בלק תשפ״ב

00:00 Good evening, and welcome to the shiur for today, Parshas Balak, Taf Shin Peh Beis. And we'll start off with something which is not so much Halakha, but a fascinating insight. And that is about the-- what we learned last week's sedra, about Moshe Rabbeinu striking the rock. Now, the way we read the Pasuk, the first Pasuk, is that this was a negative thing. It was a mistake of his, and he-- actually, he's even punished for it. Yet, we look at the piyutim, which we say on, um, Hash-on Shemini Atzeres. And we're praising-- We pr-we, we are asking Hashem for bracha in the merit of Moshe Rabbeinu striking the rock. Look here. "Zechor Moshei besev vas gomer min hamayim." Remember the one who was drawn out in a box of whatever gomer is, drawn out from the water. That's why he was called Moshe, as we know. "Nomu doloy dolo." The daughters of, of, uh, Yisroel said that was this stranger who drew water. "Vehishkot tzoin mayim." And he drew water for the sheep. "Segulecha eis tzom l'mayim." When your chosen nation, your precious nation, were thirsty for water. "Al hasela hoch." He struck the rock. He smote the rock. "Vayetsu mayim." And water came forth. So we, we are invoking the zechus of Moshe Rabbeinu. And then we say, "B'tzitzku cham kasras mayim," something like that. The Hemshachiza, we're asking in the merits of Moshe, we should be blessed with water. Strange. So some pe-want to say that this is referring to the first rock, right

02:06 back in, in Sefer N-N-Num Shemos, when they just came out of Mitzrayim, where Hashem says, "V'hikisu ba sur." But there it says the word sur, and here it says the sela. And if this piyut was invoking Moshe Rabbeinu having k-struck the rock the first time, which he was meant to do, so he should have said, "Al hatsur hoch." Okay, so we're asking the question: Was there a positive side to Moshe Rabbeinu striking the, the rock this-- in last week's sedra? Similarly, we see in the Hoshanas. So in the Hoshanas, as-- in the po-poetry, in the Hoshanas, which is to say on Hoshana Rabbah, we are invoking the various tzadikim and their, their merits. So here we have a, uh, alluding to Moshe Rabbeinu. "Tane," you should respond to "b'schanene," those who are pleading. "Ki vishimon," as in the plain land, the desert land. "Alei moyim," seeking water. W-why? "L'ma naeman vais." In the merit of the one who is loyal to you, "Chovesi naeman hu, mastich lo amayim," who provided water for the people. "Sela hoch," he struck the rock. "Vayozvu mayim," and water poured. And therefore, we invoke, "V'hisgeinu kel mozeinu." Therefore, our strength, our might, Hashem, save us. So here again, we are invoking the zechus here. So this is on Shemini Atzeres, and this is on Shmi-- on Hoshana Rabbah, which are obviously, uh, connected to one another. But we are invoking the zechus of Moshe having struck the rock and water came forth. So in the Tikkunei Zohar, the Tikkunei Zohar

04:05 is like a, a kind of companion or a parallel Sefer to the Sefer HaZohar. It's, uh, Tikkun Chaf Alef. Uh, you have the exact page. Mm, some prints it's n-most prints it's now, Mem, Mem Daled or Mem Alef. In the older prints, it's Nun Gimel or Mem Beis. Meanwhile, it says the following: Moshe Rabbeinu, when the people was crowding around the rock, and he said, "Shimu nu hamordim," "Listen, oh rebels." "V'yinaiu," because of them, "Vayak Moshe se'ela b'matehu pa'amayim." He strikes the rock twice. "D'im lo d'moche bo," If M-Moshe had not struck the rock, "Lo yahavah torchan Yisroel v'tannayim v'amrayim v'orais d'v'al peh. D'hi hi se'ela." So the Zohar, the Tikkunei Zohar, is saying that the rock is alluding to the oral Torah. And had Moshe not struck the rock, then we would not have all the toil and effort of the sages, of the Mishnah and the Gemara. Uh, it would have-- w-they wouldn't have had all this toil. "Ela itma bui. V'it-- v'dibartem et hasela v'nosen mayim havolai Torah." We would have had-- Torah Shebeal Peh would have been flowing. It would have been simple. And instead, we have the Torah Shebeal Peh is such a struggle to learn Talmud Bavli, et cetera, with all the struggles. Meanwhile, even the Tikkunei Zohar, you can read this as a negative thing. He struck the rock, and as a result, our Torah learning is with so much struggle. So let's go further. We look in Sefer Mamor in Tosafot Samech Vav. One of the very,

05:51 uh, recurrent themes in Samech Vav is the inion of effort in avoda, uh, effort in learning, et cetera. The Machon, the, um, uh, the idea of, of the man, the Then he goes on, he says that we know that the yegiah b'Torah was introduced through Mei Merivah, that Moshe struck the rock and that is-- it created the yegiah of needing to toil to work out the kavana of, of the, the, the, uh, in it, true kavana of what you're learning. Moshe said, "Hey, dibartah mal sela." And with dibartah mal sela, it says in Yalkut, Moshe Rabbeinu says, "Learn a page of Mishnahs." Moshe said you have to-- And had it been so, we wouldn't, wouldn't have a-- have to have, have yegiah to, uh, toil to learn Torah. And then he quotes the Tikunei Zohar which I just, uh, showed you. Had he not struck the rock, we would not have all of the effort. And then he goes on to explain, nevertheless, there's a, the tremendous advantage of yegiah b'Torah and therefore-- So I don't think even the Rebbe Rashab is saying that it's an ideal situation to cause the yegiah b'Torah, but in retrospect, the, the, uh, the relationship we have with learning Torah through effort is so much richer and that is thanks to Moshe Rabbeinu having struck the rock. It just reminds me as thinking it over, I remember the Rebbe telling the story in Vabregen that when the Luker Torah-- The, the Rebbe had a mechuten. One of his brothers

08:23 was a son-in-law of the Radatz. Radatz was-- his name was, uh, Dovid Zvi Heim, the son of Reb Peretz. And, uh, the Rebbe said that in the house of Reb Menufim Hirschel of Shonenberg. He was the Rebbe in Shonenberg and later he emigrated to Eretz Israel. But it was-- He, he and the Rebbe said it's interesting that why he was referred to as his first name without the appropriate titles and how is it Bachasidim Bechol they're not so particular about giving the appropriate, uh, titles. And the Rebbe said, Bachasidim, there is a view that the Rebbe is always there and therefore Talmud that came around to give coverage to Talmud in the presence of the Rebbe, it doesn't, doesn't work that way. And therefore, the, the Bachasidim saw Hirschel Shonenberg as in the presence of the Rebbe and therefore they ref-they referred to him as Hirschel Shonenberg. And then what then happened was that when the Luker Torah was printed with a, um-- So when the Luker Torah was printed and with-- again, and they sussed out so many mistakes. Oh, so now people were excited. Now we can learn the Luker Torah without so many mistakes. And Hirschel Shonenberg said, "Ah, that's a loss." What happened? Because before when there were mistakes, you'd learn it and you get stuck. It doesn't read very well. You do it again, you learn it a third time. Then once you learn it three, four times, you realize it must be a mistake. In the meanwhile, you've absorbed

09:51 the concept because you learned it a few times. If there's no mistakes, you just keep on sailing and you don't remember it. It's a similar idea that sometimes-- It's a very important point that, um, that sometimes mistakes actually bring out, uh, good things. So coming back. So we have here the quote. Someone is asking where these four are, are from. So the first quote, Tikunei Zohar. Um, as I said, it's page, um, mem dalet or mem beit or nun gimel, depending which print you have. And the quote, the maimer over here is from Torah Samuvah and it's from the beginning of Parshas Terumah. Um, someone's asking that who-- that, the, the, the, Rebbe Leibik's brother was married to a daughter of, uh, to, uh, Radatz. Um, someone's adding here a comment. Aaron and Moshe radiated Gittel Chayyim, so they had to die and not enter Eretz Israel. This way, the Yidden had to connect to the Habochato completely on their own, which possibly also relates to the same concept. The idea of the ma'alof yegiah. And later, this Maimon Samuvah, it goes-- also it talks about the breaking of the luchas. A similar idea that if not for the breaking of the luchas, we would have had just, um, like a list of halachas and through the breaking of the luchas, that brought about the, the whole development of Torah Shebechav. First, the first slide was, um-- So you're asking again, what's the previous slide? The first, the first p-quote here is from, it's from,

11:26 um, Piyut of Geshem of Ashmena Hazareis. And the second quote is from, uh, uh, part of, um, Hoshana Rabah, which is said on Hoshana Rab. Let's move on. Just All right. So here, a practical question. We have a-- Somewhere in Europe, there's a Beis Chabad on the ground floor of an apartment building, and they are very, uh, short of space. Recently, they've, uh, they've absorbed many, uh, refugees, et cetera, and they are desperate for space. Next door to them, on the ground floor, there's a disused space which previously was used for some kind of, um, Christian group, Salvation, et cetera. Um, so he asks me, am I allowed to rent that space? That's available for rental. It was used previously. It was used for worship. It was also used for various social activities, uh, sorting out old clothes for giving for poor people. Perhaps giving out food for poor people, whatever it was, and occasionally used for worship. On that basis, I felt that it's okay for him to rent it, to use it for the Chabad activities. Davening, learning it, and, and my chesed obviously. But then another shliach, a learned shliach in that part of the world, he says, "No, no, no, no. Not so fast." The, this, this group, the Salvation, uh, Army, the, the, the European equivalent, they are, they are a Christian group, and it's not as if they have another church where they go on Sundays. This is their church. This is their place of worship. But in their

13:25 theology, in their approach, part of your worship, part of your avodah, l'havdil, is also to do chesed, and is also... So that's part of it. So therefore, whereas in other, uh, temples, it would be incongruous to see old clothes in the place of worship, but for them it's, it's, it's a double heimischkeit. It's simply the way, that's their theology. That changes the story. It wasn't just a social hall also used for worship. It's actually a place of worship, which also has other activities going on there, um, but not to... That doesn't detract from it being a place of worship. Well, that changes the, that changes the picture. And question was asked years ago, 60 years ago. 60 years ago, you have, uh, a question in Switzerland, I think. I don't know if it was in Germany. It's mentioned in this, Sefer Helkas Yaakov, um, that there was a, in a particular town, the... As unfortunately many places, uh, they don't, they, a large amount of people don't come to shul every week. When it comes Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, they have to start finding overflow accommodation. So in this place, the only overflow accommodation was of the Catholic, Katholische Jugend, the Catholic youth place, which was a kind of a place of worship. And Rav Breisch in Helkas Yaakov, he says, he said, "Absolutely no. You can't rent a place of worship for a, for, you know, for a weekend and then give it back. That doesn't work." So let's read that halacha in

15:10 the Shulchan Aruch. So this is in Yoreh Deah, Kuf Mem He. And it has the, Rav Mechaber says, "If a house was built for, that it should be the house its- itself is the object of worship. And for that matter, if there's a house which has been already standing, but it's been bowed down to in worship, then that would make the house Ose Behanot, an article of Avodah Zarah. Had the house been already standing and it had been decorated for Avodah Zarah, for the purpose of worship, then you want to kind of make it, um, secular again or mundane. So you take away the, the various additions, enhancements, and then it would be, um, back to, back to okay. Then he goes on fur- further. If you have a house in which a, a, an object, an idol was brought in, so, so long as the house is accommodating that idol, that house is Ose Behanot. You're not allowed to have benefit from that house. If the idol was taken out of the house, then you are allowed to have benefit from the house. That is the Shulchan Aruch. On this, there are more comments the following. That which we have said, if the idol is taken out of the house, now it's Mutar Behanot. It's permitted to use. That's only Shelo Huktsa Habayit Sakach. When the house wasn't earmarked, wasn't designated as a temple for this, uh, idol. Aval Huktsa Lekach. If the house had been designated for a, a place of worship, Ein

16:49 Hu Muter. Then it's not, not rehabilitated, so to speak. El Im Ken, it's Siah Mishom De Rach Bito. It would have to be that the Avodah Zarah has been taken out in a way of annulment of this affiliation. What does that mean? That they, they take out the, Goy has taken out the idol. Shelo Lehachzis Od Shom. With the declared intention, I don't intend to bring this idol back in. So what we're seeing here is that a, if a place has been designated for worship, then it would only become permitted for use for, for us, for regular stuff, only if the Avodah Zarah was taken out for indefinitely. Taken out by the Goyim indefinitely. So coming back to our, our neighbors, our temple, which is a neighbor of the Chabad house. Had it been that they are just, um, amenable to rent it out for a, for a week or for a month or for a year, that would not have been enough to take away the status of it being a, a kind, a dwelling of Avodah Zarah. The term which the Shach uses, Mishamshi Avodah Zarah. It's like an impertinence of the Avodah Zarah. And so long as that is, um- That's part of its profile, then you're not allowed to use it. The good news is that the, these, these, uh, this... the owners of this place actually have no intention of re-occupying the place for worship, and they've told the Chabad Shliach there, "You're welcome to buy the place. We don't,

18:36 we don't have no... We actually, we're ready to sell." They ho-wh- whole own the whole building. No shortage of money. They're ready to sell the whole building, but unfortunately, the Shliach doesn't have enough money to buy the building. So that's why he hasn't bought it. But they, as far as they're concerned, they've taken out the cross. They've, uh, and they've said, "You'll, you can rent it indefinitely." If that's the case, then it is a Bitul, even though it's a rental, not a purchase on the part of the Yid. On the part of the Goy, there has been a total withdrawal of a purpose of worship in this place. And as a result, it does not have the status of Mishamshav Avodah Zarah, and it's permitted to use. However, the scholar, uh, the other Shliach, this, uh, Talmid Chacham, he says, "Wait a minute, not so... There's another aspect here." And that is the concept of Moz, which means, um, I think the word would be despicable. To use something which has been used for Avodah Zarah, to now use it for a worship of Hashem is despicable. And he brings, uh, the, the, the, uh, Shulchan Aruch. Now we're going to Shulchan Aruch O'ruch Chaim. In the Kuf Nuns, that's the area of the Halachas of Beis Haknesses, Halachas of a Shul. And the Halacha is that if candles had been used in worship, in Avodah Zarah worship, and then the Goyim put out the candle, and now they take these candles, they want to

20:03 resell them. So if they put out the candle, that is a Bitul as far as they're concerned. They, they've annulled it from being used for worship. Now they're selling it, but you're not allowed to use those candles in a Shul. Because it was used for worship of Avodah Zarah, so now to use it for worship in, of Hashem in a Shul, that's not allowed. So now this place, this, this, uh, neighboring p- uh, property, since it was used as a church, as a place of worship, Avodah Zarah, then you shouldn't be allowed to now... Even though it's Mutar BeHanah, because the Avodah Zarah, the, the cross has been taken out. But it should be still also should be forbidden because of its history. It should have a despicable stigma. A stigma of, of the, of the, being despicable because of its history. So the Magen Avraham in Kuf Nun Aleph, he says, "Although I've seen this idea of not using candles from Avodah Zarah for, um, use in a Shul, but about a, a building, I have not seen this." And people do use... It's, it's been acceptable. And this is interesting. Even four hundred years ago, it wasn't unusual. It was a known thing that sometimes a, a church had to, been sold and been used as a shul. What's the reason for this? Why, why should there be a difference between a candle with a history of Avodah Zarah and a building which has a history of Avodah Zarah? The question is a

21:38 good question. So now I'm re-- I'm reading now. What you have on the screen is the, is the Mishnah Berurah, just to keep things a bit simple. Uh, he says, "The Magen Avraham writes in the name of Rabbi Ovadia Mizrachi that it's okay." And he rationalizes that's because the house itself has not been worshiped. Then Mishnah Berurah says, "However, the Eliyahu Rabba," was Eliyahu Shapiro, who lived a bit, about the time of Baal Shem Tov. He is inclined to be Machmir, to be more strict, not to make a, a, a shul in a place which has been used previously for Avodah Zarah. Mishnah Berurah continues. My impression is that the Olam, which is the Jewish world, are accustomed to take the lenient position and to use for a shul a place which was previously used for Avodah Zarah. Mishnah Berurah has a se-- a marginal note called Birur Halacha. It's more like a, a more discussion, more like a post has been discussed. That there's a difference between a temple which housed a, an, an idol or not. If it's not used, that's, then one can be lenient. If it had been used to h- house idols, even though they were taken out and the place was sold to a Yid, and it's permitted for mundane use, but it's still considered, uh, despicable for Avodah Zarah because it was previously used for housing a, a, uh, an idol. So now, so what's the score here now? So I, I'd like to take, say, a couple

23:22 of points. Number one, the Magen Avraham testifies that we are Mekil. Well, now, before we go, go further, he quotes the Re, Re'em, who's otherwise known as Rabbeinu Ovadia Mizrachi. Actually, the Magen Avraham quotes the Rabbeinu Mizrachi as quoted in the Knesses HaGedolah. And I want to explain something. The Knesses HaGedolah was, is like a, like a Melakit, like an, um, uh, a con- a companion volume to the Shulchan Aruch. And he brings brief conclusions from various Poskim. Magen Avraham himself did not have such a large library, so he did not look up the actual source of Rabbeinu Mizrachi, and he just relies on the quote in the Knesses HaGedolah. We do have the access to Rabbeinu Mizrachi, and the story there is the following. There was a particular shul where it turns out that there was a Shamas of the shul, had been molesting children in the shul. And the people were furious, justifiably, but they would take, they would get ready to take a step further. Since the us-- this shul has been the accommodation, the pre- premises where such terrible things took place, therefore, the shul should be a condemned shul, and it should never be used for Avodah Zarah again. That was their, um, um, their, uh, position. And to this, Rabbeinu Mizrachi disagrees. And he says that we know that pe- people buy homes which were previously occupied by idol worshippers. And they, in their homes, they will have idols, and they will do incense, and they will worship them.

25:16 And we still buy the shuls even though those fame-- uh, walls have accommodated avodah zarah. Therefore, he says that it's the same thing. Um, the fact that there was a terrible violation done in the shul does not forbid us to use the shul for davening, et cetera. Now, having read that, that has got no bearing on our-- on the immed-case at hand. N-because the Mizrachi is not talking about a house which was actually, um, which was designated for worship. He's talking about a pl-a house where a, a, a violation took place. But when a place was actually used for worship, then the ob-objection of Moaz of being-- because it was used for avodah zarah comes back. So the Mogan Avrom's relying on the, on Mizrachi perhaps can be challenged. But what we're seeing here, the Mishne Berura is saying that the Olam Noheg in Lehokhiel. He's saying that despite those reservations, the, at large, the, uh, the, the custom is to take the lenient view. Furthermore, the-- even the Mishne Berura seems to be taking a stricter position. If there was... Now, my little bit of research into the, these, uh, salvationists is that they are more like Protestants, et cetera. They do not worship the cross as being itself an object of worship. For them, the cross is a reminder of Yoshke, that's true, but it's not that they actually worship it as an idol in, in, in other, perhaps even in Christian faiths where they will actually bow down to an idol. It's,

27:02 it's-- that's not what they're doing. As a result, and p-possibly that's what the Mishne Berura is saying, those places of worship which are not actually worshiping an article. So there's, there-- Chris-the Christian worship is avodah zarah. I'm not di-di-taking away from that. But is there a physical article to say, "This article has been, become also because of avodah zarah, and as a result, the whole house becomes Mishkam Shehavah zarah, becomes a pertinence of avodah zarah"? What I'm saying is in this form of this flavor of Christianity, it-- that, that's not the case, and therefore it does not have-- the building does not become a building of avodah zarah, and consequently it's permitted to use it for, uh, for, uh, a shul, um, once, once all, um, avodah zarah elements. Once the cross has been taken out permanently, then, then that should be okay. The, um, one's asking about the fact that you're giving money, and they're going to use the money to further their activities. We've gone through this not long ago. You-- are you allowed to buy goods from a group, a monastery, a nunnery? They sell-- they're selling, uh, from their gardens, they're selling, uh, fruit, um, jam, whatever it may be. Um, the basic halacha remains that they could make their money by selling their, their, that jam to anyone. It's not as-- If they, if they don't sell it to you, they'll sell it to someone else. It's not as if, uh, they are, they, you are crucial to their, to

28:43 their mission. And so you are allowed to buy stuff which, um, um, commodities. Someone asked a simple question. Are you-- What do you do about a, a bar mitzvah during the nine days? Can you serve a, um, a fleishig, a meal during the nine days at a bar mitzvah? So just to keep things short, you have here the Nittei Gavriel, both in Bein Hametzorim and in his volume of bar mitzvah. He writes that you are allowed to serve meat and wine at a bar mitzvah during the nine days. And the idea is just like we are all familiar about using a siyum, and that a siyum would justify having, uh, fleishigs. So similarly, a bar mitzvah is in one, one form, it's a siyum of the responsibilities which you had until now. Of course, you don't need-- You, you're not off the hook until they are, uh, very well and, uh, and stable in their avodas Hashem. But there's a certain phase here of, uh, of a siyum or certainly, yes, seudas mitzvah of sorts. And anyway, that's, that remains the psak. That if you wanted to have a fleishig meal at a bar mitzvah, that, that would be okay. Let's move on. Um, what's number four? Okay. So someone... Here's a very challenging question. A man needs, um, a several-day medical procedure which dictates that afterwards all his effects which were with him in the hospital will be incinerated. May he take his tefillin with him? Which means that once he's discharged, all of

30:22 his garments and the tefillin will be taken away and will be incinerated. So there's a neveah to destroy besides the money cost. We're talking about there's a neveah to cause Hashem's name to be destroyed. Very, very interesting. I didn't go into all of it into detail. There's a whole discussion in the Gemara about a person who has, on his skin, he has Hashem's name. Yud Kei Vav Kei was written on his skin. Is he allowed to take a bath? Because when he's ba-bathing, it's going to, uh, it's going to erase the, the, Hashem's name. Then what about-- There's a whole discussion about indirect causing Hashem's name to be erased. So there's a lot of discussion about, about this. Meanwhile, so th-th-this is relevant to here because- It's not as if the, Chassid Hashem is going to be, uh, burning the tefillin. It's going to be the, the staff of the hospital will do so. So it's indirect causation. That's the question. So it was a, a question discussed, let's say, 50 years ago at, um... and you've got the Michaz Tzuk and the Gus Moshe, and they're taking the position, certainly Gus Moshe take the position, that you should not let him take the tefillin in and, uh, you'll just have to manage without wearing tefillin for those several days. But, um, the, uh, Sefer, the, again, Chelkas Ya'akov, I mentioned Rav Braish, he takes the view that, uh, no, for this Yid who's really, is for him to miss the day of tefillin is,

31:50 uh, he never, he's never done this, and it's very important to him. And so he, he takes the view that he can, uh, take the tefillin with. He also suggests that it's, he, he could possibly, uh, before he leaves, cut open the tefillin and take out the parashas and just leave the batim, and the, the people there wouldn't know the difference. Um, but, uh, I remember years ago, and I, I, I, that, that, I remember the, seeing this machloket and thinking, "Oh, the question here, it boils down to who is more important, the tefillin or the Jew who wears the tefillin?" Is it the tefillin? Okay, well, if you say the Yid who wears tefillin is more important than the tefillin, then we understand Rav Braish, the Chelkas Ya'akov view. The, the most, the most important thing is the Yid should wear tefillin, and what's the difference, one day or 10 days or whatever. So, so you have here... And the, this discussion is brought, if I want to look it up, there's a Sefer called Nishmas Avraham, excellent series of sefarim, um, which go according to the order of Shulchan Aruch, uh, and deal with all medical issues. So in Hilchot Tefillin, Siman Bet Ches, the Nishmas Avraham brings a, uh, synopsis of the various opinions about this, about tefillin which, uh, chole, um, and if they're not, if they're not used, they will... If they're, if they, if they are brought in, they will have to be incinerated. Let's move on. Um, last

33:09 Friday night, one of the visitors in shul came over to me and he said, uh, he just realized that they left the light on in the bedroom, and he says, "I can't sleep with light on. Is there a, am, am I allowed to ask a goy to switch off the lights, which would be asking Remez?" So I told him that you are allowed to tell the goy in a way that you say you can't sleep, and the goy will put it out, uh, you know, if he's amenable to you. And how does that fit with the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch? The Alter Rebbe is quite machmir on this, uh, in the Shulchan Aruch, and he says, "If a goy brings you a package and you tell him, oh, well, I can't use the stuff in the package unless the seal is broken, and so the goy breaks it over you. But that's only because the goy thinks it's part of his job to also open up the package," which won't work nowadays because the union, union rules say you're not meant to open a package or whatever it may be. Um, so according to the Alter Rebbe, it doesn't seem to be so pashut. Now, we've gone through this before, that the Alter Rebbe, this, uh, uh, invested enormous energy in this, uh, researching the concept of amirah l'nochri, what you can, what you cannot ask a goy to do. I mentioned before that many, many Yidden in Alter Rebbe's times had their parnasah were

34:30 from selling, uh, alcohol, krechmes, and so they, the Alter Rebbe gives advice how to be able to run your, uh, your pub on, over Shabbos and without violating the issur of, of trade on Shabbos. The Alter Rebbe has in his, at a later stage, after he'd written the Shulchan Aruch, he has a revision of the, the, the, um, the principles of amirah l'nochri. It's a very complex, um, uh, treatise. Personally, I've never learned through the whole thing. I was just daunted by it. But meanwhile, in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, in, um, Siman Shin Zayen, which we just learned recently in shu- in the shul. So here you have the note of the editor, Rav Levin, writes the following. The, the, "Despite what's written here about the goy with the delivery of letters, et cetera, uh, you look at the Alter Rebbe's conclusion in Mardu Basra on Siman Reish Mem Gimel," which is again, this topic, "that when the goy does something on his own accord, and so you don't have to object unless you personally are gonna benefit from it." So if the goy is doing, switching... Here's the difference. If a goy switches on the light or switches off the light. If the goy is switching on the light, you're gonna, and even on his own accord, unless he's benefiting from it, if he's doing it for you, you'd have to say, "No, Jack," or whatever, "Bob, don't do it." But if he's switching off the light, then you're not benefiting from the

36:03 melacha. You're benefiting from the absence of light. So there's a, a subtle difference here. When the goy, on his own accord, does a melacha and you're gonna benefit from it, you'd have to object. If the goy is doing a melacha and you're going to benefit from the absence of melacha, then you are allowed to leave him be. That's the quote from the Alter Rebbe. So if the goy switches off the light and you're benefiting from the absence of light, that's acceptable according to the Kondro Sachrin. You're allowed to leave him do it. Um, and the second quote here is a little bit more articulate from the Shemirat Shabbos K'Hilchota because the Alter Rebbe just says, "You don't have to intervene." In the Shemirat Shabbos, he goes a little bit more, um, more le-lenient. He says, "You are allowed to say to the present- in presence of a goy that I cannot sleep when the, the light is on." So it's not an instruction. You are airing your frustration, but you're not telling him what to do. It's not like you're saying him, not even speaking in code. You're not-- Sorry, you're not giving an instruction in code. You are obviously giving a hint, but not an instruction. And as because it's bederach sipur, and the goy understands, and he puts out the light. He switches off the light, and he says, "That's okay." All right. So that's the, uh, the answer. Because it's switching off the light, therefore the, uh-- expressing your frustration and the

37:35 goy therefore does something for you, uh, that's okay. Point six is I got a question this week from somewhere overseas. A, a kallah from a, an Anash family wants her father and mother to lead her to the chuppah, one holding either side. Is that a change which the rabbi should accommodate? So it's known that in the Rebbe's family, the father and mother led the kallah by the Rebbe's chosna. As we know, the Rebbe's parents weren't present at his wedding. They were back in, uh, in Russia, in Ukraine, actually, in Yekatirinoslav, and the, the chosna took place in Warsaw. Yet, uh, so the... but when it comes to the, the taking the, his wife, the Rebbetzin, um, so the Frediker Rebbe took her from one arm, and the mother, the Rebbetzin Nechama Dina took her on the other arm, and they led her to the chuppah. And years later, the Rebbetzin would say how she still feels her father's arm under her, under her arm supporting her as she went to the-- as she was led to the chuppah. Um, bear in mind they also, the Beis Halevi would use a very thick veil, so she couldn't see where she was going. She needed to be led. Having said that, Sefer HaMinhagim says the following. Know again that the choson is led by the ovos, the fathers of the choson and kallah, and the kallah is led by the mothers of the choson and kallah. So that is the standard Anash proc-procedure, and I wouldn't recommend

39:10 to change from that unless they have an established family minhag. I just want to add one, one, uh, point. By a bris, at a bris, we have a kohen and a kohen. The reason for this is because the baby is obviously with the mother. For a man to go into the ezras noshim to pick up the baby and bring him to the shul, men shouldn't be going into the ezras noshim. For the, a, a woman to bring the baby to the kisui shel yayim, a woman doesn't come into ezras anoshim. So what do you do? So they devised the idea of a kohen and a kohen, and they meet at the doorway. The kohen brings the baby from the mother, gives it to the kohen, and the kohen brings it to the, to the, to the, to kisui shel yayim, et cetera. So now, coming back to the, uh, wedding. If the kallah is sitting a-a-with all the ladies, so what does it-- the father just comes in on his own and comes over and takes the kallah by the arm. The Rebbe might be a different story. The Rebbe would be, always be going with shamashim, gaboyim, etc. He would be going with a few, few people is one thing, but to, that, uh, a regular person, a regular chosid, it would mean him going in on his own to the, uh, to the, uh, ezras noshim, to, by the badeki and by the kal-kallah sitting. At any rate, I, uh, generally, I feel

40:26 that there's an established minhag. One doesn't depart from the established minhag unless there's very good reason. Let's move on. So here now is the, uh, camp reason-- camp, camp season. And so you've got girls out in a, running a camp, and there's no men there. Uh, in, they have their own accommodation. And what do you do about Havdalah? So this is a question that was asked this week. And here, there's the difference between the circles, uh, whether it's okay for a woman to make Havdalah on her own. You can see at the top of the screen. Noshim chayovos behavdalah. The women are obliged to, to make Havdalah as they are obliged to make Kiddush. Zocher, zocherin betziyoso, bechnisoso betziyoso. V'yesh mechayeleh are those who disagree and say that women do not have the chafiy of Havdalah. Writes the Rama, al ken lo yavdilu le-- therefore, they should make Havdalah on their own. Rak yishmeu Havdalah min ha-anshim. Instead, they should hear Havdalah from the men. So this seems to be that the Rabboys say that a woman shouldn't be making Havdalah on her own. The Magen Avraham disagrees, and he says no, it means that they don't have to or something like that. But it is okay for a woman to make Havdalah on her own, and he brings a proof. Even if she's not obliged to make Havdalah, she's not obliged to hear shofar. But if she needs to, wants to hear shofar, she'll make a bracha. And if she does, doesn't want, if

42:03 she's not obliged to bendch lulav, but if she wants to make a bracha on lulav, she does. At least for Ashkenazim, the psak of Toisfes that a woman is allowed to elect to do a mitzvah sheh-zman grama to make a bracha. And the Alter Rebbe paskens this way. So here we have Alter Rebbe there in the same place in Shiurei Salig Vaof. Aval hanoshim atzmon yacholus lehadlik leatzmon. Women can make Havdalah on their own, even though they are pturahs, according to the second opinion, as they are able to make a bracha on any other mitzvah which is time-linked, which is not a bracha l'vatala, as mentioned in the Chassidishe Zimun Zoin. In the Kuntres Achron, he says, "I, the Taz, says that differentiating if it's one step away or two steps away, if it's a de-rabbonon of a de-rabbonon," something like that, or s- a min-- electing to do any, the mitzvah de rabbonon. He says, "What about Hallel uRizun?" Which is minhag, and women choose to say Asheivetchonu. It's a minhag. Lulav, the rest of Sukkos is, is, uh, is, uh, is, uh, again, it's not such a strict mitzvah, and still women will make a bracha on lulav the rest of Yom Terumah. And then he goes on, uh, according to their opinion. That the Haggadah is Rabbonon. And still, a, a blind person will make a bracha on the Haggadah, even though it's a Rabbonon, it's, it's a, a Rabbonon and he's, and a blind person might not be It's true, he

43:25 continues, Rab Haim, that when we have Havdalah and the men making Havdalah, they put their hands out. Women generally don't put their hands out to the, to the flame. Could be for reasons of tzniut, whatever it may be. But, uh, for them to make the bracha when there's no man around to make the bracha and put out their hands, that is not a problem at all. Um, it's not only Ksav Veshulchan. In the Piskei Teshuva, also here on Ra- on, um, in Siman Reish Tad Reish Vav, he brings a whole list of r- recent poskim who take the view that a woman can make a bracha borei minei ha'eish. And therefore, that Roz remains. That if there's no man, uh, readily available to make Havdalah for the women, so they can make their Havdalah and be motzi one another if necessary, and make all the brachos just as a, as a man would. Let's move on. Someone asked me, um, and I'm sharing this with you because, um, he actually asked me two questions. He was told... So someone gave him a, a, a pair of shoes. A brand new pair of shoes. And the person said, "But give me $1." Because there's something about not receiving shoes as a gift. It's, it's something, um, not a good school to receive shoes as a gift, therefore give me a dollar. Therefore, you've bought it rather than, than... Now, so he asked me if I've ever heard of such thing. He was told that you don't

46:25 give a gift, neither shoes nor a knife. So I did my research. And about knives, here you got a quote. This is from Sichas HaRan. Those familiar with Breslov, uh, um, history. You have Rav Nachman of Breslov, and then you have his Talmud. It's Rav Nasan, and he is quoting from the Baal Shem Tov that one doesn't give a gift a knife. Don't, don't give a knife as a gift to a friend. So that I did find. About giving shoes as a gift, uh, I found it in one place, in a Sefer, where he says it's Zemus Zevas. It says it's just a s- He dismisses it as a superstition, and there's no basis for it. So if someone out there does have a basis for it, um, I'll be happy to be, uh, corrected. But meanwhile, uh, I have no, not found anywhere to substantiate that there's any hesitation of, um, giving or receiving shoes as a gift. Let's move on to our next question. Um, okay. One of our loyal listeners sent in a question that, um, his wife bought a t- uh, in the, uh, a Chinese auction. She bought a ticket, and she was one of the lucky winners of the article that she had chosen that if she wins, you know. So now she's asking, does she have to reimburse her maaser kitty for the amount she gave for the, for the, uh, Chinese auction. And the answer, which I said she does not need to. And basically, the principle

48:00 here is you are allowed to get kickbacks from your maaser money. If you're not well familiar what the word kickback means, that you, to give... You do something and you get a side benefit. So here you have a source in, um... This is in the Shach Yoreh Deah. He quotes Maharshal and the Drisha in the name of Moreinu Rav Nachum Mi'il Tzedek that a mitzvah which comes your way, like to be a baal bris or a chasan kaloni to be the unterferer, to buy sforim, et cetera. If you cannot afford otherwise, you can use your maaser money for that. Obviously, it means baal bris, you'll be the sandek. You'll be given an honor. So it's okay to get an honor for, with your tzedakah money. So people go buy aliyas, and they get a kibud, et cetera. It's legitimate to use your maaser money even though you're gonna get... It's, you're gonna get a, a kickback. That is legitimate. Similarly, over here, to buy a, a ticket in a Ma- Chinese auction. Basically, you're giving a donation to the cause. The fact that you get a kickback, um, does not... That, that's legitimate. However, um... Well, before I go further, before the however. I was intrigued. This name, Menachem, Harav Menachem Mi'il Tzedek. Uh, I'd never noticed that name before, so I did a little bit of research. And they managed to geholfen that he was a, looks like a contemporary or, or a Rebbe of, in the, the generation before the Maharshal, which puts

49:31 him at about 400 and something. 450 years ago, approximately. And he was known, uh, otherwise known as Rav Menachem of Metzberg. And he was a very eminent posek in his time. Um, so that's this Menachem Mi'il Tzedek. Okay. So now, what about the actual... Let's say, um, you saw this Chinese auction, and you, uh, you'd love to get a new set of dishes, and you put in £10, and you won the set of dishes. Do you now have to give maaser of the value of a set of dishes? Let's broaden the question. You receive a gift. Do you have to give maaser of the value of a gift? So the answer is, here you can see here a quote from the Sefer, uh, Tzedakah uMishpat, which specializes in Tzedakah, says the following. If you receive a gift, uh, and the article is something which you would have bought in any case. Let's say, um, it's the beginning of the school year, just before the school year, and you would have bought a new school bag. And instead, you got a, a school bag as a win or as a gift. So then, well, then you've pocketed, you, you've got now another ten pounds or twenty pounds in your pocket. Well, then that's a savings on your budget or your poc-pocket, something which you would have budgeted for in any case. So now you have got it as a gift. That kind of gift, you should be giving Maaser for. By contrast, if it's a gift

51:04 which is, you would not have bought it, uh, from your own money. It's a, it's a wish, but it's not part of your budget, then you do not have to give Maaser for such a gift unless you actually sell it. So this, um, question about, let's say, you got a whole set of dishes because you won the, um, uh, the Chinese auction. The question to you is, were you going to buy a set of dishes in any case? In which case, you should give Maaser of your win. If you weren't going to buy, it's just a wish, and this wish has become true, so use it in good health. Uh, unless you go and sell it to someone else, then you ma-make it into cash, then you'd have to give Maaser then. Right. Let's move on. Um, someone asked me just this morning, I think, or last night. Many times you got food containers which have got-- have tear-off strips. So we've gone through, we know these bottles which have break-off, um, you know, rings. You turn, so there's metal ones and plastic ones, and that's been a discussion for decades. But what we have of late is you have containers of food, sometimes it's biscuits, um, these eggickels, and they have this kind of strip. You can't open the packet without tearing away the strip. You buy a, a tub of, um, cottage cheese, and it's got this kind of protective, uh, layer, and there's a little tab which you have to break off,

52:29 and then you can lift the, uh, then you can lift the lid to get to the cottage cheese and so on. So what you have in front of you is from the Sefer Biscuits Shuvis. The previous discussion has all been about the bottle tops and breaking them open, and he's taken the view... Middle of a shir, call me in about five, 10 minutes. So, um, these bottle tops, so they differentiated between metal ones, which he's more, uh, anxious about. Plastic ones, he's more easy-going about. Then he goes on. The whole, um, scenario, the whole concern, again, applies to tubs and whatever containers, but you have to tear off a strip to be able to access the food. And he says that basically, you-- there's r-room to rely on to, to allow it, but, uh, better to buy. Well, we knew before, but, uh, you, you can... Bottom line is you can op-- you're allowed to open them on Shabbos. As I looked at this this morning, I noticed something which, very interesting point. So now let's say you're allowed to open a bottle of grape juice with a plastic, uh, lid. And, um, but let's say you have now a lid and it's got a dangling piece. And it's just a bit of a nuisance. It doesn't, just looks odd. So although the, you're taking the leniency of you're allowed to open the lid, break off that, break that, that ring. But to start breaking off the little bits of plastic to make now the

54:11 ring more com-- you know, more, uh, presented. To access the food is one thing, but to now to make the lid look more menschelich, that would not be okay. All right. Um, let's just finish off. Vehem shich, continuation from last week. So we had a discussion about, if you remember, about, um, if you have an option of taking off all the mezuzahs in one go and take it to the me-me, you know, to, to the Sofer. Or is there a preference to leave some mezuzahs in the house and then, and, and then to... And I mentioned about a, a, about a view that one mezuzah is enough for the whole house. And says, and then I dimiss-- dismissed it. So someone asked me, "If there is such a view, so why did you say take off all the mezuzahs? There is a view that... Why, why did I dismiss that?" All right. So, and I want to sh-share you where, where, where I'm coming from. The, the middle quote here is, the Ramoh in Siman, um, reish be zayin, year a day. And he's lamenting the minhag which was prevalent in Germany in his time. The Roey Olam are relying on one mezuzah for the entrance of the house. It is incorrect. And it has no basis. So it's not an opinion in Halacha that one mezuzah is enough for the house. It's a, it's a common misconception. And therefore, you c-- a-a-and therefore, there's no reason to encourage such a perception. On the contrary,

55:41 it's actually, it's, it's, it's, it's incorrect. Um, I just recently learned the Gemara in M'nochas talking about this. You can see the top quote. If you have one door, if you have two doors, the Gemara says, from Rav Huna we understand, in Druna, which means a chamber, um, which has four entrances, it has to have four mezuzahs. The, one of the sources of the, of the, uh, Ramoh is from the Mordechai in M'nochas, and he quotes the Me'ah Rothenberg. And the Me'ah Rothenberg is actually addressing our Gemara, this Gemara in M'nochas Daf Lamed Daled, that the, um, a house which has got mezuzahs appropriate, no harm will befall that home. In our house, we have close to twenty-four mezuzahs. For the Beis Hamedrash and for the Beis... For the winter, uh, where they have the, uh, fireplace for the winter, and the main entrance, and then the entrance to the Chotzer, which opens to the street, and another, another one, which is the side entrance, and the, the, the upstairs, et cetera. And, um, where he eats in the summer, um, all the rooms. And he says, and the rooms where the Bochurim sleep, Mishol Meir Bar Boruch. And he's saying that, he's, he's, he's emphasizing contrary to the, to the Minhag HaOlam, which is, as they say, was an error. He's saying, "No, on the contrary, we have to have mezuzahs in every room. There's n- and there's no, there's no r- uh, no real, uh, heter on that. And therefore, on the contrary,

57:15 there, there's no, the, the, there's a mitzvah of every room. And if there's a heter to take the mezuzahs to Bedika, so you may as well take them all in one go, if that's gonna make things quicker." And, uh, yeah. All right. I'll wish you all a, uh, a good evening and a good Shabbos and, uh, chatov.