אחרי מות תשפ״ב

00:00 Good evening. Welcome to this year for Shabbos, the, uh, leading to Shabbos Parashat Acharei. And we'll go straight into our first question. Monaskby, they're kind of gearing up for Lag BaOmer and which is related to Rabbi Akiva. And in the praises of Rabbi Akiva, there is this expression of, "Hoyo Deiresch Al Tille Tille, uh, Al Kol Kotzo Kotz Tille Tille shel Halachas." On every spike of the letters of the aleph bet, he would, uh, expound piles and pile, mounds and mounds of halachas. So the, uh, the, the, perhaps the, uh, literal wording seems to imply, just like we know that from an extra word in Torah, an extra letter in Torah, so we extrapolate halachas. So Rabbi Akiva would also extrapolate halachas from the, from the kotzin, from the, from the spikes, from the, uh, tagin of the letters of Torah. And so this teacher, um, asked the question: Do we know of a single example of a halacha which has been developed from a kotz, from a, a tag, from a spike of any of the letters of the Torah? So I looked up the Gemara. The Gemara is in Gemara in, in, in Menachos Daf Chaf Tes Amud Bet. That Gemara talks about... The Gemara is talking about the Hebrew letters as how they should be w-written in the Sefer Torah. And so the sugiah of the Gemara, the discussion of the Gemara is the shape of the letters. So in that context, when Rabbi Akiva is, is, uh, is, is told that

02:09 he was, "Doyrish Al Kol Kotz v'Kotz," it doesn't mean he would extrapolate a halacha from the, from the tagin on the, the spikes of the letters, but rather he had many, many halachas about how to write them. So he's, uh, also, "Lidrosh Al Kol Kotz v'Kotz," that he's got many, many mounds of halachas about how you write an aleph. You know, the spikes of an aleph. There's a spike at the foot, there's a spike at the top, there's a spike on, on the yuds of the aleph, et cetera. And so even on those details of the aleph bet, the, the tagin, which are perhaps... I'm, I'm not into Safra, so I'm, I'm very careful not to, uh, say anything halacha about them, less people specialize in that. There, there may be some of these things are not im, um, i-imperatives halacha. The, the letters might be kosher in any case, and yet there's many halachas about them. And so that's the literal meaning of Rabbi Akiva teaching, um, halachas about the spikes rather than drawing halachas from the spikes. There are other me, interpretations of this more in Al Derach Hakabbalah. Um, but I'll just limit it to the Pashut pshat over here of the Gemara. Second question which I wanted to deal with that's coming from Pesach is during Pesach, I came across a nice, uh, s- kuntras from Rabbi Bickson Spanner, who is a Rav in, uh, Das in Hendon. And actually, I find it's quite inspiring because over the years, he has

03:47 been making a practice that every Pesach or leading up to Pesach, he would give a drashah, not only about Chag Pesach, but also about the Korban Pesach. And this year, he took, uh, some 20 drashahs over the years and put them together in a kuntras, in a booklet, which was distributed in shuls, and someone brought it to my attention. So one of the things which he deals with is why in the, uh, at Korech, when we s-, when we, uh, have the after matz, matzah moreh, then we take the matzah and the moreh together, and we say, "Kein Oser Hillel Ki Bizman SheBes Amikdash Hoyo Kayam, Hoyo Korech Pesach Matzah Moreh V'Maror Beyachad Shenemar Al Matzahs Al Marorim Yicholu." Now, what I've shown you here on the screen is we have two pesukim. One is in, um, Parashat Bo, and the later one is, is it, um, is it Parashat, uh, Shlah, somewhere, somewhere around there. Sefer Bamidbar anyway. The first one is about Pesach Rishon, and the second one is from Pesach Sheni. And the curious thing is that the pasuk which we use when we say Korech, when we, when we eat Korech, when the pasuk which we re-recite, is the pasuk, "Al Matzahs Al Marorim Yicholu," which is the pasuk which is, uh, uh, talking about Pesach Sheni. Why don't we use the pasuk, um, from Pesach Rishon? It's, "Yeishvu Matzah Al Marorim Yicholu." So that was the question, which is a, a simple question, obvious question. Now, what he quotes from,

05:37 I think, from one of the Belzer Rebbes or something, to say that the f- the first-- We're sitting at the Seder. Unfortunately, we don't have the Beis Hamikdash, evidently, because we're sitting wherever we are without a Korban Pesach. But we are hoping that by Pesach Sheni, we'll have a Pesach, we'll have, we'll have the Beis Hamikdash. And therefore, we invoke the pasuk from Pesach Sheni rather than the pasuk from Pesach Rishon. That was the, uh, shut which he quotes there from, I think it's one of the Belzer Rebbe's. But actually, this question is addressed by the Rebbe in his commentary on the Haggadah. What you have in front of you is a quote from the Rebbe's Haggadah, but it's actually a, how you say, um, a developed edition. There's a couple of editions which have been taken, the Rebbe's Haggadah, and kind of reworded some of it to make it easier to understand. And so this is one of the editions published by, uh, Heichal Menachem in Yerushalayim. And so let's read the Rebbe's comment here. The Yesh Lo Chafen, what we have to understand, why are we quoting the pasuk of Pesach Sheini and not the pasuk, "V'acharu et habasar balaylah hazeh tzyeiu matzot amreim yeichulu"? Why don't we at Korech quote the pasuk which is written at Pesach Rishon? To which the answer is that it depends on-- it, it's actually, you have to read those pasukim carefully. I'm gonna go to the second s-slide and see what the Rebbe's explained here. The,

07:20 the pasuk by Pesach Rishon says the following, "You should eat the meat of the Korban Pesach this night. It should be eaten roasted in fire. You should also eat matzahs, and you should eat it with marorim, with bitter herbs." In this pasuk, it's not explicit that the meat is to be eaten with the matzahs. You should eat basar, which is roasted. You should, u'matzot, you should also eat matzahs. Al marorim yeichulu is ambiguous, and it could say that the meat should be eaten with the marorim, with the bitter herbs. It's not so evident that it means that the matzah should be eaten with the meat and the, uh, bitter herbs. If we look now at the pasuk in Pesach Sheini, and it says about having the Korban Pesach on the fourteenth, et cetera, al matzot u'marorim yeichulu, that the Korban Pesach should be eaten with matzah and maror. So that makes it clearer that the, the Korban Pesach has to be eaten together with matzah and maror. And so that's why the-- in choosing which pasuk to invoke, just to quote, at Korech, the choice is to take the pasuk from Pesach Sheini, where it becomes very clear what-- to ex-explain what we're doing now. Whereas the pasuk from Pesach Rishon, it was, "Yeish matzot," comma, "amrein yeichulu," well, it doesn't say that you're meant to have the matzah and the maror together, together with the Korban Pesach. So that's the Rebbe's explanation. Um, actually, my recollection is the Rebbe does not quote this explanation

09:11 from anyone else. It's the Rebbe's own explanation. Although a-- the majority of the Haggadah of the Rebbe is quotes from other beforshim, but this, I think, is the Rebbe's own original, uh, explanation. Other questions in many, many Haggadahs, but the explanation that we see. Okay, let's go on to a practical question, and that is a shliach somewhere in the United States, uh, writes to me that he has, Baruch Hashem, a, uh, a growing communion of Anash in-- it started off as a Chabad house, but I guess to the-- due to the price of property in, uh, in, uh, Crown Heights, et cetera, people are looking elsewhere and, uh, so he's got a growing communion of Anash. What's beautiful about this is, uh, they have more than a minyan who actually come Shabbos Mevorchim morning for Tehillim. At the moment, however, they haven't galvanized to the point of having a chazan leading the, uh, Tehillim. So you've got ten people plus sitting together and saying Tehillim, each one at their own pace, and, uh, sometimes someone will finish off a, a Sefer, and then someone who wants to say Kaddish will say Kaddish. And the-- it may even be it's rather, rather random, even the Seder of when someone happens to finish a Sefer, it's a Sefer Devarim or Sefer Zevachim or Sefer Melachim, and it's, it's a little bit, uh... So he's asking, what's the story? Can you have Kaddish said in such a setting when you've got ten people in a room, each one

10:48 saying Tehillim on their own? Is it justified to say those Qaddashim, um, once, twi- and actually five times over? This is the question. So here, as you know, one of my favorite, uh, seforim is the Pesicha Chovas, and this is from Siman Heh. So here's a-- he addresses L'horot saying Kaddish after learning or Tehillim. So he says, "Min Hadin, even if a single person has l-learned something or said Tehillim, but he said it aloud-- he said it in the presence of ten people." So if either he learned something in the presence of ten people, or he said a Mizmor or even three pesukim, uh, in the presence of ten people, then he is justified in saying Kaddish. The proof to this is in the footnotes, is the idea of Poeles al ha- Poeles al shva. Um, and that is where it's justified, even if you ha- let's say you have a s- the way it's described in Shulchan Aruch Har Siman Samach Tes, you've got nine, ten people in a room, and each one has davened Shemoneh Esreh, but none of them heard Kaddish. So one person will go to the Yamim, and he'll, he'll, uh, and he'll s- repeat the Shemoneh Esreh. He's done it already. He's repeating the Shemoneh Esreh again just in order to enable people to hear Kedusha. And even if only one person hasn't heard Kedusha, it's justified for him to- Repeat the whole Shemoneh Esreh in order to enable one person to hear Kedushah, to answer Kedushah. So if

12:21 that's the case, it's also not surprising that even one person has learnt Berachim, um, Mishnah or said it at a, a, several pesukim Berachim, then Kaddish is, uh, is justified Min HaDin. Now, before reading further, I want to say that I've s-said this before, but, uh, evidently it needs to be repeated. Often, people are saying Mishnayos, Rabbi Yishmael or other Mishnayos, and they say that, uh, in a way that the, the people don't hear them, and all of a sudden they're saying Kaddish. Um, perhaps in a tzaches, I would call that Kaddish Rabbonim or Kaddish Yasom. Uh, the-then the, the Kaddish Rabbonim has to be after Limud, and we know that the Rebbe, for example, by Rabbi Yishmael, he would say it aloud, uh, in a audibly, at least, in, uh, the tune of Limud. And the main thing is that people could hear the Mishnah being said or the Berais in that case, and then the Kaddish is justified. But by learning quietly, you wouldn't be able to say Kaddish. And coming back to this story in this, uh, community in, uh, let's say somewhere in the United States, the, uh, if they're just saying Tehillim on their own quietly and not one saying aloud, uh, even three pesukim, then it wouldn't be okay to say Kaddish. But okay. But if one does it-- he would say, uh, uh, several pesukim aloud, then w-he would be justified to say Kaddish. The Piski Teshuvas then continues and says that Yesh Hakosvim are those who write

14:02 that Lamaisé one should reprimand those who do so. And even in Oval during the year, um, or a Yortzeit should not just say Mishnah and do a Kaddish. It needs to be that they should be a, a Rov Minyan who have actually joined in the learning. Now, that is-- this quote is from the Munkacser Rav, the Minchas Elazar. And elsewhere, the Rebbe we know has said, . The Rebbe appreciates very much the Munkacs's, um, analysis of Halacha and Piski, Piski Tenim. But I, I believe in this c- in this particular instance, it's clearly we don't follow that, um, that caution. And we see that the Minhag in Chabad is that a person who's, uh, in Shanah Avelis or Yortzeit does say a Mishnah alone, and everyone is-- hears the Mishnah and says Kaddish. So strictly speaking, we can go back to, um, the first opinion that one person saying a Mishnah aloud in the present of 10 people would justify saying Kaddish. And so the same thing could be theoretically with the Tehillim. However, I want to share with you a Sicha of one of many, but here's a Sicha, as you see, from Tov Shin Chaf Alef. And the Rebbe emphasizes that this, that the, uh, that the Tehillim was instituted Betzibur Davka. But add-- And read those words, the second line. But add-- It was e-emphasized that after Tehillim should say Kaddish. So the Rebbe's saying to prove the point that the Tehillim was instituted by the Freidiker Rebbe to be said Betzibur.

15:41 The fact that he instituted to say Kaddish emphasizes it has to be Betzibur. So that's clearly the position is that it should be done Betzibur wherever possible. Um, and the Rebbe continues, "Not like those Shpitz Chabad." Now, um, I don't have an English translation for Shpitz Chabad. It's not a compliment. Um, it's similar to the American word, uh, smart, smart alec. "Not like the Shpitz Chabad who believe that they don't have to come to, to, to join everyone for Tehillim because they're going to learn Yichidus, it's gonna be Mi Yachid Yichudim or, or he doesn't know what he's doing, and he says T-Tehillim on his own because he is an exalted p-personality. That wasn't the Takana. The idea is to say Tehillim Betzibur together with, uh, other Yidden. So my response to the Shliach is, was, and is that, uh, you've got Baruch Hashem, you've got a Minyan there. Get someone to go to the Yamit and, and, and lead the, uh, Tzibur. And of course, you have, uh, people-- Some can say Tehillim faster and some slower, so there may not be a perfect solution to, uh, go through the whole Tehillim with, uh... But, but to-- That, that should be the goal. There should be a Chazan, and then after the Chazan has finished a Sefer and says Yehi Ratz, just say it aloud. Um, the one who asked me, the Shliach who asked me, a very, uh, edele German, he says that, you know, uh, he, himself, he find-- he struggles to

17:08 finish off the Tehillim in, uh, the space of an hour, et cetera. So would it be okay for him to say part of the Tehillim earlier, and then he will say... In other words, he'll say Sfarim, um, Shelishi, uh, Revi'i, Chamishi. He'll say early in the morning, and then he'll say-- With the Tzibur, he'll say, um, Sefer Alef or Beis or something because that's how he feels he can manage. So his question is basically, how essential is it to say the Tehillim in the sequence as they are published in the Tehillim? So I answered him. I heard that one of the Levittov brothers, forgotten his first name, one of them lived in Crown Heights, but he was a Shamas in a Shul in East Flatbush, which meant, uh, quite a s- spending quite a, a bit of the Shabbos walking there, walking back. And then in the winter Shabbos, come to the Rebbe's Farbrengen, and he found-- he was struggling to find time on the Shabbos to finish the whole of Tehillim. And the Rebbe advised him that whilst he's walking, uh, there and back, there are many t- parts of Tehillim which he would know Ba'al Peh, by, by heart, because they're parts of Davening. So the Rebbe told him that whilst he's walking there back, he should say those Tehillim, which he remembers by heart. And then when he gets to, either to the schul or, or back to Seven Seventy, whenever, when he is, you know, in a place-- in a ‹bes

18:37 medrash› or at home, he would then use the Tehillim, uh, the, the, the sefer to fill in the parts of Tehillim which he doesn't know baal peh. So the Rebbe had at least for Shas Hak, um, condoned that, uh, it's okay to say the Tehillim ‹sh'lo al ha-seder›. Um, whilst I'm at this point, I want to just share with you that, um, last week we had a discussion about saying the Rebbe's Tehillim, even though it's past Gimel Tammuz, and I shared a sicha of the Frierdiker Rebbe. Uh, of, of the Rebbe. Um, I shared a sicha of the Rebbe, of the Frierdiker Rebbe with the Rebbe Rashab, uh, how the Rebbe, the Frierdiker Rebbe has a vision of his father, the Rebbe Rashab, saying, uh, a ‹ma'amar› on capital Peh Dalet, and this was in, uh, 1944 or something, uh, or 1943, in, uh, United States. So, the Rebbe brings from that a, um, basis that the, it, that you continue saying the Tehillim. So, um, some, Rebbe David Baram, who's one of our regular listeners, so he writes to, uh... He, he told me on the phone, actually, that he was once in Yechidas. He was saying many times Yechidas. Once he was Yechidas, and the Rebbe tells him, "For sure you say the, uh, capital Tehillim of the, uh, ‹ata b'tach omer ha-tehillim shel ha-shomrei v'chami›." So, um, he didn't know what to answer. But then he, uh, afterwards, he went into maskiras, and he asked them, "Which is the capital of the

20:09 Frierdiker Rebbe?" And they were a little bit lost. Uh, they had to work it out. But, uh, the Rebbe was, uh, it was by him, the Rebbe, ‹davar poshut› of saying the Frierdiker Rebbe's Tehillim. I'll leave that with you. If you want to ask your mashpia whether you should or you shouldn't, that's your business. Okay. Um, now, then this came up about using a double oven. Someone asking, uh, advice about using a double oven. So, this, uh, is discussed in contemporaries forum. The issue here is, does the steam go from one to the other? And does it, does the, uh, does the taste... You know, in other words, the question is, you've got two ovens which are in one piece of equipment. D- Is there a problem of having one fleishig and one milchig? So, the p- there's a Sefer P'sakim u' Tshuvias, which is the Yerodeia version of the Piske Tshuvias. He talks about this. He gives a reference to this Sefer which you have in front of you, which is P'sakim of the later Rav Vosner. So, I'm going to read from this, the o- the original. An oven which has got two, two compartments, it's preferable to avoid using both compartments simultaneously, one for milchig and one for fleishig. Now, this is possibly because of the, uh, the vent, where you've got a shared vent, and you'd have then the likelihood of the milchiga vapor, uh, mixing in with the fleishige vapor, perhaps even going back into the other chamber. That's possibly

21:56 what they're concerned about. They-- So, not to use the two ovens at the same time for milchig or fleishig. Then he says some would wait, ‹bimahadar› to wait 24 hours between one and the other. But to have two compartments, one fleishig and one parve, or one milchig and one parve, that's okay. He then goes into another issue. He says that if you have a, the ovens which are made with a hechsher, which unfortunately I don't think are very much available in this part of the world on, uh, on assumption, unless there's a special order. So he says, ‹chad hakahan›, the ovens which are made with a hechsher, there's an absolute separation between the two compartments, and therefore it's, is okay to use one for fleishig and one for milchig. But okay, let's come back to the regular ovens which are available in the market here. Um, so in the P'sakim u' Tshuvias, he talks about a difference whether the two ovens, the two chambers, are riveted, screwed to one another, or if they are, um, w-welded to one another. In the case that they're welded to one another, he's more concerned of the, uh, spread of taste, because we have the idea of ‹cham mikhtzatah cham kullo›, and as if in the metal or wall of the, of the, uh, oven, there would be a spread of the taste via the metal to the other part. Um, as, as perhaps a bit stretched as it may be, but on the other hand, where do you

23:33 draw the line? And so if they are riveted, so they are separate pieces, we wouldn't say there would be taste going from one to the other. When they're welded together, they, he, uh, he is concerned of the taste kind of being shared from one to the other. As I was reading this, I was thinking, what about double sinks? Many of us have a, uh, double sink. You know, sometimes people move into a new house where there's already a double sink. Is it okay to have one of the double sinks, uh, for fleishig and one for milchig? Now, there's one issue about splashing from one sink to the other. That can be resolved by either having a little wall, a pa- partition wall between the two, or by having, let's say, like a, a board, uh, which is like acts as a lid. And whilst you're using the fleishige sink, the fleish-- the milchige sink is covered by that board. And then you turn it over or have another board, whilst you, while you're using the milchige sink, you'd cover the fleishige sink. So the splashing is one issue. But what about the issue of ‹cham mikhtzatah cham kullo›? Is there not a concern that the, there's gonna be a spread of taste from the fleishige sink to the milchige sink? And the answer is, there's much less of a concern over here, in the case of the sinks. Because in the case of the sink, the heat is coming. If there is hot water coming,

24:56 it's coming from the tap. The, the bowl is cold in itself, and therefore the, the, uh, intensity of the heat is much less, and therefore there's much more elbow room to say that the taste from one sink is not going to spreadthe other. Generally, I feel that when people fill up sinks for washing dishes, they put in soap usually, which again, soap would neutralize. It would be pogim any taste. Therefore, again, I'm, I'm, I'm really not so concerned about the double sinks. Not to be confused with, therefore, with our case, with the two ovens, where we're talking about an intense heat and, uh, so there's... and there's the two tastes of the fleishig and the milchig, and there is more of a concern if it's, if it is indeed one piece of metal, that the taste would be kind of spreading from one to the other. Let's move on to the next point. And that is that, uh, one of our Rebbe, Baruch Hashem, his activities are expanding. He needs more space. Next door, there is actually a, a Methodist church, which is, Baruch Hashem, defunct. It's not been functioning for the last couple of years. They, they are not ready to sell. Not yet. So it's obviously, I can understand their community would be pained to see how their, uh, place of worship is, uh, is, uh, you know, is sold away, sold out, sol-sold to another party. So at the moment, they're not ready to sell. He would like to buy it

26:42 if it were available and the taking a, a, uh, a place of worship, um, a Christian place of worship and making it into a shul has its limitations, but it's, it's a very common, uh, thing, and unfortunately, sometimes it works the other way too. Um, but that's... Meanwhile, though, he's asking, "Can I rent a room there?" It's actually used for... It was used. In the day, it was used for worship. It was also used for so- for social activities. So this is his question, "Can I rent that, uh, room in that, uh, disused church?" Um, so what I have in front of you is a Tshuva from the, um, Chelkas Yaakov, who was a Rav in, he was a Rav in Zürich, in, in Switzerland, and he's mentioning a story back in nineteen thirty-two, where there was a question in, uh, in Germany, where the, the, uh, they would-- the, the... for, for Yom Ki- for Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, the local synagogue needed to have an extra hall, uh, to accommodate all the, um, extra people who would be coming for Yom Teruah. And the only hall which was available was a, uh, a hall for the Catholic ch- youth, which is, uh, affiliate, which is connected to their church. And, um, his conclusion is that it's not okay because it's part of the, uh, place of worship. It's not okay if it were-- because it's, because it's on a rental. If it were a purchase, it's a different story. But so long as

28:24 it's still part of the church, then it would not be acceptable to, uh, to, to use it, um, o-o-on, for hire. Okay, let's move on. So here I got a question from someone in, uh, Eastern Europe. He asks the question, "May one invest in funds, securities of companies that produce weapons?" So this is a very timely question. Um, so I asked him, "Who do you want to-- who's, who's the weapons for? Is it for, uh, which side? For friends or foes?" So he says, "No, it's actually for friends." For, f- is it okay to produce, to, well, to invest in companies which produce weapons? So in Shulchan Aruch, this is, it's, it's, it's a, it's a Brisa of a Gezorah and it's in, in Rambam, and here it's brought in Shulchan Aruch, where it says that one's not allowed to sell to a, an, an, a non-Jew or to a Jew who's suspect of, uh, of mischief. Not allowed to sell them bears, alliance, weapons, stocks. Don't mean stocks and shares. We mean the old-fashioned ones, which, and many a, uh, an English village green is graced with. So, uh, you wouldn't be allowed to sell those, uh, to people who, who use them for mischief, using or, or other, um, metal things which could be used for... And nor the, nor should one sharpen weapons for them, neither to build, um, premises which would be used for, for, uh, punishment, for corporal ca- capital punishment. The Gemara then says, "If Yidden..." Sorry, the Shulchan

30:28 Aruch says, "If Yidden are dwelling amongst Goyim, and they have with them a pact that they will provide weapons for the military, and the military will protect the Yidden, so then it's, it's legitimate to sell weapons to that military who is committed to protect you." So that's... the Gemara says about the fact about the, the Persians, that the Yidden were permitted to sell, to manufacture and sell weapons to the Persians because the Persians, uh, uh, did, uh, commit themselves to protect the Jewish population. So- To a government which is a, a, a government which is protecting you, then one would be allowed to sell them weapons. And as a result, there are not, it's not a problem to, by extension, to invest in their funds to, to, to help them operate. I was still concerned, though, mentioned that the, uh, the questioner asked America. Well, America, we know that a lot of the weapons which go there go to private people, not necessarily to governments. And, um, a lot of mischief does happen with them. So therefore, I was a little bit hesitant. But here we have the Shach on the bottom. It's on the bottom of our slide. Where Idno, uh, on the, on this piece of Shulchan Aruch, the Shach writes that, "Nowadays it is customary to sell cl- weapons to Ovdei Kochavim because through them we are saved from enemies which come to our city." So he seems, the Shach, he seems to take it a little bit further. Not only when

32:11 there is a pact with a government, even for individuals. But since it is the, uh, expectation that they will protect from, from, from enemies attacking, uh, the, uh, community, therefore it would be legitimate to sell, to sell weapons. And I, I know that, that this part of the, the concern was some of those weapons will end up in, end, land in private hands, but we do have the Shach says it's permitted. Okay. So here we come on to our next question, that a little baby was born Baruch Hashem, which are beautiful. Uh, a, a young c-couple had been waiting for several years. And, um, I don't know whether they themselves bought the toy or, uh, someone bought them. But here the, uh, the mommy had hung up these toys in the crib, in the cot. And the father, who's a Talmid Chacham, comes down. Wait a minute, it's just, that's a, a picture of the sun. We have a problem of, uh, having an image of the sun. The other one is meant to be the moon. I, I wasn't so impressed that the moon, uh, looks very much like a moon. But the sun is, i-is, uh, well, that's what we recognize as the sun. You know, this yellow ball. I know it doesn't have the horns the way it looks like, but okay. So here's the question. Are you allowed to have a picture of the sun or an image of the sun? And that was his question. So here we have in

33:49 Shulchan Aruch. This is in Siman Kuf, Mem, Alef in Yoreh De'ah, where the Shulchan Aruch says that one is not allowed to... And actually, by the way, if, if you've been fo-following Rambam in Gimmel Pirkei, this has come up in Rambam, today's Rambam twice, about the issue of making images of, uh, heavenly bodies. So we have here the, the, uh, Halacha of not letting, being, not, we're not allowed to make images, tziuros, of, uh, images in the heavenly, in the, uh, the, like of the Mal'achim, of the angels. And then it talked about the image of a person, which we discussed several times in the recent, uh, shiurim. And then we have the second part. Then it says, "Bamed Vorim Hamurim," when we say not allowed to have a human image, that's only if it is Beletess, if it's a sculpture, if it's, if it's, uh, em-embossed. Ava Beshekas, but if it's flat, as it would be, uh, woven into a garment, a tapestry, or, uh, painted onto a flat surface. So then a, a, a human image on a flat surface is permitted, and that's why, you know, why we do allow having photographs, et cetera. But then the Shulchan Aruch says, "V'tzuras Cham or Levanah Bakichavim." But a, a, a, a, a picture of the sun, the moon, and the stars, also that's forbidden. Bein Beletess, bein shekas. Whether it is, uh, embossed, whether it's in relief or if it's flat. Unless it's there for instruction. So we know the story of Agamiel

35:31 had in his attic, he had drawings of the moon, the different positions of the moon. And when witnesses would come to testify they saw the, uh, rebirth of the moon, he would in- he would interrogate them. "Did you see like this? Did you see like that?" So that was for teaching. So for instruction, that's okay. But just for mere entertainment, et cetera, we're not allowed to make an image of the sun or the moon, even if it's flat. So, so back to that toy which is depicting the sun. Um, so I, I said, "Actually, yes, it, it is a problem and you should, uh, give it back." The, they had s- also some other toys which had pictures of stars with five spikes, et cetera. I wasn't convinced that those look anything like the stars which we see in heaven. But the sun, a round ball, a round yellow ball, is, is the way we see the sun, and that, it does raise a question. Okay. Um, I see there's a couple of questions. Um, right. Someone's pointing out, they say the numbers have changed. Yes, um, I, I'll get to... Uh, I've, I've added a question in my list and, um, I've, um, I'll get to the ch- That, that, that question which is, I used number seven, but I mean that, that's number eight, uh, for some reason. Uh, a last-minute change of, uh, seats. Right. Someone's pointed out the Sefer Chizkiyah or HaMelech contained a sun. Um, this is a good one.

37:00 You can't have an image of planets as a desktop, desktop background. That's interesting. That's an interesting question because it's not, um, um, it's, it's not, it doesn't, it's not an image because it's, uh- It's just pixels, a child. That's an interesting question. Okay. Um, right. There's also someone sa-- I'm expecting someone to say the Ganges Royal, uh, emblem was of two boys sitting on a boat on a lake, and there's a sun in the background. We've gone through this before, but I don't have a simple answer. We do have a simple, a Halacha in Shulchan Aruch, and so that's what we follow. Fine. Let's move on to the next question, and that was the ba-- the child, uh, has a blister and is in pain, and are you allowed to pierce the blister in order to release the pus? Now, don't ask me about Hilchas first aid. Like, ask a first aid. I'm just reading the Halacha. And a-anyone who's learned Gemara Shabbos, this comes up right in the near the beginning. I think it's the Da'f imma of Shabbos about p-piercing a, Mapis Mursa, piercing a blister. And if it's made, if this is-- this is by the way, is, on, from Shin Chof Ches. That's that large Siman which talks all about medical conditions in relation to Shabbos. So towards the end of the Siman, Sefer Lamed Beis, it tells us that if one is making a neat opening so that you want to have a space for air to come in to

38:32 allow the blister to heal on the inside, then that would be punishable under Makah Rabbatis. It's like you're making a finishing touch. It's a, it's a Tikun, et cetera. But what's more relevant to us, uh, is the second paragraph. Veim Heifiso Kdei Lohoitzi Meimenu HaLecha Hametsa HaRosoi Bilvad. If the purpose of piercing the blister is not to allow, um, air to come in, but merely to le-- allow the, to, to extract the pus, which the presence of the pus is being, is, is causing pain, then you are allowed to do so. So it's one of those things which it says it's Ma-- Mo-- Uh, Patur UMatir. It's, it's permitted to do so. Even though inevitably there is going to be a, uh, an opening for air to come in, but that's not your motive here, and therefore that is okay. So to pierce the blister to have, uh, just to release the pus would be okay. Careful. The next piece after this talks about if it's going to cause bleeding. Bleeding, causing bleeding is forbidden on Shabbos. We're talking here just about pus. To just release pus is okay. If you assess that it's going to allow bleeding to, uh, to, um, as a result, then one shouldn't be doing it on Shabbos. Let's now, um, see what some people have pointed over here. Can an artist paint a picture with a sun or moon in the scenery? So the general answer is not to do a full sun, to have part of it in

40:10 the picture and part of it not in the picture. As, as I now, as I, I, someone is pointing out that doctors, most doctors advise not to pierce it as it, as it allows infe-infection to enter. As I said, I'm not dealing with the first aid, uh, advice. I'm just... The question, the Halacha question whether it's allowed, and the Halacha is, is allowed. You're saying that sort of area, that it's not advised. I accept that. Not a problem. Let's move on. Okay. So this question I got also after, um, after I had sent out the list of questions. So a Shliach Yisrael, he lives in the Moshav, um, and he makes a Minyan. And it turns out the majority of the Minyan are Kaddish sayers. Is it okay? Well, you, you know, we know for Kaddish you need to have, uh, you have to have six people who will answer Kaddish. What happens if there's, there's ten people and, and seven or eight are saying Kaddish, so there's only two people who are answering? Is that acceptable or not? So this question is an, is, is not an, is not an old, so it's not a new question. It has been raised by the Ben Ish Chai. Um, the Ben Ish Chai has a Shas Hashavas volume called the Rav P'alim. And later, it looks like later in his life, he put together what's known as the Ben Ish Chai, which is a, uh, similar to a Kitzeh Hashulchan Aruch. So in the Ben Ish

41:48 Chai, this is the end of Parshah Vayechi, Shannah Rishonah. He has two series, two annual series. So he writes the following. He's quoting from his Sefer Rav P'alim, where it, he was asked the question, uh, if ten people had said Tehillim together and they all want to say Kaddish, there's no one to answer. And he says, "Make, make sure at least one person should remain to be able to answer the Kaddish. There should be at least one." And, and the Ben Ish Chai says, "If that's the case, you should have two, because you say Imru Amen. Imru is the plural, but you should have at least two people, uh, available to answer Kaddish." Now, what about... When it says you have to have six people, um, to be able to hear the Ka-Kaddish, that means that there should be six people who are focusing on what's going on, uh, rather than just do-doing other business. But people who are saying Kaddish are part of the, uh, of the Kaddish service. They are the saying of the Kaddish. They, they, so they come back. Which, uh, similarly, perhaps, uh, we've done this before, you know, there's a business of saying, of saying Kedushah, starting Shemoneh Esreh together with the Chazan and saying Kedushah together with the Chazan. So actually, that person counts for the Tishah Onim. He counts as part of the, um, minimum of nine listeners. He's, even though he's actually saying, that's fine. He's not doing something else. He's, he's, he's part of the,

43:18 he's part of the picture. So that's, that's what's okay. Same thing over here. Um, what I found actually interesting, the previous piece, the earlier piece in the Ben Ish Chai talks about saying Kaddish- And one person is saying Kaddish loud and others saying quietly. And I think we did discuss this, that some Poskim are upset about this. They say, "No, you have-- Kaddish has to be said aloud." So when several people are saying Kaddish, all of them should be saying it in an audible way. But actually, the Ben Ish Chai does condone where you have a, a, a Chasarid, who's about-- who knows Kabbalah, et cetera, and he's saying Kaddish with deep Kavanas. And other people might also say Kaddish, but they don't have the level of knowledge, et cetera. And he says it's okay for the others to say Kaddish quietly along with the, um, this Chasarid, this Talmid Chacham who's saying Kaddish aloud. Um, having said that, comes to mind right as I'm speaking, that what we saw by the Rebbe was different. And when the Rebbe had the Ur site and said Kaddish, so it was-- the Seder was that at each point, the Rebbe would say Kaddish on his own. And when the Rebbe finished saying Kaddish, then everyone else, um, said the se-- all the other Chovim said those Kaddishim. So perhaps we are a little bit, uh, not, not, not happy that they should all be saying Kaddish quietly rather that they should be saying Kaddish, uh, aloud, um,

44:50 albeit with a little bit of a delay. Someone is pointing out that a moon is an issue if not allowed in any form, as that's how it appears. Indeed, yes. The Poskim say it doesn't matter whether the moon is in a crescent or in a, in a full circle. Uh, uh, uh, if that's the way we see it, yes. And the reason why, um, why two-dimensional pictures of the sun are not, are not allowed, whereas a two-dimension picture of a person is allowed, is because people we normally see in 3D, and therefore it's not, not a realistic, uh, picture. Whereas, um, whereas the sun and the moon, because they're so distant, we see them as, as 2D. And therefore, even as we had in Loshon Shaikas, even if it's a flat picture, one wouldn't be allowed. Right. Someone's asking, does it need to be two people over Bar Mitzvah to answer? I think not. Actually, that's a very good, good point. If the whole, whole point is Vimru Amen, so then it's, it can be, uh, under Bar Mitzvah also. The proof to this is that some Poskim say in various contexts, when you say Vimru Amen, um, when we say in benching, Vimru Amen. And who is saying Vimru Amen? So they say, "To Malachim." Well, Malachim are also not Bar Mitzvah. So, uh, if they are-- can be the ones answering the Imru Amen, so it would also be for children. I think that would be fine. Or for that matter, it could

46:17 be Noshim also. It doesn't have to be the Achimen. Right. Yes. Thank you. In some, some shuls, they had a minhag that only one person said Kaddish, but most shuls today, um, do allow several people to say Kaddish together, and that's what we were dealing with. Finally, um, yes, so some time back, we had a whole discussion. A particular Shliach asked me the question. He gives a shir, JLI, whatever it may be, and there's these fine Neshamas who are sitting there, Neshamas B'gufim, but the likelihood is they did not say Birkat HaTorah. And we did raise, uh, uh, the question, um, that to learn Torah without Birkat HaTorah is an issue. And now-- And if you remember, the discussion was that there's a difference between just thinking Torah, which is allowed without Birkat HaTorah. I know the, the Gra is Machmir, but the Alter Rebbe is-- allows Hirhur without Birkat HaTorah. But, um, but listening, Shomea Kohene, so listening to a shir, a live shir, is, uh, before Birkat HaTorah is a problem. So that raises the problem with giving Shiurim to people who haven't said the Birkat HaTorah. So my son-in-law, uh, in Chicago, he brought to my attention that this is addressed in the Sefer Minchas Asher, one of the eminent Rabbonim today, Poskim. He's Asher Weiss, a prolific author, and he writes about this. He's got a commentary, I guess it's Halachas, but according to the Parashat HaTorah on Hazinu, that's where the mitzvah of Birkat HaTorah comes up. So in that

48:09 area, Parashat Hazinu, he addresses this question of teaching Divrei Torah for people who know definitely that they haven't said Birkat HaTorah. And so you're, you're causing, you know, Limud HaTorah with-- It's like feeding, uh, food to someone who hasn't said a Bracha, which is an issue of Lifnei Iver. And he says, um, this is, this is typical Israeli stuff. It's very, very common when you're driving or you're taking a taxi, and the taxi driver is very happy to hear a Dvar Torah, although, uh, it's unlikely that he said Birkat HaTorah. So he says the following, a very, uh, I think a very, um, convincing argument. He says the Bracha is obviously less important than the mitz-- the thing itself. Let's say the lulav and the Bracha on the lulav. So the lulav is the more important. The Bracha is important, but it's tofel to the lulav. Now, if you had a scenario where you could bench lulav, but you couldn't make a Bracha, of course, you'd say Bracha Sein B'lachvis. And so he says a similar thing. If here you have a choice to teach Torah without a Bracha or to not teach Torah. So the obvious logic is, teach Torah, even though, uh, it's missing. Yeah, it's important. It is, it's, it's a pi-- an area which is missing, that they didn't say Birkat HaTorah. But that should not be, uh, an obstacle. That should not be a reason not to teach because the person hasn't said Birkat HaTorah. And therefore, that's his weighing

49:38 up, that you should teach. And, uh, well, you can also teach them the Birkat HaTorah. But yeah, that's, uh, completed our, our list for today. Um, there was something else about Tizkor, which I took out of the list, um, because I didn't find adequate sources for that. Let's just see our last, uh, comment on the chat. Is that, "As a person can listen to Kriyat HaTorah without Birkat HaTorah and use, um, um, as a person called up to the Torah and use Aliyah Brachas for the Torah, that would imply hearing is okay." Okay, fair enough. All right. So I'll finish with that and wish you all a, uh, a guten Shabbos and a guten Chodesh, and we should meet in good health.