ויקהל תשפ״ב

00:00 A good to all of you. Usually, we have a couple of listeners from the Ukraine. I'm not sure whether they are listening or not, but I would like to record this message, um, to them. I mean, a message. The following. I've been thinking about, you know, Hal of Shabbos davening, and we all pray that they should come through this crisis safely. I read recently a, a, a, uh, description of the Rebbe coming back from the Ohel. In the later years, and the one who-- he was inside in the corridors near the Rebbe's room, and the Rebbe came in, and he looked like an ol-old man. He looked frail, exhausted, and with the bags under the-- the genus. Then half an hour later, the Rebbe went out to davening, whatever it was. A short while later, the Rebbe came out, and the Rebbe, Rebbe looked alert and, and, and, uh, vigorous. A c-a c- a whole, uh, a total change. And what I would like to say to, you know, my dear friends i-in Ukraine, the Fluchim, you are there not for yourselves. You are there to support Yiddishkeit, and that was the reason for your decision to remain despite the, uh, the challenging mo-moments. And I-- we fully understand there will be moments of, of, uh, feeling frail and exhausted and wondering what you're doing there. But when you go out to the people, you pull together your strength to be, uh, the source of encouragement and, uh, guidance because that's what you're there for.

02:10 And Shilu Hamitzvei, you're there for a Mitzvah mission, and therefore you have the protection. Be'ezrat Hashem, you shall be protected, but also all those... I mentioned this before, my uncle, Label, or ask another Bashelo when he was in Morocco, uh, for forty years on Shlichas. And there were very tense moments because whatever happened in Eretz Yisroel with the, uh, Palestinians would have its, uh, repercussions in, in Morocco. And there many-- there were times where people would ga-gather to his house or to the Beis Chabad and saying, "You're Shlich of the Rebbe, you'll be protected. We want to take protection in your, in your, uh, in your shadow," so to speak. So Be'ezrat Hashem, you should all be protected, uh, and come through this, this crisis, uh, Ad Mehera, uh, as I said, be-gufom, be-nafshom, be'me-moynom, uh, in, in good health. Uh, I'll go on to the Shiur now, and it's difficult to co-focus on this, but we have to continue life as, as well as we can. Okay. So last week, there were, uh, a-abnormal winds in, uh, United Kingdom, and somewhere up north, we got two Yiddish neighbors. And Reuven's tree fell into his neighbor Shimon's garden. In doing so, it smashed the fence. So that's the first thing. There's a fence to be repaired. Meanwhile, though, there's a whole tree filling up, uh, uh, Shimon's garden. Who is responsible? So Reuven went to some Lamda Shiur, Rosh Yeshiva, et cetera, and asked him, is he liable for the damage? So it's actually interesting

04:04 that, uh, the civil law might be different, the Havdil, but the Halakha is that if you cause damage in a way that it was beyond your control, it was a oynes, then generally the, the rule is that you are potter. I actually, I was browsing a little bit Shevu'ot. Um, I'm not sure whether that is if you even c-- uh, even if the, in the premises of the nizik of the victim. But let's say the, uh, that because Reuven had no reason to expect that the tree, his tree would cause damage to Shimon, so he's a oynes in this. Now, anyone who's learned a bit of Gemara knows a story of someone walking down the road carrying a, a barrel of wine, let's say, on his, on his shoulder, and he trips, and the barrel falls off his, uh, shoulder onto the floor. And then someone else walks past and trips over and hurts himself on the broken shards of the barrel. So is Reuven responsible for the damage caused by the shards? So we'll read this Halakha in Shulchan Aruch. So this is in Tofyot Beis. So as we have on the screen, "Mishe Hoyo Toan Kad," someone is carrying a jug, pitcher, whatever. "Venitkal Venus Bar Hakad," and he tripped, and the jug broke. "Veizik La'cherim," and it caused damage to others. "B'shas Nefilah," as it fell off his shoulder, it causes damage. "Choter." That is he is, um, not liable for that damage. "DeNitkal Lav Poyshei Hi," having tripped, you can't call

05:54 him reckless. It was beyond his control. "LaFicha," however, that is the initial damage at the moment of the falling. But what about the shards? If once the shards are on the floor, another person got hurt by those shards, or the water, uh, was, which was spilled from this jug, from this, uh, barrel, was unexpected and the person slipped up on that water. So now we're not talking about... The first thing was about the actual initial damage. Now we're talking about the shards or the, the spill. So, then he is exempt. It doesn't, he's not liable. Because he can say, "Listen, the, the, the water and the shards, I don't lay any claim to them," and therefore, he doesn't have to... He's not liable for that damage. However, however, Midina Shemaim, he does have a liability to clear away those shards and take responsibility for the consequential damage which those shards may have caused. So again, so coming back to our example, when Reuven's tree has now fallen to Shimon's garden. So its very presence, never mind someone tripping over, its very presence is already a damage. And therefore, we see although possibly Midina Odom it won't be liable in the Beis Din, but certainly Midina Shemaim, he does have a liability to, uh, well, the consequential damage therefore. But, uh, it makes sense to me that he certainly has a, a, a responsibility to clear away that tree. At least Midina Shemaim. Someone, the person who showed it to... Asked me this question also sent

08:05 me a reference to Chaznish in Cheshed Mishbit, Rababa Basasim Yud Dalet, where he takes actually a position that even Midina Odom, he, even in Beis Din, they would oblige him to clear away the, um, the, uh, the debris, et cetera. I want to then approach it from another, a very interesting angle. I mentioned this, um, I mentioned this to, in my Shiur on, uh, one evening, the Gemara Shiur, and one of the Balabatim says, "What happened to insurance?" So now here's a very interesting question. Let's say Reuven is not liable, Apidin. So Shimon's now got a damage. It's gonna cost him to bring in a company to take away that tree. It'll cost him a couple hundred pounds. So Shimon will call in his insurance. Insurance says, "Yeah, sure. Yeah. Uh, whose tree is it?" The next-door neighbor's. So the insurance will go after the next-door neighbor. If the next-door neighbor happens to have insurance, they will chase the insurance of the next-door neighbor. So there could be that, uh, even if Reuven is not liable Midina, in, in, in Din Torah, but Shimon may be able to get his money through the insurance, and as a result, Reuven will ha-will, uh, will have to pay, whether directly or indirectly. So the question is, is, uh, is Shimon allowed to claim from his insurance, which will br-- Um, if a Pia Locha, Reuven is not Mechuyav to pay, um, but through the insurance would have to pay. So, um, what I have here on the

09:36 screen, the lower part, is, um, from the Sefer Pischi Chochin, which is an encyclopedia on, um, money matters and Halacha. And he talks about if a person braked suddenly. Because of his sudden braking, the car behind him smashed into him. So then the person who braked, he is actually liable for the damage to the car behind. There's a whole difference in Halacha between Goy Brishis Harabim and Odom Hamazik. And meanwhile, he takes the view that when you press the brakes, um, well, I mean, you might very well have done it for a very justified reason. But meanwhile, um, well, that's, that's, you know, that's gonna be an interesting Din Torah. Uh, let's say someone crossed in front of the road, in front of you, and you stopped the car to stop, uh, uh, running over a pe- a, a pedestrian. But meanwhile, you a-got a liability to, to, uh, um, for the damage which you caused the, the car behind. Um, later, the car stays on later, then he talks about Niskei Boy and Boydis Potter from Calem. That's a part of the Pilpul over there. But meanwhile, he says f-further in this note that the, um, the g-- the driver of the car which caused the damage asked his victim not to claim insurance because if he'll claim insurance, then his, uh, premium will go up. Now, then he's, he goes interesting discussion. So all right, so Reuven starts pleading with Shimon that, "Don't claim, claim insurance because it's going to go, gonna push

11:14 my, my premium up." So Shimon says, "Okay. But then if you don't want me to claim insurance, then my costs are going to be more than what's Chayav Lehalacha." And, um, Reuven will have to, uh, if he doesn't want Shimon to use his privilege to claim insurance, Reuven will have to go perhaps with Limishur Sadin to cover things which, uh, whatever they, whatever would have been covered by the insurance. And Reuven's asking Shimon not to claim insurance, so then Reuven will have to c-cover it himself. At any rate, this is a very interesting, um, Din Torah. Um, I'm not paskening here. I'm just, you know, discussing, um, the, a bit of to and fro what, what could be, uh, discussed. The, the simple answer is that they sh-- Then the neighbors, if they want to remain good neighbors, if they have until now and they want to continue being good neighbors, they should make some kind of, um, friendly Pesharah, uh, between them I'd like to just, um, before going to the next question, welcome the shluchim from, uh, from Sumy, Levi-- Rabbi Levitansky and family. And, um, Sumy, for those who don't know, is forty minutes by car from the Russian border. I understand that they were surrounded by... Th-the city was surrounded by tanks, um, not Ukrainian tanks. And, um, so it's, I'm really a very relieved Rabbi Yisroel Schleimer, Halevi, and all the family, um, mentioned before b-before, at beginning of the Shir, words of chizuk and, uh, BeEzrat Hashem, go, go

12:46 out of this tzar of a sukkah gezunterheit, benafsham, begufam uvvamamainam. Uh, go-going to the next question. Amen. Yeshuakoach. Um, we will go on to the next question about... So it was a very common question. Parsha sheets, are they considered shamus? And everyone has this, you know, y-you have these piles of, of, of shamus or w-what possibly are called shamus. So let's read. This is from a safer, very famous safer called the Sivim B'Halachos, volume two. And, um, but it's really go-- In, in this source there you have quotes from contemporary, uh, Poskim. Right, where it says the following: "Newspapers which do have divrei Torah, generally in a newspaper article, we will not have Hashem's name spelt out." And even as we mentioned earlier in, in that article, that, um, G-G-O-D is spelt G dash D, et cetera. B-- Therefore, the n- the, uh, divrei Torah in the newspaper will not have the din of shamus as such. It will have a stand-- a status that you mustn't disgrace it directly, but it doesn't have the sanctity of shamus as such. Therefore, some Poskim allow you to wrap it up in a plastic bag and to put it in the, uh, waste. Some say put it next to the waste and they will put it in or go into... The goyim will put it into the waste. And, it, it-- With the, uh, Parsha sheets or tests which are, uh, l'chatchilah made for just a one-off use would also fall into the same category. Interesting, the

14:29 source of this, uh, of this tzak is from the fact that a Poskim talk about a melamed writing on the board. He's teaching, he's reach-- He's teaching Bereishit to little children, and he writes on the board Bereishit with chalk, whatever. Uh, and then he's going to erase Bereishit to, uh, to write, um, which is unfortunately a very, um, apropos for, for this moment, especially for some of us. Um, so he's allowed to erase the previous thing to... So, so, so that's a bit of a proof, support for the idea that if it's written not shamus, but divrei Torah with the intention it's not for perpetuity, it's just gonna be for, for, uh, momentary use, then it does not have the kedushah, and it may be, uh, disposed of in a respectful way. Um, I'm going back to the previous question. Um, Pinchas, uh, is pointing out insurance companies will not insure fences. Okay. Um, he says another point. You can usually... Usually cannot claim against a driver who rear-ends. A second car is always blamed for being too close. Okay. The-- What I was reading was from Eretz Yisrael. Perhaps they are, um, perhaps the rules there are a little bit better. Someone is asking now about this last question, about re-- Is recycle better than in the... If you have that option, I think recycle is more respectful rather than going to... We get all the tea leaves and the gravy and the et cetera. Um, someone points out that this week, in the

16:04 Jewish... For, for your interest, this week's Jewish Tribune had Elokim printed a couple of times in not in a code properly. Well, then that should be cut out and, uh, and put in, in shamus in the literal sense. Thank you for pointing that out. Let's go on to the next question. Okay. Um, okay. Uh, I had this question a couple of times this past week about how to kasher a dishwasher, and so I felt I should discuss it a little bit. Now, I apologize for the poor quality of this, uh, picture. It's from a safer, which is not yet on the Ohel Torah, that's why it's from my, uh, camera's, my, my cell phone camera. So let's read the top right corner. He's talking about kashering a dishwasher, and he says, "Clean it out well. Leave it..." Now, when it says clean it out well, um, there is, sorry for the pun, there is a well at the bottom of the dishwasher. That's where a lot of schmutz would accumulate. And so before cl-um, k-thinking of kashering a dishwasher, you'd have to take out all the racks and p-pi-pick up the, the filter, whatever it is, above that well and clean out any, any residue which is there. Okay. So you have to clean it out well, leave it for twenty-four hours without use, then operate it at the highest temperature, um, which this, uh, can, can work, and, um, and that's enough for kashering. He says for Pesach, don't rely on this. What I've

17:37 told people is to go one step further, to do one run with detergent, and that... An empty run with detergent, that would be pogim. That would ruin any flavor, uh, which may, um, be present. Then to do another run with plain water. The reason why I told to do a second time, there is a discussion in Poskim whether kashering can only be with water or that can be also with other liquids. Can you kasher, this is a question, can you kasher a machine with ch-- with liquid chocolate? And it's, uh, it's an ongoing debate, and therefore I just thought, once you do it with a detergent, might not be good for kashering. It's good for pogim, but it might not be good for kashering. So run it a second time, it's not such a big, a big Which we make a bracha. We've got netilat yadayim with seda, and we've got netilat yadayim in the morning. The three opinions brought in Shulchan Aruch. Why do we make a bracha on netilat yadayim in the morning? Is the netilat yadayim of the morning, is it preparing for davening? If so, you should also do with a bracha before mincha and ma'ariv. Is netilat yadayim in the morning, um, the kituyin, um, or is it because of ruach roah? The different, different, uh, three a-approaches discussed in Shulchan Aruch. Now let's look at what we have here. Gemara, um, it's in Brachos, is it not? Um, four. Sorry, it's in Shabbos. Ach, perfect. Okay. In the Gemara

20:52 there, it talks about the need to wash negel vasser, and how without negel vasser, that you got the ruach roah, and it could be very damaging to the body, and it says very strong words. It says, "Yad le'ayim tikotzes." That if a person touches his eyes before washing negel vasser in the morning, it's better his hands should have been chopped off. "Yad lecho'tem tikotzes," same thing to his nose. "Yad le'peh tikotzes," same thing if he puts his hand to his mouth. "Yad le'ozen tikotzes," or to his ear. "Yad lechasudah tikotzes," if it's a, um, um... A chasudah means a scar. A scar or whatever. Uh, not scar, a scab. When it's a bit o- bit open. "Yad le'omet tikotzes," if they're mentally organ. "Yad lefey tabas," relating to the anus. Then it says... So what we're seeing here is all the apertures of the body are seen as entry points for the ruach hatumah to come into the body and cause damage, and it's seen as a very se-serious concern. Then the Mish- then the Gem- braisa, is it a braisa? Yeah, it's a braisa. "Yad legigis tikotzes." It's, that's gone on the next page of the Gemara. "Yad legigis," if, if your touch the barrel, it's also, it's gonna be a very damaging thing. What is this barrel? So Rashi says, "Legigis shemitilin bosheicha." It's the barrel which is used for brewing, for making, uh, for making beer. So Rashi seems to limit the yad, the damage to, uh, to, uh, something like, uh,

22:22 a brew. But now let's take a look at how the Alter Rebbe brings this in Shulchan Aruch. "Gam gezhiru me'oid," this is in Siman dalet. Now, in Siman, this is in Siman dalet. Um, that's in Madura Basa indeed. Okay. "Gam gezhiru me'oid lo ligag beyad k'dom natila," not to touch with your hand pre-washing, uh, um, in the morning, not to the eyes, not to the, its ear, not to an eye, to the ear, to the, uh, n-nose, to the mouth, anus, um, where there had been a, a bloodletting, meilagen. Uh, "VeLo lemaim shebgigis hamuchanim lenetilas yadayim lechol bnei beisoy." Don't touch the water in the barrel which has been prepared for netilas yadayim of your family. "Shelo yetam ein beyado." You should not contaminate them by touching them. And he adds, the next point, he repeats the same idea. "Vechein yeszmeru me'oid," you should also be very careful, "besha'at netilas yadayim mi hakli" when you're washing netilas yadayim, "shelo yiga bemayim toich hakli veyetamei." That you should not, whilst h-handling the c-cup for netilas yadayim, don't put your finger in that water, which that would make it tamei. "Ki ein ha'maim metarim et hayadayim ela beshifcha," because the water will only purify your hand only in the, through pouring. So that is indeed a concern. You know, you, you wake up, you say Modeh Ani, and you kind of grope for the, for the c- for the cup, for your negel vasser. Now, if you put your finger in it, then it technically is a

23:57 problem, but that's what we've just seen over here, because your hand is still tamei, and it's being metamei the water. Of course, if you have no other water, you'll use that water, and then you'll go and wash again. Um, if there's another cup there, so then you'll use the other cup. Dispose of this one and replace it. Um, but what we're seeing here, the Alter Rebbe has taken the "lemaim shebgigis" of the Gemara and said that's talking about the water, and he uses "shelo yetam ein." I don't know whether he means the word tumah in the r- normal Halakhic sense or he means in the ruach roah sense. It's gonna be spoiled. It's gonna be ruach, uh, whatever the word for ruach roah is, but it's gonna be ruach roah by touching it with, uh, hands before negel vasser. So I think that's the source, which, uh, as I mentioned before, are the geziras, not to touch the water in the cup. For net- for netilat yadayim is, is specifically if it is before negel vasser, uh, just before you got out of bed. Let's take a look at what we have here. Um, someone, Rabbi M-M-M- Mr. Oz, is saying that Rabbi Hill Simon, who's in charge of the Kashrus department in the, uh, in the, uh, London Beth Din, he has a personal chumrah, that after cleaning the machine, he, they splashes br- bleach all around the inside. Yeah, so that's the idea of being pogim. Uh, Moshe is asking me, "Must the

25:24 water be covered th- during the night?" Is there... So there is a chumra of covering the, the, um, the cup which you pa-have for negel vasser. There's a story of a particular Hasid of the Tzemach Tzedek who had a chumra. He would cover his negel vasser, um, uh, cup. He would cover it with a lid. And someone commented to the Tzemach Tzedek about this. The Tzemach Tzedek says, "Sh'it l'roiy k'harei et hapney ha'mayim," to, to have, uh, have something solid over the water. So, uh, there is, there is, there are those who are machmir. I believe that most people are not. A few years ago, I saw they were advertised, uh, these cups, these, uh, netilat yadayim cups with, with lids, but I don't know how a- how available they are. There is a mokom l'chumra because there is idea of mayim which were left over overnight. Min haddin, it's not a problem because we don't have snakes in this part of the country, uh, in this part of the world, rather. Now, I'm sure there are snakes somewhere in the, uh, in the wetlands somewhere, but, um... So therefore, it's unlikely that a snake came along and, uh, left some venom in, in the water next to my bed, and therefore, um, we're not so worried about, um, le- water left exposed. The only thing which we are concerned about liquid left exposed, I'm repeat-- I'm going to this because I'm asked this very often, um, is pa-particularly about wine. If wine is left

26:49 uncovered, then we wouldn't use it for Kiddush. The way, result, the rabbi uses a pasuk, uh, "Hakrivehu lo lepe chosecho hayirtzecho hayusef honecho." You wouldn't offer this to a, to a, uh, to a duke or to someone important. You wouldn't offer them such a product which was left overnight. So it's, it's a kind of pegam. It's, it's blemished, but it's not, uh, also min haddin, and you are allowed to drink it, as I say, because we don't have, uh, snakes in, um, abounding in our, uh, region. Okay. Now, question number five, which I don't have on the screen, is a Jewish couple were married before, oh, let's say, civil marriage or whatever it may be, and reform, whatever it may be, but now they, Baruch Hashem, they're going through a kosher kedushat yisrael, the chuppah. Can they use the same ring which she's had on her finger for the last few years? Can she give it back to the husband and then reuse that same ring for the, uh, chuppah, for the kosher chuppah? So I looked into this, and in the, uh, footnotes, I have a reference to Sefer Mesoret HaChasam, which is a contemporary Sefer all about. And he said, he-- And they, he brings from several sources that lechatchila one shouldn't do so because the woman, when she gives the ring to the husband, she doesn't ne- not nec- not necessarily really understand that she's giving this, uh, with, you know, a total freehold, so to speak. She's giving it with the

28:30 understanding she'll get it back, and therefore, it's not so, uh, um, lechatchila, he should buy her a new ring. So I mentioned this last night. I, as I said, I give this over by, in shul on Friday night. So I heard two interesting, uh, stories. One was that, that, um, one, uh, Rabbi, uh, Rav Efraim Padwa, the, the Rov here, zoil hobn a farshleimer, one of his first Siddur Kiddushins after he became Rov. So, um, it's, um, twelve o'clock at night, one o'clock in the morning, whatever, later, Chassidish hafasnah, and the kallah looks at the ring, and she looks at the ring. It looks like it's a used ring. A couple of phone calls later, turns out that the mother of the chassan, when she, when they bought the ring, she gave the jeweler her own ring from her own wedding to be polished up. And it looks like there was a mix-up between the two rings. And so when the chassan gave the kallah the ring, he had given his mother's ring, not his own ring, which meant that the Kiddushin wasn't a valid Kiddushin because it wasn't his to give away. So it was like two o'clock in the morning and, uh, night of the chassanah. So, uh, Rav Padwa, zoil hobn a farshleimer, he called up. There was another Rov who was visiting and discussed it with him. And they, uh, middle, two o'clock in the morning, they made the Kiddushin again. They didn't do, need to do a chuppah again. That

30:07 was part of the di- the dilemma. They did not need to do a chuppah again, but they did, uh, a, a Kiddushin again. The other story which I heard was, again, this was with Reb Moshe Padwa, his father, alav ha-shalom, and he was Mesader Kiddushin in Meor Hababich. There was a mekubal of the late Reb Adi Glik, alav ha-shalom. And the chassan put the ring on the kallah's finger before he managed to say, "Harey at". Now, the chassan's meant to say it before, and our meaning is, as he's middle of the sentence, he slips it on the finger. But he did, he put it on the finger before, uh, saying, "Harey at." So Rav Padwa asked, obviously concerned, so he asked the mother of the chassan, perhaps she has a bracelet, and she'll give the ch-chassan the bracelet, and then he would Mekadesh her again. Probably most of the people around the chuppah didn't realize what was going on. He told the chassan to take the bracelet and say, "Harey at nekudeshas," and give the, the bracelet to the kala. Um, all right, I think that's, uh, strictly speaking, I think the, the, this kiddushin was valid in any case, but it was a lefidim asher sadin to make sure that it's totally, uh, okay. All right. Let's go on to our new question, and this is-- I've, I've taken, uh, the example of Los Angeles just because I don't like to disclose, uh, details of the person who asked me. Uh, so this is

31:35 a shul being built in the USA, and they want the front of the shul to face Yerushalayim. And as you can see, this is from-- What you have on the screen is from a, uh, site called myzmanim.org. And it says you've got-- You want to know which way to daven. Well, it gives you two options. It's got the rum line, which tells you to bear, to bear ninety-one degrees. Just, just that's thinking of a clock, just beneath three o'clock. And then the other one is saying twenty-four. Twenty-four, that's between the two and the, uh, between... Sorry, between the one and the two on the clock, yeah. So there's a massive difference between these two. And, and, um, it looks like from the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch. The Alter Rebbe is one of the pioneers in this field of, uh, pointing out. There's the-- Actually, the Levush, which is a hundred years earlier, a hundred and fifty years earlier, go-- already mentions this. Um, but the Alter Rebbe is very articulate about this in Siman, uh, Tsadik Daled, that, uh, when we say Mizrach, it doesn't mean you have to face east when you daven. We're not davening to where the sun rises. We're davening towards Yerushalayim. And in the siddur, the Alter Rebbe has this in Siman Tsadik Daled, and a-again in the siddur in the end of Hachatz Filin, where he is much shorter, and he says that the minhag which people say we daven towards Mizrach, that has its origins from when the

33:15 exiles, we in exile, were in France. So in France, we are, we are facing Mizrach. But now that we are more northeast of Yerushalayim, therefore we have to face north-- sorry, northwest of Yerushalayim, therefore we have to face south, um, not only east, but so-more southeast. And he goes into a bit of detail. But meanwhile, we have this question, and I want to explain a little bit. It's gonna be a little complicated, but I'll do what we can. Okay. So this is, this is a quote from the Alter Rebbe siddur, and he says that the minhag of, um, Mashan Nogoo, the fact that we, we daven towards Mizrach, that's from when we were in France. But now that we are further north than France, we should be fa-facing more southeast. Okay. Now, explain a little bit. I'll try my best. Here you have everyone understand that the globe has got a longi-longitudinal, longitudinal lines, and those lines are, are curved. So if I'm going, let's say, from London to Glasgow, I'm going straight up. But if I'm going from, from Strasbourg towards Copenhagen, I'm going by a curve. It's bubble meisters. I'm not, I mean, I'm-- It's the same straight line. I'm not using random, uh, um, lo- locations. But when you're going north, wherever you're going north, you're going in a straight line. But it actually, in, in real, real terms, is actually curving towards the North Pole. Or if you're going south, it's just curving toward the South Pole. Now, the truth is

34:54 also when it comes to, um, lateral, uh, lines, that when you are trave-- when, when you look at east, you think you're looking at-- On the map, the map is not true. The map is a, a flat picture of a, a round surface. And because it's a globe, it's not flat, therefore, the latitude lines which you see on a map are not a true depiction of what's going on. And so when you're looking true east, your true east is actually going to kind of be going, um... It's go-- It's, it, it-- As it progresses towards the equator, it's going to meet at the equator. That's, that's how, that's how, uh, the, the, this, this, this, this works. Because of this, uh, uh, we, we all know that when a plane, that is it's another aspect of, when we fly from London to New York, we don't fly a straight latitude line. We actually fly-- go towards the north, closer to Iceland, go Labrador and Newfoundland. Uh, we go, we would go in an, in an arc. And that's, part of it is because it's actually, uh, shorter to take the arc rather than to take the straight line. Be that as it may, so this is part of the cheshbon, where we've got two ways of looking at things. Rum line is the way it looks on a flat map. And from Los Angeles to New York-- So sorry, to Eretz Yisrael is, um, I've written here. Th-these, these are the co-- the, um, coordinates

36:33 for Los Angeles. It's thirty-four north of the equator. It's a hundred and eighteen degrees west of, of Greenwich, which is about a hundred and fifty degrees west of Yerushalayim. So, uh, on the map, you can just make a straight line, and you get from-- That straight line will get you from Los Angeles to Yerushalayim. However, in reality, that, that's not a, a true, that's not a true, um, line. And let's go back. If you d-go s-due east- Because of what we described before, that the line is actually going in an arc, the east is going to, going arc towards the equator. So the line which is going from East, East Los Angeles, here's from New York, from going east, due east, is going to actually kind of veer towards the Ivory Coast or somewhere exotic like that. Uh, if you wanted to have your arc go towards Yerushalayim, then be-- so because it's a hundred and something, more than a hundred and fifty degrees kind of from, so it has to go a little bit north and then it will be able to go down south. That's how the arc will work. So if you look at this picture, to go from hundred and eighty degrees in longitude, it's gonna have to go a little bit north, then it's going to be able to go down south and get, get to your destination. That is the reason why, um, the great circle is telling you that in Los Angeles you should be davening towards, uh,

38:07 northeast rather than straight east. That's, it took me a long time to get my head around it, but that's, that's part of the, uh... Now, what you have over here is this, an explanation of what the Alter Rebbe had said about the Fr- France facing Yerushalayim. And I was bothered by it because France is about, I would take Lyon, which is the center of France, which is about forty-five degrees north of the equator, and Yerushalayim is about thirty-something degrees north of the equator. What he's saying that it would be, um, that they would face due east, uh, and explaining with that what we're doing. My hunch about this is now I'm going back to a flat map. On a flat map, but the-- instead of facing east on the map or d-due east, we're going to make an, a line of east towards the equator. The line from Lyon to the equator, ninety degrees away. That line from France to the equator, ninety degrees away, is going to be pretty much passing over, um, over, Eretz Yisrael. Whereas where the Alter Rebbe lives in Smolensk, uh, in area, you know, whatever, uh, Vitebsk, that area, so you're saying from there, the line towards the east will be the dotted line over here, and you're going to have to be about sixty degrees away from that line in order to be able to get, uh, your direction to Yerushalayim. So actually, um, whilst the Alter Rebbe says about, um, he s- he talks about, um, a

39:44 hundred and fifty degrees, but really in reality, uh, the direction from Smolensk or from Moscow is almost, um, straight south, which is about a hundred and eighty degrees. Okay, that's as much as I can share with you at the moment about this. It is, uh... What I did say, say to them, I said to the people who asked the question, asked what, what's happened to this shul? So they already had architect plans which had drawn up the, the front of the shul on the east. And now one of their learned, um, mispallelim has said, "Wait a minute, the Alter Rebbe takes the view like the great circle rather than the rum line, and therefore we should redesign the whole shul facing north." So it's a, the question is a very good question. The, the point is, however, that we take our-- what I answered, we take our cue from Seven Seventy and the Speis Hayenu, and there the shul is facing east. It's not facing north, uh, by any stretch. Um, it's not facing northeast. And a little bit of how to rationalize that. Question is, can you come across to a tzibbur and say, "We're facing Yerushalayim," and the tzibbur don't understand? I don't know if you didn't follow what I was, I was saying, but, um, I think the average person who comes to shul will not understand that you're saying, "I'm facing north, and that's how I'm gonna get to Yerushalayim." It's something which Amcha will not relate to, and possibly therefore,

41:17 even if chachamim understand that it, it should be facing more north than, um, due east, but left it that people daven towards the east and, uh, the avodah will sort out that the tefillot will arrive, uh, in, in, you know, in, in good shape. The malachim will elevate them, et cetera. And that's as much as I could tell them, um, because it's a milzah ditmiyah. Although that may be s- um, strictly speaking, the, the-- you should be following the great circle. But when it's so glaringly difficult for posh people to follow, I can see the, uh, merit in, in, um, d- following what posh people understand. Um, if I've insulted anyone by saying we're posh people, I apologize. Um, someone is pointing out that in Bovell, in India, we face west. That's true. Um, and for Australia also, they would face northwest. Yeah. Uh, it was interesting in Australia when it comes to the Naanuim by the, by, um, by, um, you know, with the, with the lulav. So instead of facing to the Aron Kodesh and shaking, they start facing to the side wall or something to the back wall. Whatever. Okay, let's go on. Um, so about long sheitels. Um, so I, I, um, actually I showed this list of questions to my class and asked them which cla-- We had a few minutes left, and I said, "Which question would you like me to address?" And they asked me to address about the long sheitels. Do we have, uh, explain what's the

42:47 issue. All right. So I was actually gratified that they were concerned, and they wanted to hear more about it. So of course, the opinion of a sheitel by us is a very hosh of a thing, and the Rebbe encouraged the opinion of sheitels rather than a tichel because the Rebbe is concerned of people, um, the women pushing-- With a tichel, there's a temptation to push it back a bit and sometimes to take it off. With a sheitel, um- Is going to be presentable. I want to just share with you perhaps a, a thought. I was by a bar mitzvah by one of my neighbors. Uh, Viznitzer Hasid, a very nice fellow, and he wishes his son, the bar mitzvah boy, „Gelange gezunte yorn, chnyokeche yorn." And I, I found it very interesting. The word chniok, for those who, um, are not familiar with the Yiddish term, means perhaps in, uh, idol terms, disconnected, um, app- or for all appearances, to be disconnected. And so, there is such an attitude, and it's by some Haredi Yidden, that that is a value. Chabad, I think that's not a value. We don't, we, we don't value Dafke being cool, but we don't value Dafke being a chniok either. And I think that's the balance which we're looking at, to be presentable, uh, but on the other hand, nisht liggen in dem, not to be, uh, overindulgent in this. So, but that's, that's mashavis. Now, you want to have some sources. So, here is in Siman Ain Heiner Chaim,

44:19 talks about, um, sifbeis, seyarshen, the c- the hair of a woman which is normally covered. A man would... That's how it's in, uh, Krishna. A man should not be reading Kr- um, Krishna in the presence of a woman's hair, uh, which is normally covered. Then he says, "Avel basuloes shrdar kan leilach," in other words, but basuloes who would normally go with their hair, um, exposed, uh, in the br- comment, in the, in the brackets, in Pirsh Maguloes, Pruis HaRoesh, that's okay. So it's, uh, a girls whose hair is normally uncovered, that's not a problem. Now, in the, um, in the, um, Magen Avrohom, I'm going to go out of this because I can't see the whole, um, I can't see the whole text. Let's go back. Okay, there we are. Ah, here we are. So, this is the Magen Avrohom, and he says, "I have a problem. It says in Avrohom that a, a bnoishes stroll should not go, Pruis HaRoesh should not go out in the street with her hair pruis." Now, he seems to be saying... And he says it's d- difficult to say it means, um, Dafke married, uh, women because it's, uh... Therefore, he says, what it means is, shall we say, "Seres calas roishes saron oleches be-be-beshuk. Ze also afil bepnuyah." Even an unwoman, unmarried woman, a, a single girl should not go out in the street with her hair, um, um, loose. Um, so that's, that's what the Magen Avrohom is saying over here. So, if you're asking-- So

45:50 therefore, before talking about long sheitels, let's talk about, um, a, a girl who's got long hair. So, the long hair should be tied back. When you're walking in the street at home is one thing, but when you're going out in public, the hair should be, um, restrained. It should be tied, tied back to it to some degree. And, uh, therefore, the long sheitel would have to be, uh, in the, in the same way. It's, it's no reason why the long sheitel should be more, uh, sh- sh, you know, should be made in a more, how do you say, uh, eye-catching way than what is ac- um, accepted for a, for a, a single girl. Okay. As, as much as I'm gonna talk about it, and let's go on to the next thing. So here, uh, Kliach sent me, moved his... He want-- He's buying a place, and it's in a protected zone. In other words, uh, it's, it's, uh... Because of the regu- regu- regulations, he won't be able to take this away. These are, uh, this is, uh, period features, as they call them. He's not able to take them away. So, he's asking, is he allowed to keep these images on, uh, in, in his base chabad? He's even, I, I think he's even ready to cover it over. But is he allowed to keep those images? So, um, I, I apologize for my mistake. I first thought that they were pictures of birds, but now I see they're actually of, of, um,

47:17 of children. So, we have in Shef naruch talk about images of, of birds, and it says you are allowed to have images of birds, sculptures, they are permitted. The Shef naruch talks also about images of the star, the planets, the star, um, stars, the moon, and the sun. They are only allowed if they're flat. Uh, no, no, sorry. They're not allowed even if they're flat. Um, and then it says, "Beshel rabim delecha chasod." If it's a public place, then we don't have to suspect that they have these images of the ast- of the planets for a, uh, for, um, unaccepted p- purpose. What I didn't realize, though, that is we're talking here about human images, and you're not allowed to have a human sculpture, a whole, a whole body or, uh, et cetera. And so, these, these i- images of... Then I checked now tonight when I realized my mistake, that I saw that the Darke Teshuvah, he says that this, "Yesh matirim beshel rabim delecha chasodah," that only applies to the s- the pictures of the planets, but that does not apply to pictures of people. So, so sculptures of people, even as a beshel rabim, that wouldn't be okay. He brings several sources to this. So therefore, um, statues. A Jew is not allowed to make a statue, but even if he acquires a place with a statue, he wouldn't be able to retain it. So, that's actually going to be a serious, um, consideration for this chevra, what they will be able

48:56 to do, whether they can buy this place and have to retain these sculptures in place. So, I don't really have a, a simple solution for the moment. Let's move on. Last week, we spoke about wafers being, um, not shleimim. They're just, um, s- pieces of a sheet of wafer. And then the, uh, discussion came up, what about section chalos? People ask about the section chalos. So, there we go. Um, so I, uh, I, one of our listeners from New York sent me that she's a daughter of the late Rebbe El Bomgarten, and she remembers her father saying that he had discussed this with the Rebbe, noch befar den nasius, before Tov Shen Yud. And the Rebbe had said, um, "Be-eys ha'tzodech," when you're short of chalos, your section chalos will count. So, it's very interesting, um, that of... Th- the Rebbe was responsible for the publication of the Sde Chemed. That's a 10-volume encyclopedia of Halakha. It was written by Reb Chaim Chaskiel Medini, who lived in somewhere in Krasnov, Bazar, so, you know, somewhere in the, uh, southern Russia. Later, he emigrated to, uh, to Israel. He lived in Hebron. This forum were in W- in Warsaw, in Poland by the Schmotkin. Schmotkin was the, uh, publisher or the, the, the distributor. And after the war, in order to strengthen Limud Haloha Lemaise, so America's Linione Chinuch, Kahos, published this 10-volume series. It was a very m- a very large undertaking, and the Rebbe was, was, you know, managing the whole thing. And it's

50:40 well known that when they came to the, um, to the celebration of when it was finished, and there was a, I think his name was Robinson, a, a, a philanthropist who had donated a substantial amount towards the publication. So he was there, and he's asked the Rebbe to, uh, say a, uh, talk about something from the Seichemed. And the Rebbe says to him, "Take your pick." So at random, he took a, a volume of this 10-volume set, and the Rebbe said, "Give me a couple of moments," and afterwards, the Rebbe spoke about it. Um, so here is a quote from the Seichemed, and, um, talking about this, it comes up about this business of the section Chalos. Um, it says, "Are people making Chalos, and they're sticking them together." They, they made separate, um, uh, rolls, and then they put in, in a, in a tin in a way that they get stuck to one another. So some, he says, perhaps it doesn't count as Lechem Mishnah, but then he gives a quote from the Sefer Minchas Pitim from Reb Meir Arik, who was one of the very great gaonim in pre-war, uh, Poland. And he says that it is okay, and he brings a very interesting proof from a Siamese Esrit, where you've got two Esrohim stuck together naturally. And he says that when you separate those two Esrohim, Haloche is evidently that they're kosher. So just like the two Esrohim will still be called a whole Esrohim, uh, once they've been separated. So

52:05 who are then Belochomim, um, Hamidavkim. So too, we've got two lobes which got stuck together. So then, uh, they would also count as, as, uh, as, as Shleimim. The Seichemed himself is not so keen about it. He's, has some reservations about it. But here you do have, and that's interesting what, um, Mrs. Lipsker, his, uh, Rabbi Berel Baumgarten's daughter, wrote to me that the Rebbe said, "Le'eitz Hatzorech." If you, uh, if you are, uh, short of Chalos, then you could use the section Chalos also as Lechem Mishnah. Um, I have here, um, someone points out that the Krasov Bazaar is, he, he believes in the Crimea. Um, someone is raising the point that a sculpture is f- fully three-dimensional, and these are in relief. Uh, there may be something in that, but I don't think that's, it's gonna be enough to get us out of this, um, problem. But we'll leave that for, uh, further, uh, discussion. Okay, um, we're almost at the end of our list, and that is, uh, it may be a little bit late, but, um, if you forgot to say Parshah Skolem today. But it's also relevant for Parshah Zochor and Parshah Poor and Parshah, uh, Hachodesh. And, uh, what happens if the tzibur forgot, and, uh, forgot his Parshah Skolem, and then in the middle of Yom Kippuron, someone scratches their head and say, "Wait a minute, isn't it Parshah Skolem today? What do you do now?" So I want to tell you before finishing off, we forget about

53:36 Zidah Halacha, but, um, before that, I'll tell you a Bedidi Havu Uvdu. I was, about 20-something years ago, uh, 25 years ago, I was at the Ohel for Shabbos, and, um, I was o- I was gi- it was Shabbos Skolem, and I was given Maftir. And I'd forgotten it was Shabbos Skolem, and Balkai forgot Shabbos Skolem. And so I made a brocha, um, uh, a-and they started reading, uh, whatever it was, Parshah Mishpatim. And then someone in the c- you know, some of them, "Isn't it Parshah Skolem?" So the rule is that since I have made a brocha on this part of the Sefer Torah, not on that part of the, of the reading, so we had to roll the Sefer Torah to Parshah Kesiso, and I had to make a brocha again. Okay. So I had to say, "Baruch Shem Kevach Mechusei," and say another brocha. Later at the meal, Reb Simcha Zurchin, alav hashalom, from Montreal, he was there also for Shabbos, and he said that he remembers in the early years of the Rebbe, the Rebbe's Nasius, a similar thing happened with the Rebbe, that they had made, um, this mistake. And the Rebbe had said the brocha on the Parshah, on the Haftara, on the regular Haftara, on the Maftir, sorry. And someone pointed out, and then the Rebbe made another brocha now on the, on the, uh, correct, on the Parshah Skolem. But meanwhile, he's, they noticed the Rebbe shed a tear. Made a brocha in La-Levatola, so it was,

55:01 uh, something which the Rebbe had anguish about. So this morning, Rebbe, uh, Rebbe Wilhelm told me he'd heard a similar story, but it's obviously a different story, that one time the Rebbe, um, had read the wrong Haftara. What do we mean the wrong Haftara? There's, there's, uh, many places, many weeks, there's a difference between Ashkenaz and Sefard, and which one does Chabad follow. We've got a read, list printed in the siddur. And let's say we would follow Sefard, and the Rebbe read the Ashkenaz one or the other way around, doesn't matter. And so the Rebbe read the other Haftara, not really Chabad. So, um, so the Rebbe then afterwards said-- Then he realized, and he says, "Why didn't someone, uh, correct me?" So Reichen and Gordon, who was the Gabbi, says, uh, "The Rebbe, a, a, a Rebbe doesn't make mistakes." Said Moshe Ra-- So the Rebbe says, "But Moshe Rabbeinu made a mistake." So Rebbe Reichen, he says to the Rebbe that Moshe Rabbeinu was in chaos. He was angry. He was in angry, made a mistake. I didn't notice the Rebbe was angry, so I didn't think he was making a mistake. That was how, uh... I don't know what happened after that, but that's the story. But let's now come to, um, this, what you have in front of you, from the Sefer Shaarei Frai. Ashar, um- Shari Efraim from Efraim Zalman Margolis, who was a contemporary of the . And he writes a specialist sefer on the . And he goes

56:25 through this in towards the end. It's in . And he's talking about the four parshas, and if they had forgotten to, um, read the parshah in the right time. So then they've already read even the haftarah. So then he says they have to take out another Sefer Torah, and they'll call up one person. Yeah. Then they say, "Ya moi plainib," reading the end of the last three lines. "Ya moi plainib, plainib." But they won't say, "Ya moi plainib lemaftir." Okay. Okay. And they will read the, let's say, pa- the parshah of Sh'kalim, and they'll make the berakhah before, make the berakhah after. Then he says to say Kadesh, then do Hagbah, and then to read the haftarah of Sh'kalim without berakhahs before and after. So I understand why he says to say, um, the ber-- the haftarah without berakhahs, because you've already done haftarah. I, I can relate. The fact he says you should read it, obviously, I understand very well. But what puzzles me, and this is really the person who asked me, brought to my attention, asked me what's the Kadesh for? In other words, every Shabbos, we say Kadesh after the seven aliyas before Maftir. No... Where, where's the... Where, wh-wh-where, why is there no Kadesh after the session of Maftir? You can say whatever you want. You can say that the Kadesh at the beginning of Musaf, it also doubles up as a Kadesh for after the Maftir. It's also . But why all of a sudden, because this reading is

58:03 done on its own, therefore is there a Kadesh after it? So I, I really don't know the answer to this. There is a comment of a Bekhivah Eger. It's actually in I think. And he says, "Behiyosi bekilokroshi befridberg." And they would do on, on Yom Kippur. They would make a separate minyan for Maftir Yonah in the side room. So it was a Kriat HaTorah with the haftarah without davening. There, Bekhivah Eger says they should do a Kadesh. So normally after Maftir Yonah, a-after Mincha, so you rely on the Kadesh before . You don't do a separate Kadesh. But because this is in a side room, not, not gonna be followed immediately by a tefillah, therefore, he says that you should say a Kadesh. That I understand. But what puzzles me here, here it's still in the Tzeddkat tefillah, so why is this, um, deserving a Kadesh more than the haftarah or the Maftir of any other week? I don't have an answer, but fine. I'll finish off and just, uh, with, again, reiterating our, our, um, concerns and our tefillahs for acheinu bnei Yisroel be'eretz Ukraine, that they should be protected, be'kol tzara ve'tsukah, and come out from this crisis shleimim, briim u'shleimim, benafshom, begufom, ubemomonom. Mazal tov. Zeh ha'nefeileh ve'ha'heit. Mazal tov. Geen tzedekah u'shleimah. Im yirtz Hashem, im yirtz Hashem, bikoro biyamenu ames. Hagut ha'bakh.