

48:40 Speaker 2 Uh.

48:40 Speaker 1 By those words of Anachnu LeNeida to say seated and Maanasah to stand up, and so we follow that.

48:45 Speaker 2 That, that-

48:46 Speaker 1 Yeah. All right. Let's move on. Um, difficult question. A woman, uh, tells me that-- She writes to me that her aunt lived to 98. She had for many years, she had a non-Jewish carer, very devoted. And the cousin, the daughter of this aunt, had a, a weakness for gambling, and she was constantly in need of money, and she would go to this carer. And the c- this non-Jewish carer lent her more and more money. And now that the aunt has passed away, I guess there's an estate. And so now the au- the aunt is, uh, the... Sorry, the carer wants her money back. It's, uh, quite a substantial sum, several thousand euros. And, uh, the borrower is this, uh, as people nebech with addictions, is, is trying to get out of paying. And the, the, uh, the carer is going to this lady who had asked me. She says, "You know. You were involved. You saw." And, um, she wants her to support her in court, et cetera, to get the, um, to get the, uh, the cousin, the, the, the borrower to pay what she's owed. So this, she's asking what should be done. And so it is a difficult question because you're testifying for... Be, be supporting a goy against the Yid, uh, in court, but you know that the goy is, is, is, is, is the honest, is the, uh, is the honest cause in the case. So I've got here a quote from Piskei Choshen, and he's quoting here from various

50:20 Speaker 1 sources, and he says about the union of Kiddush Hashem, and he writes the following. He's quoting here from Beis HaGolah, uh, which is, uh, from Rabbi Moshe Rifka's on the Magen and the Shulchan Aruch. And then he writes the following: "It's a very widespread demonic that the Anshei HaKahal Omdim Al Hamishmar, that the people who are kind of in charge of the community will be on guard and alert not to allow people to dis-to deceive, uh, the people of the other nations, the Goyim, the Gentiles, and they would, they would announce and give permission to publicize the names of people who borrow, who take on credit or borrow and have no intention of paying." and what I said to her is, "If you don't testify, then actually you are accomplice to the dishonest behavior of your cousin." And, of course, she, she's concerned that, that, that her, her relationship with her cousin has been strained all these years, and if she testifies against her, that will obviously make it much harder to ever reconcile. But on the other hand, I felt actually it would be a Chilul Hashem if she would turn around and say, "I can't come. I can't testify," because, uh, uh, she's... The, the person says, "You are an honest person. I was... And, and there is money in the estate, um, and I'm entitled to be repaid." And, uh, so I felt that she is actually obliged to, to cooperate with this. Right. Um, finally, we have another couple of minutes.

52:02 Speaker 1 Almost our last question here is about tzedakah funds. And so the Speis Chabad are-- have a view for the future to, to set up a building. Meanwhile, they have... For their running costs, they have enough. So they're putting aside-- they're going to put aside funds for a future building project. What are the now about investment? Now, when you go to invest money, you are given the options of high risk, low risk, medium risk. And so what's the story? So first of all, of the overall principle, is it a-a-appropriate to invest tzedakah money rather than spending it, um, on good things now? So here we have a la-letter of the Rebbe. In answer to your letter from your Gimel Teves. This is actually the year where I was born. I was born in Alef Teves that year, and that's your Gimel Teves. Um, . You're asking my, uh, my, uh, um, my opinion about distributing the money of tzedakah or make a long-standing, uh, fund, which in other words, which will pay dividends, et cetera. So the Rebbe writes, "Generally, it's more correct to distribute the money because then all the money will be used in, you know, bepo'al. As Chazal say, the Ribono gives a person a opportunity to do a mitzvah, and one shouldn't delay doing so. In your case, um, it would be you're talking about, uh, creating a fund and only the profits of the fund will be used for good things." So the Rebbe seems to be, uh, more encouraging to

53:41 Speaker 1 use the money now for good things. And, uh, w-what we understand very clearly is the Rebbe saw-- sees investment in nefashos. And so you've got here people. If you spend the money now, you'll be able to own, whether it's hafitza, whether it's chinuch, et cetera. You're going to invest in people. So instead of having the money invested in the bank and paying dividends, you'll, you'll bring more people into Yiddishkeit. Okay, so that's, that's, that's if there was the option of spending, of, of spending it now, then that would be... But here it's, here it's clearly for a building fund, which is a different story. It's clearly for long-term. So then we're back to our question, high risk or low risk? So here we have, uh, in Shulchan Aruch, it's talking about funds which belong to orphans, and then if besting would employ a, um, commission someone to be an apotrupis, which means a guardian. And he writes here, um, she'yin. That the probabilities should be that it's likely to be profitable and far from being-- c-coming to a loss, coming, reaching to a loss. So perhaps it's not totally correct, but I think the high risk is-- means that there is a . So my impression is, I, I might be wrong, and I haven't got, uh, better sources than this. My impression was that it's not your funds, it's tzedakah funds, and, uh, it should be u-it should be put in low, perhaps maximum medium risk, but not in high risk because, uh, you

55:34 Speaker 1 say it should be . Um, that's my impression. But if someone who listens to this later will get back to me, I'll share with you the information next time around. But meanwhile, I wish you all a, uh, a Gutten, a Gutten Nacht and a Guten Shabbos and, uh, .