קדושים תשפ״ב

00:05 Speaker 1 Good evening. Shalom aleichem. Let's go straight to beginning our shiur. This is, uh, Thursday evening of Parashat Kedoshim. So someone asked me a question, not really a halachic question, but asking that we are familiar idea of Yerushalayim lo nischal kol hashvatim. Yerushalayim was not distributed to, uh, to the various tribes. And the difference, the halacha would be that when, uh, the olei rega or the pilgrims would come to Yerushalayim for Yom Tov, they wouldn't have to pay rent for their, uh, accommodation because it was, uh, it, it belonged to all the tribes. Therefore, okay, so you have Yerushalayim lo nischal kol hashvatim. There's also a well-known concept that the Mizbeach had a corner missing. That is because the Mizbeach had to be in the territory of Benyamin. It was compared to a wolf, and the Mizbeach was compared to a wolf. And that particular corner was in the territory of Yehudah. Hence, the question, was Yerushalayim nischal kol hashvatim or not? That's the question. So the simple answer is that actually, that this is a machloket of Tannaim. It's a, there's two opinions. Here you have the Gemara in Yoma, daf yud beis, says that the one who says, um, the, this whole business about a strip going out from the land of Yehudah and jutting into the territory of Benyamin, and that's where there was this, uh, problem with the b-building of the Mizbeach, and that's why there was a corner missing. That's all according to the opinion who holds that Yerushalayim nischal kol

02:01 Speaker 1 hashvatim. But if you hold that Yerushalayim was lo nischal kol hashvatim, then this explanation doesn't really hold. Before, um, okay, so what then if Yerushalayim was lo nischal kol hashvatim? So Tosfos asked the question, Tosfos in Zevachim. So why-- It loo- seems to be that the missing corner of the Mizbeach was, uh, un- unanimously accepted, although there was a machloket whether it was nischal kol hashvatim. So if that wasn't the reason why the corner of the Mizbeach was missing, why then was it missing? So I don't know whether I've shared it once before. There's a fascinating pshat in the Zohar which says that the four sides of the Mizbeach correspond to the four machanot, the four groups of the Yidden as they traveled in the desert. And you had Degel Machane Efraim and Degel Machane Dan, and then you had to the east, you had Degel Machane Yehudah, and to the south, you had Degel Machane Reuven. The yesod of the Mizbeach corresponds to Yosef HaTzadik. Often hear the lashon yesod Yosef is lashon of a pasuk. The, of the 12 tribes, the, uh, camp of Efraim and Asher, Benyamin, and the camp of Dan, Naftali, Asher were totally innocent of any harassment of Yosef. Therefore, the yesod on their side remains intact. On the south side, which is the Reuven, Shimon, and Gad, and on the east side, which is Yehudah, Issachar, and Zebulon, because they, some of them at least, most of them, did harass Yosef. Therefore, the Mizbeach, the yesod of the

04:04 Speaker 1 Mizbeach, which corresponds to Yosef, is incomplete. The Mishnah in Middot says, "Ve'oichal be-dorim amor achas, ve, o-be-be-mizrach amor achas." Although the Mizbeach, the yesod was incomplete, but on the south, there was one amor which was there, and there was one amor on the east which was there. Says the Zohar, because Yehudah and because Reuven did intercede to do what they could to help Yosef, therefore, there is at least a symbolic presence on the, a little bit on the doron, a little bit on the, on the mizrach corresponding to, uh, Reuven's and, um, and, and Yehudah's intervention to, for the, uh, welfare of Yosef. Coming back to this basic, um, this question of nischal kol hashvatim, et cetera. So what I did find in this meforshim, Rav Yosef Bechor Shor, who was one of baalei ha-Tosfos, I believe. My impression of what he's suggesting is that before Yerushalayim, before the era of David HaMelech, Yerushalayim was a, a territory like any other, anywhere else in Eretz Yisrael, which was distributed to the shvatim. Once Yerushalayim was chosen to be the residence of the Shekhinah or the Beit HaMikdash, then things changed. Then Yerushalayim had to be taken away from the individual shvatim. It had to be given to all the shvatim. Uh, the ones who were deprived of that territory were given the land of the city Yericho. Yericho had been desolate all those years from when Yehoshua entered the, the land, where the, the walls of Yericho came tumbling down, et cetera. So it had

05:54 Speaker 1 remained desolate all this time, and then it was given to the, uh, ownership of Yerushalayim. They were given instead, they were given the ownership of Yericho. So what he's suggesting is that we could reconcile the two views and say that there was a historic, uh, territory of Yerushali-- of, of Yehuda and Binyamin. Although that was no longer applicable in the, um, in the hal- legal sense once the Beis Hamikdash was built. But as you see, the Gemara clearly, uh, says that it actually is this, um, business of Yehuda's land jutting into Yosef's goes according to the opinion that L-- that nis-niskal beYerushalayim is Shvatim. Just one-- before we go further, this idea of Yerushalayim being not the territory of particular Shevet, but of all the Shvatim, reminds me of where, uh, in many, uh, countries, the capital is not a particular state. Like Washington DC is not part of the state of Maryland, et cetera. There is an idea because it's the capital city, therefore, it shouldn't belong to a particular Shevet which be as if to dominate over, over others. So on a, a very simple level, that could have been also the chezkat why Yerushalayim, v'nischal kol haShvatim, it's, it actually belongs to everyone. Let's move on. So someone... Turn over here. Okay. Um, this is, so this is number t-this is number three. Um, switched around the order. Okay. Three and switched it, switched around. Okay. So here's the question about when you're putting on tefillin. Do you, between the shel yad

07:49 Speaker 1 and the shel rosh, do you interrupt to answer kedusha, borchu, et cetera? Now, the top quote here is from the newly printed Chizsh Shulchan Aruch, which, um, was written by Rav Shlomo Ganzfried about a hundred and something, 90 years ago, perhaps a bit more, 200 years ago. About 30 years ago, Rav Levi Bidsritsky, alav hashalom, worked on incorporating, interspersing the psakim of the Alter Rebbe, the decisions of Alter Rebbe, into the text of the Chizsh Shulchan Aruch. About 10 years ago, Kehos Publication of New York, uh, asked me to work on collating the Minhagie Chabad, and so that I did at the time. And Baruch Hashem, as I've told you before, that was published about three months ago. And those come at the bottom of the page. But meanwhile, I had a certain degree of responsibility for what's going on in the main text. And here, there was, uh, unfortunately, a mistake crept in, uh, which this whole never brought, brought to my attention. So I want to share with you what this mistake is. So it is in the Chizsh Shulchan Aruch. It's siman yud in hilchot tefillin. And the-- Let's read what the Chizsh writes. "If you hear sh- Kaddish kedusha or, um, yeah, between shel yad and shel rosh, don't interrupt to answer. Just listen what the people are saying, but don't interrupt." So then in the, uh, in his interspersed from that, the Alter Rebbe indeed says the same in the Shulchan Aruch. Whereas in the siddur he says that between

09:36 Speaker 1 the shel yad and shel rosh, you are allowed to interrupt to answer Kaddish, Kedusha, or Boruchu, and Amen Al Kol Habrachos. Once you've interrupted, you then have to say Al Mitzvat Tefillin before putting on or tightening the shel rosh. This, these three or four words, the Amen Al Kol Habrachos, are incorrect because the heter between shel yad and shel rosh, uh, which the Alter Rebbe says in Rashis, is only for Davar Shebikedusha, for Kaddish, Kedusha, and Boruchu. The heter to say Amen Al Kol Habrachos, which the Alter Rebbe says, is in Rabbeinu Tam's. So here what you have, um, the second or third paragraphs are from the Alter Rebbe's siddur. And the Alter Rebbe is saying betw-- you shouldn't be mafsik. You shouldn't interrupt between shel yad and shel rosh. Um, but if you did hear Ke-Kedusha, et cetera, you should re-answer. Ay, you're causing a bracha that you have to make another bracha, and you're not-- one's not allowed to cause an unnecessary bracha. The answer is, there are the minhag Ashkenaz who always say a second bracha on the shel rosh, even without having interrupted. All right. So we're Machmir because of Brachos L'Halachah. We don't say a second bracha on the shel rosh on a daily basis. But here, which the question is, do you forfeit saying Kedusha? So here, because of you want to say Kedusha, and it's a value to say Kedusha or, or Bo-Ka-Kaddish or Boruchu, so that overrides the kind of the, uh, iffiness, if that's the right

11:12 Speaker 1 word, about, uh, a bracha she'einatzricha. And so he says, "For, okay, normally, we don't say Al Mitzvat Tefillin, but in order to be able to say, uh, Davar Shebikedusha, to respond to Davar Shebikedusha, we will say Al Mitzvat Tefillin." That's the Alter Rebbe's psak as far as Rashis Tefillin goes. Later on, he, he refers to Tefillin of Rabbeinu Tam. He starts off, he says, "You may, if you find it uncomfortable to put it in-- on in shul, you can put it at, at, at home." And, uh, and, and although I know the minhag Chabad is generally to put them one after the other. Sh-shall Rabbeinu Tam is as, as soon as possible after Sharu-after Shalom Rashis. But okay. But then he says, "Even though you're not making another bra-- any bracha, neither on the shel yad or the shel rosh, you shou- you still should not interrupt between shel yad and shel rosh." And that's got a basis in the Baal HaMaor, where he says that, that there's idea that the She'hecheyanu She'hecheyanu are in a sense like one mitzvah, and therefore, even when there's no question of an extra berakhah, you still don't interrupt between She'hecheyanu She'hecheyanu. However, he says, "Avo ma'asik la'anes omein," between She'hecheyanu She'hecheyanu of Rabbeinu Tam's, you can answer Amen, and certainly you can answer Kedushah Barchu and Amen . Similarly, a person putting on tefillin Jalameid, which we don't, but fine. So the same thing, you're not saying, you're not saying a berakhah, i- on, on either tefillin. Therefore,

12:46 Speaker 1 don't interrupt. But in order to answer Amen, and certainly the you could answer. So what would happened over here, I don't know how this mistake got in, but the, uh, the, uh, the way it's written in the Kitzur is incorrect. Um, the Amen Al Kol Ha-Berakhot would have to go afterwards. You should say like this. After, uh, having interrupted for Kadish Barchu, you could, uh, then say Shela-- on the She'hecheyanu She'hecheyanu, "She'amitzas tefillin. Rabbeinu Tam," you can answer Amen Al Kol Ha-Berakhot. That's how it should have been written. So unfortunately, it's a b-bit of a, uh... You know? It's-- I, um, pe- perhaps I mentioned this before, there's poskim say when you publish a sefer, uh, about not saying Shehecheyanu. So it may-- it's a big simcha. But on the other hand, you're going to, um, discover a lot of mistakes. So it's not such a simcha, yeah. Once it's been published with a mistake, there's a reason for... Okay. Now, having-- I, I want to share with you something a bit more intriguing about this whole story. Um, here on the top quote is a letter from the Friediker Rebbe to the Isaac Baruch. The Isaac Baruch was a mashpia. I'm not sure whether it was at Warsaw or in Warsaw. He was ma- mashpia in the yeshiva in Poland. And, um, I believe he was killed by the Nazis, Yimakh Shemam. This letter is dated Menachem of Tov Shin 19... It's in the, uh, summer of 1940. And the letter says, "Since you

14:22 Speaker 1 were saying Shema Yisroel, you shouldn't interrupt. Even though Al Pi Din, you can interrupt between She'hecheyanu She'hecheyanu as to answer Amen of Kadish or Bedichah Kedushah to answer to, to... And then you'd have to make a berakhah on the She'hecheyanu. However, it's better to be midak, not to interrupt between She'hecheyanu She'hecheyanu, not to make extra berakhot. And the Hebresh should give you hatslacha in your avoda, and you should be healthy, et cetera." So in the footnote or the editor, they suggest that possibly this is, uh, this is a ri-- um, a message in code. We don't know-- We don't understand what the code is, but this whole business of interrupting between one and the other could very well have been a coded message to-- Because at, at the time, the yeshiva was running away from Warsaw. They fled to Vilna. Um, Baruch Hashem, many of them made their way to Shanghai, et cetera, and came, uh, safely to America. Unfortunately, many didn't. Um, but possibly this was a coded message. Because it's-- What is interesting here, he's saying you sh-- one should avoid answering between She'hecheyanu She'hecheyanu, but perhaps he didn't mean that literally. The second quote which we have here is a letter of the Rebbe, our Rebbe, to Rebbe Avrohom Hesh Cohen. This is in around, um, I think it's Tov Shin Yud Zayin. Rebbe Avrohom Hesh Cohen was, um, a tremendous Talmid Chaham. Actually, he was a, a, a, a close friend of the late, late Rav Patzvai, alav hashalom, um, similar

15:58 Speaker 1 age. And, uh, he became Niskarev to Chabad and became a, a, a fabrenta chasid, uh, very, very, uh, passionate chasid of the Rebbe. But he was a, a-- In addition to that, he was a tremendous Talmid Chaham. And it looks like he had asked the Rebbe this very question. "Should one, if you're in the middle of putting on tefillin, should you answer the, um, Amech B'rabah, et cetera?" And the Alter Rebbe-- Sorry, the Rebbe answers, The fact that the Alter Rebbe uses those words, one should, Shelo Levatal, you should not miss out. You're allowed to answer, um, between She'hecheyanu She'hecheyanu and cause an extra berakhah not to miss out Dvar Shebichucha. So the Rebbe's reading into that, Mukcheh DeChiyuvu, it's not optional, but that is actually the advised thing to do. You should interrupt between She'hecheyanu She'hecheyanu and say another berakhah on the Tefillin She'hecheyanu. Um, there's also some writings of the late Rav Greenglass, alav hashalom, who also has had said there's something about not interrupting. Possibly he's-- because of this letter of the Friediker Rebbe. But Lamar said the Rebbe takes it literally that the Alter Rebbe says you are let-- You, you-- He's saying that you should. If you're in the middle of putting on tefillin bet- and, and you hear Amech B'rabah between She'hecheyanu She'hecheyanu, you should answer, and you'll say another berakhah. Um, so on that odd occasion, you'll behave like Min Hagashkanazim. Um, and in the future, you'll make sure to put on tefillin in good time. You wouldn't

17:35 Speaker 1 have, you won't have this conflict. Okay, let's move on. Right. Uh, no, let's go back. Yes. So someone asked me-- They were unfortunately with Levaya. Um, actually, it was Rosh Chodesh. And he went to the, to the cemetery, and he has a relative, some relatives buried in the same cemetery. What-- Is there any objection after the Levaya to go over to the grave of your relative and to say some Tehillim there, et cetera? You're already there. You know, there's a certain logic. You're already, you're already there. You should ignore that you have- But actually, uh, so I, I wasn't aware about, of this, but then I, I did my homework, and I came, I, I came across actually through Rabbi Garelik's, um, Midrash. So he give... He brought me to this source. This is from the Munkacz Rov, the Minchas Elazar. He's got a Sefer, uh, it came out in booklets called Divrei Torah, and he says the following. It says in the Zohar, when a body, a deceased, is brought to the grave, all the, all the mesim, all the other dead, resembling . They all get upset. They all get angry, almost, vexed. And they say, "Vai, vai," they're going, "Whoa, whoa, this person is also coming into the grave." This is the of the Zohar that the, the other, um, mesim are, are upset when a levaya happens. So this, he says, is a clear basis for what I heard from my, my grandfather and going back from his, his great... his,

19:29 Speaker 1 uh, predecessors and family, of the Dinner family, which is the Medini Sosar. They have a tradition that one should not go to the tziyun of a tzadik at the time when there is a, uh, a levaya, a burial in the Sefer Hachaim, because at that time, the mesim are upset, and that arouses Dinim, Rachmanut Slán, and therefore it's not a time of Rachmim in Rots. And according to... So they were-- This is... And, and therefore, according to the Zohar, it's clear that when there is a, a, a body being brought for burial, so then the, uh, the mesim are saying, "Vai, vai. Whoa, whoa." And we, when we go to pray by Hebrew tzadikim, which we're looking for to relate into an eis rotz and auspicious time. So we're seeing here there is a reason for, uh, apprehension, um, of going to a kever to ask for, to, to pray, for them to pray for you, um, when, when it's not a eis rotz. Now, in Rabbi Garelik's Sefer, it, it seems to be that the Rebbe would go into the Freidiker Rebbe's, uh, tziyun even, uh... But it's not such a clear thing. And again, what's happening with the Rebbes is a different story. But we, m-meanwhile, what we do see, there is a mokir for this minig of not going to a, a visiting kevariyim at the time when there's a levaya going on. Okay. Interesting. It seems to be even random, even if nothing connected with you. Yeah, at the same time

21:16 Speaker 1 there's a levaya going on, that you shouldn't be davening at another kever, which is quite an interesting chidush. Okay, um, we go on. So we have something very interesting about the haftarah of these two weeks. When, when we have two haftarats which come-- Sorry, when we've got two sedras together, so then the default position is that the haftarah is of the second one. It says A and B, so the, the haftarah of B is the one which is read. This is the Ramoh. You can see the upper quote is in the Ramoh in Siman kuf chof ches. With the exception, he says, of Acharei Mot and Kedoshim, that when they come together, we read the haftarah, Halakhi v'Nekodshim, which is the haftarah of Acharei. So here you can see on the, like, the, the, the, the haftarah, although this is, again, you see there's a debate about that. But the haftarah of Acharei is Halakhi v'Nekodshim. The haftarah of Kedoshim, well, you've got a variation between Ashkenaz and Sefard and Italian. You've got HaSishpot HaSishpot in Yechezkel or you have the other one, HaLidrosh Oshi Atem Boim. And meanwhile, what we're seeing is that when Acharei and Kedoshim are combined, so untypically, it's the haftarah of the first one which is followed. What's the reason for that? So the answer seems to be... Well, the, the background for this is that between the two passages, this one in Amos and this one in Yechezkel, the one in Yechezkel is quite a harsh passage. And therefore,

23:08 Speaker 1 which if you have to choose between the two, so better choose the, the, the milder, the more pleasant one, as in more, more positive, et cetera. And therefore, that's the minag, you know, going back hundreds and hundreds of years, going back to the Mana, Rishonim at least, that you'd read the haftarah of Halakhi v'Nekodshim in preference over the one of Kedoshim. Now, Rabbi Akiva Eger comes up with a very interesting observation. He says, "This year, Taf Shin Pey Bes," I'm paraphrasing, "we, on Parashat Acharei, we did not read the haftarah, Halakhi v'Nekodshim, because it was Mo'ach HaChodesh, because it, because, um, Sunday was Rosh Chodesh. So Halakhi v'Nekodshim wasn't read in public. So then we should take Halakhi v'Nekodshim and use it for Parashat Kedoshim for this Shabbos," says Rabbi Akiva Eger. "You should be reading the haftarah of Halakhi v'Nekodshim, because since they has a certain degree of interchangeability, and you didn't use Halakhi v'Nekodshim last week, so therefore you'd use it this week." Having said that, the, uh, and Rabbi Akiva Eger is quoted in the Mishnah Berurah Halacha, so there will be communities which this week will say, "After this, it will be read, um, uh, Halakhi v'Nekodshim." Uh, in the Luach Kollel Chabad, it does not follow that, and it says to follow the haftarah of Kedoshim, not the haftarah of Acharei. By the way, this is gonna happen in Chutz La'aretz apparently. I didn't go through the whole thing. Also, I have a, uh, note somehow that in Taf Shin

25:10 Speaker 1 Lamed Ches, which was the same calendar Kriyas as this year, also that the Rebbe read the Haftarah of, of Ha'alidrosh rather than... In other words, the Haftarah of, of, uh, Es, of Esfardim-- or s- of, of, uh, Kadoshim rather than the Haftarah of, of, uh, Achreimus. So, the point, although Rabbi Akiva Eger has this opinion, we don't follow that in this instance, and we follow that this week we're going to do the Haftarah of Parashat Kadoshim. What may be impacting this, uh, uh, decision is possibly that the-- for, for Kadoshim itself, there's two variations, whether you read the one, Ha'sishpit or Ha'alidrosh. Possibly there were one Ha'alidrosh, which we as Alf-- I mean, in any case, possibly is a milder one in any case, and therefore the need to start mi-mi-mixing around is not ne- is, is, is not, you know, not felt necessary. At any rate, that just to confirm. I had this call this week, and I, and I had done the research in the past, and I was able to share that our minhag is indeed to say the Haftarah of Parashat Kadoshim. I'm going to the ch-chat for a moment. Someone is saying, "When one visits the Bis Olam on a Yahrtzeit of a relative." Yes, that's what I find very interesting. But according to the, um, the Minchas Elazar, according to that quote, he seems to be saying that, um, if... Well, why are you going to the, to the relative? If you're going there to daven, that they should

26:42 Speaker 1 daven for you, well, it's not an Esrot. If you're going there just out of respect, then I don't think that's a problem. "One visits Bis Olam on a Yahrtzeit of a relative. Can one go and visit other relatives buried there?" Yes. When you're visiting on a Yahrtzeit, there's no, there's no problem to go to other relatives. I don't see any problem with that. It's only when there's a levaya going on. So then he's got this loshon of the Zohar that there's the, the Mei Shim Havekst. Then it's not an Esrot. But when you're there, you go to other Zohar. I mean, you have the, the famous idea which, um, with the Yaakov Avinu, is you've come to the, you know, nearby, and you didn't go in to say hello, so to speak. So yeah, that, that was my logic originally. Right. Now, um, somebody brought to my attention a, a interesting... A, a diary. A... We know we've-- we, we're all familiar with the Luach Kol HaChabad, which is, uh, on a chart in a shul, and the earliest I knew of it, the earliest edition was published by Reb Chaim noin in the thirties. But recently, someone brought to my attention that there is such a Luach Beis Haknesses L'fi Minhag Chabad from Taf Res Samach Vav, which is about, help me, about a hundred and fifteen years ago. Yeah. So I went, uh, and, and someone took that diary and, and, and that, sorry, Luach, and kind of deciphered it and worked on

28:14 Speaker 1 it, and I found it fascinating. And I've spent, um, a couple of weeks going through it and seeing. It's fascinating to see how many differences there are in Minhag Chabad in comparison to what's, uh, was the, uh, written in that Luach. Just one for, one example. Um, Arba Parashiot. Over Achim, yes or no? So there it says you don't say, as, as written, how it says in the Ramah, the Dalet Parashiot, you know, um, Shekalim and all that. You don't say, um, uh, you don't say Over Achim. Minhag Chabad is Parashat Parah. Uh, not to say anything, it's not a Chasanin shul. We do say Over Achim. Uh, the, the pa- the poshteh reason in my understanding is that in the world, on the Arba Parashiot, they say Yoetzres. They say Yoetzres, so then it becomes a whole celebration. Therefore, you don't say Over Achim. But in Chabad, we don't say Yoetzres, so therefore Arba Parashiot, d-different maftir, so therefore you have to make a whole, uh, um, a mistake. It doesn't-- It's not such a big celebration. That's why, um, in a very simplistic way. But meanwhile, I saw a very interesting thing. This is... He refers to in that Luach, um, he says a minhag, and the one who, who, uh, deciphered it, et cetera, gave this reference. There's a Sefer Kesser Kahunah written by a, a, someone called, uh, Dov Rifman or Barrel Rifman. He also wrote a Sefer called Shulchan HaKriyah on Kriyas HaTorah. And there is a two, three-page letter

29:40 Speaker 1 of the Rebbe Rashab, very strong letter about the importance of listening to Kriyas HaTorah, uh, attentively, and it's published at the back of the Siddur Torah. It's b- published at the back of the Siddurim Dach, um, which was published other places also. And there, he mentions the Sefer Shulchan HaKriyah, and so it's the same mechaber. Meanwhile, he says the following. They're talking, we-- everyone knows the Gemara. There's, uh, the Kohen has to be oyker raglav ba'avoido, that if a Kohen, uh, wants to, uh, participate in Birkat Kohanim, he has to start moving towards, towards, towards what? Towards washing his hands, towards the, uh, towards the, uh, front of the shul. Um, okay. He has to start moving by Ritzei. But if he didn't move by Ritzei and only during Moedim, he realized, "Oops, um, it's Birkat Kohanim today," it's too late. He can't, he can't join. He has to have started his move ba, ba'avoido. So now he says the following. "Ve'yesh mikohanim sh'no jagim hakohanim la'kora gleihem literal es yadeihem." The Kohanim start moving to wash their hands when the chazan says, "Ve'hoshev kohanim la'avi dosom u'leviyim leshiroin u'lezimrah." That's the, the last piece of the, uh, of, of the Shemoneh Esrei before Ritzei. Um, and there it has restore the Kohenim to their avodah, the Leviim, to their singing and et cetera. And that would be the cue when the Kohenim would move from their places, go over to wherever the washbasin is, and wash and, uh, and then be ready in time

31:28 Speaker 1 for, uh, uh, for, for Duchanan in, in good time. And then he says, some places they have a minyan that the chazan actually waits at ritze for the Kohenim to come to the bimah, which I find very, very strange that, that you have the tzil waiting. I find that very strange. But anyway, but this I, I, I, and saw that in that luach, and they give a reference to this, and I've never, I've never heard of this anywhere else, that by the words, "Hosheiv Kohenim lavedot, some of the Leviim shiro zimrom," that's the cue for when the Kohenim go to wash their hands. Um, okay. I just wanted to share this. So this is a, a minig, which apparently was a standard minig back in, uh... That luach was published in Vilna, Tofeh Savovo. It has times for Shabbos, et cetera, for Odessa, Kharkov, uh, Warsaw, and perhaps possibly Vilna. Um, right. Let's move on. Right. Here again, I had an, a sh- an, an interesting, um, thing which I wasn't aware of, and that is I had a call last night, two nights ago, whatever. Um, a woman unfortunately lost her sister living somewhere in the provinces, and they don't have a minyan. But in any case, there was no need for a minyan for, for the a shiva house if there's no male, uh, available to say kaddish, et cetera. But, uh, people came to the house and the question was, was, "Do you not say Tachnun because of a Beis HaOvel? Has

33:07 Speaker 1 that got to do with a minyan in Beis HaOvel or is it just the Beis HaOvel?" And, you know, I'm, I'm not-- I'm more used to the concept of Beis HaOvel with a minyan there. So, but I actually found this in the Piskei Chosid, and he says clearly that even if the Ovel Rachmana Liba is a woman or a child, so they're not part of the minyan, and still that would be reason not to say Tachnun. Uh, he takes this from his sources from this lower quote, from the Shu- a sefer called Shulchan Shlomo, which is an interesting kind of Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, but it's, um, well, kind of is he's, he's summarized each siman, not like the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch and made his own simanim. He's going numbers of Machaber. Anyway, he says clearly, "Vaafilu etzel avalo, ein omer lo hallel velo tachnun." Now, just to explain this, what's the reason for not saying Tachnun in a Beis HaOvel? The-- It's apparently similar to the idea of not saying, um, Tachnun at Ma'ariv, which has got to do with the union of Dinim. Where there's a time of Gevurah, you don't want to compound Gevurah with Gevurah, Dinim with Dinim. Night is a time for Dinim, of Gevurah, so we don't say Tachnun at Ma'ariv. Similarly, Beis HaOvel, a similar idea of Tisha B'Av. It's a time of Dinim, of Ge-Gevurah, and therefore, we don't want to say Tachnun not to compound Gevurah with Gevurah. And, um, so that's, it, it makes perfect sense.

34:38 Speaker 1 But it was, for me, it was a Chiddush, so that's, uh, I'd like to share, you know, a happier Chiddushim, but still it's interesting. Okay, let's go on to the next, um, the next question. And if I mini-- If I finish a little bit early, I might be able to get in time for Maariv. It's about nine thirty. Um, right. So, and you'll forgive me, I'm sure. Now, here was a story that at a bris, the father whispered to the mohel who said the berachos. He whispered a, a name, and the mohel misunderstood the name, and he said a different name. And possibly later even gives him a written certificate that you have a mohel. This was the name. And then the Kohelet, "Maybe it's all such and such." The father says, "No, that's not the name which I wanted." So now, what happens now? What happens with the, um, with the name which was named in error? Is the child stuck with the mohel's mistake or is it corrigible? Okay. So here we have, again, from, I mentioned before, Sefer Psakim Chosid. Uh, he writes that when there was a mistake and they gave a different name to what the father had instructed, no, no worries. Your father has the rights to change. And if you want, uh, to, to make it better, do a Mishberach at a later stage, you know, shortly afterwards. The Kohelet may be Israel, and you give the name which you wanted. You, you, so you do a, a

36:10 Speaker 1 like you do a naming of a daughter. You come in there, do a name of a boy, and the Kohelet may be Israel, and give the desired name. That's the he-- and he gives some sources for that. So it's not such a big deal. Um, right. Now, I published these, uh, you know, this list of questions. Uh, y- if you get it by email, you would have got it in the morning. So, um, I got an email from someone in Europe, and he says his Zayda, you may, um, if you learned in Bernoua, you may remember someone called Reb Leib Edelman. Although he lived in Aubervilliers, he would often come to visit. And he had a son. His name, R-Reb Edelman, his name was Arye Dov. He had a baby boy, and he gave him a name after the Rebbe Rashab. This is going back to about eighty-five years ago. So he gave, uh, he gave the name, Shalom Dov Ber. Then I said, "Well, hang on a second. Your name is Arye Dov. What are you giving your name, Shalom Dov Ber?" He was, he was known ev- to everyone as Leibl, but he did have a name, Dov. So the, uh, the name was dropped. And, and this is Rav Shalom Edelman, who was a shliach, a rav in Casablanca, on shlichus. He was there for some s-sixty years. And, uh, he was originally named Yechiel Dov Ber, but then the name Dov Ber was dropped because his fath-his, his father's name was,

37:36 Speaker 1 uh, was, uh, Aryeh Dov. Just since I mentioned him, I want to mention something fascinating. He passed away, unfortunately, at the beginning of COVID and was buried temporarily in, uh, in Casablanca. And a year or so later, um, many of those who were buried during COVID were brought to burial in Eretz Yisrael. All the other coffins were relatively light. His coffin was normal weight of just... And, and, and they saw that, that he was-- his body was intact after a year of being in, uh, in a, in a cave or somewhere in Casablanca. And, um, was . Okay. Someone asked me, um, "How do you-- how does a person have such a zchus?" I said, "Listen, Rav Edelman was 60 years in Casablanca, so, uh, he has that zchus." Okay. Let's, uh, read. Someone put here on the, on the chat. Um, Rav Shaul Cohen is writing, he's seen this minhag of going up to the duchan on those words of Bahash of Kohen Avedossom with a slight variation that the Kohenim will have washed their hands before. Especially it's a lot of Kohenim. Yes, that's, that's, you know, certainly true. If there's a lot of Kohenim to start m-moving to getting, being washed, uh, um, um, I mean, then it's, it's gonna be a bit of a tichel the, the tzipporah. Right. Thank you. So you, you ha-you have seen this minhag. Okay. Listen. Also, Kohen of Abisai LeKoheni. Kohenim, uh, it's your, your, your business. Okay. A simple question someone asked about, does

39:18 Speaker 1 Neta Ravui appa-apply in Chutz La'aretz? We all know that orla, the first three years of a fruit tree, which the fruit is forbidden to, uh, also Bahanoah. That applies in Chutz La'aretz also. But Safek Orla beChutz La'aretz is mutar. So there's a variation as far as orla goes between orla in Eretz Yisrael and orla in Chutz La'aretz. What about Neta Ravui, where the fourth year, one would re-- like Maaser Sheni, one would either take the actual produce to Yerushalayim or exchange it for coins and take those coins to Yerushalayim. So does that apply if you have a, a, a fruit tree and you have the fourth year fruit, do you have to be poideh that fruit? So this is written clearly in Shulchan Aruch. Clearly as in three opinions in Shulchan Aruch. Um, so let's read that inside. Din Neta Ravui, first opinion, no yikach beChutz La'aretz. So the first opinion says it does apply in Chutz La'aretz. Vyesh me'sh'omrim she'ein no yikach ella be'aretz. The second opinion, it says it only applies in Eretz Yisrael. Avel Chutz La'aretz pereitz habayim ach sh'over et hane'or la'torah be'lo pitit. Second opinion says it doesn't apply in Chutz La'aretz. Then there's a third opinion. Yesh omrim she'ein no beChutz La'aretz rak be'kerev v'lo be'shailant. That there's a variation in this between, um, between, um, vine and other fruit. Other fruit, there's no, um, Neta Ravui in Chutz La'aretz, and for grapes, it does apply in Chutz La'aretz. L'poel, the Shah, uh, I believe on the, on the

40:57 Speaker 1 notes on this, l'poel, one should be poideh for a coin and, um, Yegan Amitt. Right. Without a brachah. With the opinion of Neta Ravui would be without a brachah. Okay. So now, uh, the next question which I have on the list, second last, is about netilat yadayim. And we have a difference. In netilat yadayim, in the morning, we first dry our hands, and then we say the bracha netilat yadayim. When we wash for bread, we first, um, we first wash, say the bracha, and then we dry our hands. So what's the difference? Why here-- why, why is there this difference? So, part of it is that the drying of the hands when you eat bread is part of the mitzvah. We want to make the bracha before the act of the mitzvah. There's a passage, "Al kein yoichlu bnei Yisrael lechem momtome." If you eat the bread with your wet hands, it's as if you've eaten tome bread. And it's because it's a bit of a crass type of behavior to-- Bread is dr-a dry kind of food. To eat, hold the bread with your wet hands is, it's, it's not a nice thing to do. And because of this, um, the drying of the hands is seen as part of the shleimus of the mitzvah of netilat yadayim. So if you can't make the bracha before washing your hands, because you may have touched, um, you know, makom hamachusim, et cetera, at least you say the bracha before you're drying your hands, so you've

42:38 Speaker 1 fulfilled the idea of ovel asanios, the bracha before, uh, the mitzvah, the completion of the mitzvah. Um, with the washing the hands in the morning, it's to get rid of ruach ra. It's got to do with, um, um, like a Kohen asking, doing da'avida. There's no emphasis that you have to dry your hands. It's not part of any mitzvah. The drying of the hands in the morning is practical, but it's not part of the mitzvah. Therefore, there's no point in saying the bracha before drying the hands. And possibly, or the other way around, that the, um, the-- You've gotten-- You've washed your hands to get rid of ruach ra. Well, perhaps wipe your hands totally and get rid of the ruach ra totally and then- Say your bracha. That could also be. But this you have here from the Kuntres Bi'urim, it's from Pesach tof shin gimel, and the Friediker Rebbe relates three differences between netilat yadayim in the morning and netilat yadayim at the meal. Um, so as he says here, that by netilat yadayim in the morning, the hands are dry, whereas netilat yadayim for the meal, the, um, you say the bracha whilst you're rubbing your hands together, and, uh, before drying the hands. The other thing about the position, in the morning you'd hold the hands, uh, level to the peh yesh rosh, and by, by netilat yadayim for a meal, the hands are held up, le-- k'degan halev. And then he has... By the morning, you have your hands apart,

44:07 Speaker 1 and by your, by netilat yadayim for a meal, you have your hands close to one another. But meanwhile, we're just dealing with this. Now, here's a very interesting, um... I'm gonna go back. The previous slide. Um, very, very interesting. There's a sefer called Ben Ish Chai. You all-- Or everyone knows the name Ben Ish Chai. He also has a similar sefer called Od Yosef Chai. One of his sh- uh, it looks like his shiurim halacha. And he quotes from a sefer, Pishei Olam. Pishei Olam was written by a Rebbe, uh, Karasik, who lived about 100 years ago. What? One something, uh, 120 years ago. He's quoted in the Mishneh Brurah, by the way. Uh, perhaps I mentioned this. But what's interesting is, he writes that Pishei Olam says in the name of Seder Hayom. It was a mistake, uh, of the Ben Ish Chai made a mistake. Mishne-- The Pishei Olam says samech hei, and he actually means Sidur Harav, not Seder Hayom. Different, different sefarim, yeah? Seder Hayom was written by someone, um, um, Haviv about 400 years ago. And the Pishei Olam, who was a Chabad Hasid, he actually was quoting the Alter Rebbe's lashon, where the Alter Rebbe writes in the dinim of washing hands in the morning, that be careful about touching the keili. Um, now, then he goes to a whole discussion about this, and the suggestion here, um, having a keili which has got a wide mouth and having five or six handles, that you shouldn't come to touch

45:36 Speaker 1 one, uh, one hand shouldn't touch the other. And he says, all of this is mehhamtzois kosher sein. It's hard to come by invention, and even mi'ut sebor ein yocheil la'adam. But it's, it's something which is beyond most people to be able to do that. Reb Hillel Paritcher is reputed to have had a kvut which had three handles. Um, what, what, what I wanna share with you is the following. We all know minhag Chabad is to have, to use a towel for, uh, netilat yadayim le-seudah. Typical, a to- a sha- a to- a towel over your shoulders, and that is so that you shouldn't touch with your unwashed hand. You shouldn't touch, touch the washed hand, or the unwashed hand shouldn't touch water on the cup, which is, uh, tamei, and therefore it would dis- it, it disqualify it, et cetera. Is it in-- Is the same minhag of using, uh, using a towel, does that apply to netilat yadayim in the morning? Now, practically, to sit by your-- to lean over your bed and to wash netilat yadayim with a towel, um, I think is very awkward, and I don't think, uh, that's widespread. But people then wash a second time. Is it important to wash netilat yadayim, uh, with a towel in the morning when you, you, you... for this, for the second netilat yadayim? That's not documented in, in Sifrei Rab Bezhai in the Siyyum. Now, I wanna share another thing. Some people have a minhag of washing in the morning, netilat yadayim,

47:17 Speaker 1 to wash four times. Just like the netilat yadayim le-seudah, the first wash is to get rid of the tumah sayaday. The second wash is to get rid of the tumah sayim, uh, the tamei water. So they say the first three washes in the morning is to get rid of the ruach tumah. Then you have to wash a fourth time to get rid of the t- the mayim tamei. So there is a minhag haGra of washing, in the morning, washing four times. There is a letter of the Rebbe where he says that... There's a letter of the Friediker Rebbe s- talks about washing three times. And someone asks, "What's the chiddush, washing them with three times in the morning?" And the Rebbe says, "Ois sorech loima." He's-- wants to preclude that you don't have to wash four times, which is the minhag haGra and the Munkatcher. So, um, so the Rebbe takes the position that you don't wash four times in the morning. You only wash three times. Although someone tells me that, "I heard from Rav Moshe Lazar, who heard from, um, from Rabbi Jacobson, who says he was once with the Friediker Rebbe and saw him washing. In the morning, he washed four times." But the Heroder Rebbe, they wash netilat yadayim in the morning three times. And this whole business of there's a mayim rishonim and mayim shniyim is a din of netilat yadayim le-seudah. It was never said by netilat yadayim ba-boker. There is, is two different types of netilat yadayim. Here

48:49 Speaker 1 it's netilat yadayim le-seudah is mayim, is a technical tumah. The one in the morning's got to do with the ruach tumah. It's different things, and we don't find the idea of mayim rishonim or shniyim for the, uh, priest, Alter Rebbe, et cetera. We don't find the idea of mayim rishonim or shniyim by netilat yadayim in the morning. And therefore, I don't see the need for, um, um, a towel, et cetera. And, uh, Alter Rebbe says, "What happens if you're short of water in the morning?" So he says, "Wash once." Ki ikar hatumah, the main tumah go-- of the, of the ruach tumah, the main thing goes off with the one, one pouring. So really, even with you once pour, poured once in your, in netilat yadayim in the morning, you've already gotten rid of the mo- the main ruach tumah. Um, so at any rate, that's, that's as much as I want to share now. If someone wants it in writing, I can share with them what I've written about this. But I don't see the, uh, the... And, and, and, the, uh, and you see the Ben Ish Chai, he also s-s-saying that, you know, to take it easy, not to require such, uh, you know, s-s-such extreme care in netilat yadayim in the morning as you would for netilat yadayim le-seudah. Okay, let's go on. The last thing which I have on the list for today is that last week we were talking about buying, uh, whether you'd be allowed to buy a

50:07 Speaker 1 church which was up for sale. And so someone, one of our listeners, sent, uh, a message that he'd heard another shiur after that, where they said that you should not be buying a disused ch- uh, church because they're gonna take the money and plow it back into proselytizing and ev- evangelism, et cetera. And that's certainly something which we don't want to sponsor. So here's it becomes an intere- interesting question. Uh, there is a, a premises available, um, what do you want to get it get for free? Um, a- and a lot... What happens if, if a, uh, if a monastery is selling, um, liquor? Are you allowed to buy it? You could say, "Oh, well, they're gonna take the liquor, and they're gonna get the... They, they're selling the liquor, they take the money, and they're going to support, uh, evangeli- evangelical, uh, activities." It may be true. Um, so I wasn't, I was bothered by this. And here you have from Shekhinah, Yodea, Sil, Kuf, Mem, Gimel. And it says here about a, a... If the, uh, Avodah Zarah owns a garden, et cetera, um, about buying from them the fruit, et cetera. And here the Ramah says the following. That which it says, if the profits go to the priests, you shouldn't buy it. It's only if it's in the mamash, in the garden of the Avodah Zarah. If it's not there, then he says, If it's gonna go to the priests, it's okay to buy it from them. If the money's gonna

51:42 Speaker 1 go mamash for Avodah Zarah, then you shouldn't. On this, the Shah says the following. If, um, it says like this. If the, if the priests would only get the money because you're buying it, then you shouldn't buy it. But if, if you would not have bought, um, the, the fruit, then there would be other customers. There would be going who would buy it. They would buy it. They would, they would... In other words, they would make, get their money anyway. Then you are allowed to. What he's basically saying is, there's an asset up for sale. If you won't buy it, someone else will buy it. So don't say that you are instrumental in promoting the cause of the Avodah Zarah. It would've happened in any case. It happens to be that, that, um, um, that you're buying it. But really, they would've gotten their money's worth, um, a- anyway. So therefore, it's, you know, it, it's not your worry. That's what I seem to see. I mean, um, that's as much as I could find on that. And, uh, all right, I'm gonna stop here and perhaps manage to get in time for Maariv. I wish you meanwhile all a good Shabbos and, um, as soon as Tevis, Tom had call on.

52:54 Speaker 2 Shabbos. Good Shabbos.

53:08 Speaker 1 Shabbos.