דברים תשפ״ב

00:00 Good evening, and welcome to the shiur for this, um, Parshas Devarim, Hazoin. There is a, uh, Siyum. I'm actually now in Northwest London. There's a shiur in-- there's a Siyum in the yeshiva in Kingsley Way. So if I finish a couple minutes early, that's my excuse. And, um, so let's, let's go straight into our list of questions. So the last couple of weeks, it came up this question about using a goral to make a decision. And at first, I had understood the wording of the Shulchan Aruch, "Ein sh'eilin b'chozim u'b'kechavim v'lo bigoralos," not to consult astrologers nor lots. That one wouldn't be allowed to consult them for advice. And then I shared with you the, uh, position of Rav Shlomo Kluger, who says that that's talking about asking for predictions for the future. It's not talking about, it's not talking about, um, making a decision for the here and the now. He says that you are allowed to. Following that convers-- That, that was last week's shiur. And following that, well, someone pointed me in the direction of a Sicha from tof shin mem tes, Parshas Bamidbar. And there's a mugadic Sicha, and then there's this, the part which wasn't included in the published Sicha. And in that context, the Rebbe is talking about the payes, the goral, which was used in the Beis Hamikdash to sort out which Kohen, Ko-Kohen should do which, uh, avoda. And although there was an earlier stage where there was a race of the Kohanim, who would get up

01:55 the, to the top of the trove first, and then one shoved the other, and someone fell off the ramp and broke his leg. And from then, they started doing with a show of hands and, uh, a dipping with the, they call the payes. But Rashi actually says even the running up the ramp was also a form of goral. So we see the goral is something which is, uh, has its, a, a, you know, venerable place in Torah, in Halakha. And so the Rebbe talks about, you know, goral being, "L'ma'ala mita'am v'da'at, tzedek, and avoda." In that context, the Rebbe mentions about the Menas Yisroel of using sometimes a sefer, to open up a sefer in a particular way and to draw a, a message from there. And then he says in a, in a note, however, to use a sefer which is kodesh, to use that for a, uh, mundane purpose seems to be inappropriate. To use something sacred for a mundane purpose seems to be inappropriate. Therefore, he says, "Find another method." Doesn't go into detail in the Mugra, uh, edition. In the Bilgi Mugra, this is what the Rebbe had said by the Farbrengen but didn't publish. So the Rebbe says the following. This is what you have in front of you. "V'hadedar, on the contrary, when it comes to bebior b'inyan, binyan hachel," about mundane matters, one can, one should, v'chayra. It should be using mundane matters themselves. Then he goes on, he says, "V'licha v'dugma." You open the window, which opens

03:41 onto the rechov sarav. Not in the rechov hashalom, chapill chavec, rechov sarav, opposite Yechida shel olam, but the rechov sarav d'kashrut. You open up the window to the street where people are doing mundane things, and the first thing which you will see, v'has gochapratis, that you will, um, you will explain and then draw from that a message on what you should do. So the Rebbe's very interesting here. He's recommending that you open the window, it's almost at random, and the first thing you see will, you'll draw from this inspiration what should be your course of action. Now, when I saw this, I was very surprised. And I'll tell you why. Because there is a loshon in Gemara. "Kol nachash sh'eino ke'Eliezer avod Avrohom, eino nachash." Any form of divining, which is not like Eliezer avod Avrohom, is not called a nachash, is not called a form of divining. So we have the story of Eliezer. He wants to find a wife for Yitzchak, and he says, "I'll make a sign. If, if I ask a, a maid to give me water, she will give me for me and for my, for my, uh, my camels. Oh, I will know this is the right one." So he had, he had, uh, dictated what he wants to be this siman. The, uh, the, uh-- And then when that siman happens, so he takes that as, as confirming to, to, to take a, a particular sense of direction. Then there's a halakha, there's a debate l'halakha. When it

05:24 says a nachash, it is not like Eliezer ben Avrohom, avod Avrohom, is that saying that he did, what he did was right or he did it wrong? And here, this is brought down in Shulchan Aruch. In-- I've got here from the Lavush, but you look in the Rama also in Kuf Ayin Tes, where he says, "Some say that you should not be copying Eliezer avod Avrohom," and that type of na-nachash is forbidden. To say that I'm gonna-- W-well, if, if, if you're gonna be a b-brown, black car or a white car, whatever, that kind of, whatever kind of nachash, and you're gonna say, and that's gonna di-dictate what, what's gonna happen, what, what you're gonna do. So first opinion says that's not allowed, but the other showing that it is allowed. So what I found very strange is the Rebbe saying about opening a window. The first thing which you see is going to be kind of an indicator of your s-course of action. That seems to be similar to the story of Eliezer and Avraham, albeit there are those who allow it, but there are those who don't allow it, possibly because of the, uh, this, uh, lack of clarity the Rebbe took it out from the published edition. But I'd like to take it a little bit further and say the following. There's a difference between Eliezer and Avraham and what the Rebbe is talking about over here. Eliezer, and the same thing with Yoines and Ben Dovij is also mentioned over here.

06:51 Yoines and Ben Shaul, sorry, with the story with the lad, with the, with the arrows. Both of them had designated the, the pointer. He designated the first-- the, the girl will say, I'll get to you. He had kind of-- he had d-- um, he, he'd written the script, and the same thing with, with the Yoines and Ben Shaul. They'd written the script before, then arrows further, arrows closer. What the Rebbe is saying is not-- he's not saying to you, to you that you should di-dictate the script. On the contrary, he said, you open up a window, and the first thing you see, then you'll take from it a, a message of inspiration. And I think there's a very big difference. Whereas the one which you are dictating the script may be comparable, is, is, is comparable to Eliezer and Avraham, and that is indeed a question. But just to open and to see, to, to, to decide that you're going to see the first thing which comes to your, to your, to your eyes, and you're going to, to see a message from that, that's, um, I guess, um, more straightforward, la'alochha, and beyond the problem. I just wanna share, as I'm speaking, I know that there's a common understanding by Chassidim. When you go to the Ohel, and when you, when you, you want to know, you ask a question with the Ohel, want to have advice, and you go out with the Ohel, the first thing which kind of-- which comes-- the first

08:15 mashova which comes to mind to understand that as being the way the Rebbe has answered you in, uh, your, your, uh, query at that time. Let's move on. What-- and all these things you should be asking, discussing with the Machria, uh, but, uh, just sharing with you the, the general wisdom about these things. Okay. So what happened over here, going up to question number two. So last Motzei Shabbos is already in the nine days, and in Kisuv Shevanot, it talks about giving the wine to a child because we're not meant to drink wine during the three weeks-- sorry, during the nine days. I remember as a child, I was looking forward to this, that I will be able to drink the Havdalah wine. But my father, he'd drink the wine himself. And from there, I, um, got the impression that Machassidim, they weren't too machmir about this, and they would make-- they would drink the wine themselves. And there were two shailas which came my way this week related to the children drinking. One, I'm going to discuss, and the other one, I'll just tell you the shaila, I don't have the answer. The s-- the one which I'm not gonna discuss is that the child was given a glass of wine, but meanwhile, the child interrupted and spoke about this, that, and the other before actually drinking the wine. And so that, that was a shaila whether the-- whether anyone was yotzer havdalah because the berakhah havdalah was a berakhah of havitalah, and the

09:46 berakhah of hagafen was a berakhah of havitalah. So I don't know what the answer is. I, I, I'm worried that, uh, it wasn't okay. But here, this other story is the following. That, um, th-this, this particular family has only got daughters, and that's the answer. Someone asked, "Why did he give a girl to drink?" Well, because he didn't have any boys, so he gave-- and the little girl was very eager to have the, uh, Havdalah wine. But, uh, when it came to, uh, actually sipping it, was, was, uh, only managed to sip a little bit. And so then the question was, Motzei Shabbos, are you yotzer-- am I yotzer-- father's asking, "Am I yotzer Havdalah if my child didn't have melei lugmav?" Melei lugmav is a cheekful, and here in Siman Kuf Tsadik, which talks all about berakhah, kos shel berakhah, it's quite emphatic that when w-when there's a requirement to, to, to drink melei lugmav, if you give it to a child to drink, it has to be a melei lugmav shel kotom. And this child didn't have a little melei lugmav either. Probably was, uh, a wine which is not necessarily appealing to little children, uh, only to adults. Okay. So here we have-- And, and I'm gonna give you a background to this, this, uh, discussion, this shiur. About three hundred and something years ago, lived in Holland, the Rav Tzvi Ashkenazi, well known as the Chacham Tzvi. In his time, there was a mashulach who arrived in Holland, I think in--

11:25 he lived in Amsterdam. And the mashulach arrived in Holland and, well, it becomes chacham. And there was a seder at he-- where he was present, and they offered him to lead the benching. He then says, "I have a bit of a problem, that I am a Nazir." He had a vow of Nazirus, as a Nazir doesn't drink wine. So here came the-- arises the question: Could he lead the benching? And at the end of the benching, someone else will take the glass of wine, make hagafen, and drink it. This, this is the question discussed in Chacham Tzvi. In, in analyzing the, uh, the, this sheilah, the question is the following: when Chazal instituted a bracha on a glass of wine, we have various things by Achat and, uh, and by, uh, by Evriz and, and by benching. There's kisuv bracha. Primarily is, uh, the case of birkat hamazon. Question is like this: Is the emphasis on the drinking of the wine, or is the emphasis on the bracha? Is it the birkat sayyim or is it the shesiat sayyim? And if it's the drinking of the wine, so then it was felt perhaps that he could delegate someone else to make a bracha and drink it. That would be okay. If it's birkat sayyim, then I cannot make a bracha. If you want to eat an apple, I cannot make a borei pri ha'eitz for you to eat the apple because birkat saneh has to be for yourself. You can't do it unless I'm making

13:15 kiddush. I'm being motzi you with the mitzvah of kiddush, so I can also be motzi you with the, with the, uh, hagafen. You don't have to make a separate bracha. But for me to make a birkat saneh for someone else, that's not okay. So if the nazir would have to make the borei pri hagafen and someone else would drink, that wouldn't be acceptable because you can't make a birkat saneh for another adult, and as a result, the nazir would not be able to lead the bench. So this is the question which is dealt with in the Chacham Tzvi, whether when we say, when we say birkat hamitzvot-- Sorry, um, um, kisuv bracha, is it shesiat hakis or birkat hakis? Another question as a result of this, uh, you know, th-this debate is how much wine is imperative to drink. According to the first opinion, it's, it's the drinking of the wine, and the drinking of the wine has to be, it has to be a hoshavah amount. And how much is considered a hoshavah amount? It has to be melei lugma. And let's read the next line. "Ubepochos meshi urze lo ki ei mitzvat hakois klal." If you don't drink, if no one-- It can be delegated to someone else. But if no one drank melei lugma, then the whole procedure of bracha al hakois has not been fulfilled because the bracha al hakois means shesiat hakois. The second opinion says no. When there's a requirement of doing kois, it's really the main thing is

14:53 the bracha, not the drinking. You have to drink because otherwise it looks like a bracha l'vatala. Ad klei rach, we know this because further in the discussion there, if there's a brit on Yom Kippur, you give it to the, the... even a baby, the rachanen, you give to drink from the wine. The vort is that really the, the ikar is the birkat sayyim. Navos, uh, to make a bracha hagafen without anyone drinking does, doesn't look right. So there has to be a bit of a sip. There, but it doesn't, doesn't... This shouldn't be a bracha l'vatala. Shouldn't look like a bracha l'vatala. Uh, so here we have these two positions. Is it birkat saneh? Now, according to the first position, if no one drank from the havdalah ka, melei lugma, then you're not yotzei havdalah. If according to the second opinion, then even if it was just a little sip, so then the bracha wasn't in vain, and so then you're yotzei havdalah. So here, let's read over here. "Vechein behavdalah. Im lo toam ki melei lugma. Ein tzorich lach zur lehavdil. Sheсвеק ברכות של דבריהם להוקיר." If we have a dilemma whether we are fulfilling the mitzvah or not, and whether to have to make a new bracha again for, for hala, for, for havdalah, you take the lenient view, "kasvarah achronnu," that the havdalah was valid because the main thing is the bracha. The bracha was said legitimately. A child who's the age of chinuch, uh, drank from the wine. Uh, even they

16:26 didn't have melei lugma. According to the second opinion, that's enough. So that really seems to, um, answer. As I, I'd said motzei Shabbos, I hadn't refreshed myself on the whole, the whole sugya, but I remember this thing. I said that at least as a Sefardic and, uh, that's indeed what their position is. Um, and just now, as I'm saying the shear now, I'm wonder-- I'm, I'm wondering, according to what the Alter Rebbe says here in kuf tzadik sif daled, that really it's not a bracha l'vatala in any case because the main thing is bracha, and you said a bracha there. Now, of course, you have to drink. It shouldn't look like a bracha l'vatala. So perhaps even in the first story, which I said, where the child interrupted and spoke, perhaps since in, in essence it's not a bracha l'vatala, perhaps you are yotzei. But that, that I'm not really, uh, gonna pass a, a p-opinion on at the moment. Let's move on to the next question. Okay. Um, so here I've got the following question. Someone is using an oven, a fleishiger oven, and has cooked now, has baked their meat. Now, they've taken the meat out, and they want to put in vegetables to bake, and they're asking whether those vegetables could be served with fish, and is there any need to-- that the oven should cool off in between one batch, between the meat and the, and these vegetables which you want to serve with fish. Is there any, any, any mileage

18:00 gained? I want to share with you the following, um, insight which I gained through looking through this topic this week, and that is in siman kuf ches, in Yoreh Deah, we have a whole chapter talking about the reicho. Love milson. That the f-- that the share of a smell. A smell is not a really, uh, significant thing. And the fact that two things are baked in the oven and one kind of... in the same oven and one has the s-smell from the other, that's bedi'eivod, not such a problem. Then there's a little bit of mention of zeh, of v-v-um, vapor. Obviously, zeh means sweat, but it means, it mean the vapor. And that seems to be not so important. Now, contemporary poskim say that changes nowadays because in those days, their ovens were, as we are familiar with a matzah baking oven, so you have the wood, the, the fire is there in the oven together with the food, and therefore vapor would typically be burnt by the heat which is in the oven. By contrast, our ovens tend to have a less, uh, lebedika kind of heat. It's more controlled, and sometimes it's just heat in the oven. There's no... and there's no, um, there's no fire in the oven. Therefore, the vapor will, the condensation, et cetera, will be more of an issue in our ovens than the ones discussed in Shulchan Aruch. So we're taking it quite seriously. So now I've got here in front of you from the Sefer Piskei Teshuvos,

19:49 and where I've underlined, "Lechem ushaar mecholim," bread and other foods, "mutar lehafos them lechatchilah yachad im basar." You would be allowed to bake them at the same time as meat. "Boven shelo yiguzeh bo zeh." Afah pi-- even as long as they're not touching. "Afal pi sheozed leochlah bem dogim," even though you intend to eat them with fish, the bread with fish. "Azal bitnai shehad basar yoves kgon schnitzel umechusa." If the meat is a dry type of food, and it's covered, so then the vapor of the meat is quite contained, and then you could bake this, this bread in the same oven together with the meat which is covered, with the schnitzel, whatever, that would be okay. And he says, "Vechein mutar lehafos machlim dogim." By the same token, you would be able to bake a bread at the same time as fish in the oven, even though you want to subsequently eat that bread with meat. "Bilvat sheyehi hadag yoves umechusa." So if it's not a juicy, uh, fish, it's a more dry type of fish, and it's covered. So s-- the point being that if the vapor is contained because it's covered and there's not a lot of vapor in the first place because it's a dry type of food, then we're not worried about them both being in the oven at the same time. Certainly, one after the other would not be a pro-- a, a, a problem. That's, that's what I can see. I don't see any benefit in cooling down the

21:30 oven in between, um, if they were... A-and, and again, and if one is after the other, I'm not sure whether you can-- whether you make an issue of the zeh or... I just want to say one other, um, thought about this. Um, it's a bit, perhaps a bit revolutionary, but what's the big deal of you actually tasting it? You're saying it's fla-- it's got the taste of meat, and you mustn't have it with the fish or vice versa. Taste it. Taste it and see. Okay, um, right. Let's, let's take a look at the couple of questions which we have before we go into the next point. The nichush of Yonasan was, um, if the Pelishtim would say, um, to wait or come. It was not with the Arabs. Oh, thank you. Um, my, my... So I guess it's my mistake. So your, your, Rav Gaising is pointing out, and we say the nachash of Yonasan was something with the, um, the reaction of the Pelishtim, which, uh, whether he should re-- how sh-he should respond to them. Someone is asking, um, this week, if not fasting, what does one drink? So that's up to you. If you want to use, um, um, uh, chamar medina, you want to make a kavad on a cup of coffee, that's fine. Um, if you want to-- there are different opinions, and so which, whichever way you do, you're, you know, you're shomer mitzvah. Whether it's better to do, um, dafka on wine, if you're always particular to do

23:07 on wine, and you have to make havdalah on, on tishuvot, so you, you can use wine if necessary. Because you're doing a mitzvah, not you're doing it for time. Okay. So question number four is that someone, uh, shliach, somewhere in Europe, is having a, an Israeli sports team coming to town, and he's wondering about, is it appropriate to be there at the sports event, of course, to put on tefillin with people and to, and to, uh, give out neret shabbos, et cetera. Now, years back, about t-t-ten, ten years ago or is it more, I published, you know, Mesivta Bais Din Shlichus Volume Two, and I'd written there that you're not allowed to partic-participate in, uh, um, a, a, a show, a goyishe show, whether it's a theater or a circus, a sports event. I took this from the Rashi in, in pa-- in Sefer Vayikra on the words of "VeChukosayem lo tiseilu." Says Rashi, "Ma hiniach hakosef shli amor, Omar." What... He's gone through a whole list of things. So what's "VeChukosayem lo tiseilu"? "Elo eilu nimusos shel haknaanim." These are their cultural events. "Dvarim ше-rachukim lahem. Kgon tartiots v'itstadiots." To go to a theater and to a stadium, that's included in VeChukos-- That's what the Torah adds, "VeChukosayem lo tiseilu." And then we have, sc-- lo-lower down, quoting here from the Mishneh Berurah in Siman Shin Zayin, and he laments, "V'larav seinu haravim," it's become-- this matter has become hefker by various people to go to theaters. And the Torah says, "Al tischlach yisroel

25:03 el gil haumim." You shouldn't be, um, rejoicing with the, the rejoicing of the nations. So what, so w-w-- the, the-- I see there's a difference between going to a park, going to an amusement park even. Amusement park, you, you are entertaining yourself. But when there is a, a, a show and everyone is kind of focusing and everyone's cheering, and you're part of that cheering, that is where the Prophet says, "Al tisnoch yisroel el gil amim," don't join, join in in their celebration. And that's what the Rashi is saying. That's included in Chukos Ein Lo Seilech. Now, having said that, there is a tshuva of Reb Moshe Feinstein and he says-- He was asked this question, is Chukos Ein Lo Seilech, does that include going to a theater, to a stadium, a sports event? And he takes the view that Chukos Ein Lo Seilech would only be when there is some kind of religious worship, uh, association. That could cause you ‹foreign language›. That's, that's a ‹foreign language›. Even though it's not mamash an, uh, part of worship, but it's in ‹foreign language›, not just ‹foreign language›. Um, uh, ‹foreign language›. So he gives a reference to, uh, that the, you know, if a goy wears trousers, that doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to wear trousers. It's-- When it's, when the goyim are doing something which is perhaps, uh, irrational and why they're doing it, because that's the, uh, that's the goyish culture. So that kind of thing, we would say Chukos Ein Lo Seilech.

26:51 But he's saying that the sports event is not-- doesn't come into this category because it's got no religious, um, background at all. I, well, I, I find it very difficult. I understand where he's coming from. I have very difficult to accept that Rashi, when he says not to go to a theater, to a stadium, and that his theaters and stadiums were of religious background. I would have understood that they were there for entertainment, um, or however, you know, mushas that entertainment was, but it was for entertainment, not for any religious background. And still, Rashi says not to go there. So it was, uh, last year, two years ago, there was a particular rav, uh, prominent rav in Eretz Yisrael, American, business rav in Eretz Yisrael, and he was visiting the United States, and he took his grandchildren to, um, to some baseball game, and he was caught on camera sitting with his Yerushalmi, I guess with kapota and all. But he was caught sitting there with his Yerushalmi, uh, a-at this sports event. Uh, he-- and he was later interviewed, and he was, uh, I guess, following the issue, the position of Reb Moshe. But even Reb Moshe Feinstein, if you read a little bit further, he says it definitely comes into the agenda of Moshe of Late and et cetera. He certainly doesn't recommend it, and I'm sure that Rav Hashiva is not gonna do it again in the, in the, uh, near future. Um, but at any rate, so this is-- I find

28:25 it difficult to accept that, um, a sports event doesn't fall into what Rashi has said over here, that is Chukos Ein Lo Seilech. That doesn't mean, though, that the Shliach shouldn't go there and meet Yidden as an Israeli team coming to, to play against a team in Europe. So there's lots-- gonna be lots of Yidden there, Baruch Hashem, bit of Jewish pride, and to, uh, u-utilize the event, uh, for, uh, for being a Satmar film, et cetera. I don't see any objection to that. But, uh, to actually go there, L'shem, L'shem, uh, the, the game is, uh, yeah, questionable. Okay. I've got a very interesting question. It's last Shabbos, and in a small community, the tenth man arrives at eleven thirty. By then, they do already Davening Shabbos. They didn't do Krias Shema because they didn't have a minyan. Uh, so the tenth man arrives and the ninth man says, "But I can't stay more than ten minutes." So now we have a dilemma. Are we going to do Krias Shema? And obviously, Krias Shema, last week, Matas Masei, you wouldn't manage in ten minutes. So you're going to rely on starting on, starting the Krias Shema with ten, and then you got some Exos on, and then you continue doing that Krias Shema. Uh, or do you do Musaf, which probably you could manage Musaf in ten minutes. And this was the dilemma. We have now ten people. We have ten minutes. Do we do Musaf, or do we do, do, do we begin

30:03 Krias Shema? This is the question. And the person was very succinct the way he presented the question. His quest-- The question is, let's say, if a person is confined to hospital, Rachman Lietzlan, and he's allowed out for half an hour. Should he go for Krias Shema or should he go without him? I know you can't do Krias Shema on your own. But you know what? You can't do Tefilat Batzip on your own either. They're both communal, uh, activities, and both of them, the actual content you could do on your own. So this is a question which actually I, I found that was already addressed, um, in Minchas Yitzchok by, uh, the later Rav Weiss. And he takes the view. Now, the upper quote is from the Sefer Yishai Yisrael, an excellent Sefer on Yichud Tefilla, where he says, "A Choile who's given the opportunity to leave the house just for a short while, and he has a choice of- Tefillah Betibor or Kriyat Shasoyra, you should go for Tefillah Betibor rather than Kriyat Shasoyra. Now, that's-- So although others disagree, and in the Yishai Yisroel, he gives other sources in Sefer Eleka L'Kema, who does say that Kriyat Shasoyra, uh, should take precedence. But the Poel Minchas Yitzchak paskens that Tefillah Betibor. That's-- It's Musif rather than Kriyat Shasoyra. Another weight to, uh, the argument to do, um, to do Musif rather than Kriyat Shasoyra is the following. How legitimate is it to start off a session of whatever it may be, Tefillah or Kriyat

31:47 Shasoyra, and rely that you know that the tenth man is going to leave, but you know that the Halakha is that you can continue that session. Therefore, the Chachilah, to start off, knowing that, knowing full well that you're going to r-- have to rely on Yoetz MiKeshos so you're allowed to finish. So here we have a quote from, um, from, uh, Piskei Teshuva, Siman Ayin. That's the whole Siman about Minyan, of, uh, how to con-- what constitutes a Minyan, et cetera. And he writes, and he's got sources, that one shouldn't, not one shouldn't be starting a Tefillah with a Minyan if you know from the outset that during, uh, during this Tefillah, someone's going to leave and... Then he says, "B'shas Hadchak, you could rely on this." So all right, so it's, it's really not so straightforward. To do as Kriyat Shasoyra, you're gonna have now separate Brachos again and all without a Minyan. It's, it's, it's, it's w-- it's questionable. And therefore, I, I'm, I'm sure-- Um, since you have a choice whether to do Musif or whether to do, um, Kriyat Shasoyra, this helps me sway towards saying, "Do Musif in the ten minutes which you have, and the Kriyat Shasoyra, okay, you know, everyone can take a Chumash and read the, read the, uh, Parshah." Okay, let's move on to our next question. This is a little bit of a recycle, and there's a young man who's amazingly, um, undertaking to start writing down trans-- I mean, content transcripts of previous shiurim.

33:23 So in case you do remember, I'll give you exact dates. It was Parshah Shelech Lecha in Tov Shin Peh Alef. That's, uh, about eighteen months ago, where we discussed about, um, using food for non-f-food purposes. Let's say we discussed about taking potatoes and cutting them out to use as stamps for the children to be able to stamp paint, uh, to keep them entertained, et cetera. So what the parameters of using food for, um, for other things. And then, uh, w-well, he pointed out to me there are some who have this, uh, custom of on Tisha B'Av, they're worried that people will become too morose, so they start throwing things. So some places here, they used to throw, um, the Berela, which are these prickly things which grow in the, in the, uh, in brambles. But, uh, some places they're using beans. So beans are, are eminent Cholent beans, and now they're being used for throwing around, and very unlikely they will end back into the Cholent pot. They'll probably be swept up and thrown into the bin. So here's the question. Are you allowed to use food for entertainment? So I know we discussed it. We're gonna go just over, uh, uh, very briefly. So we have in Siman Kuf Ayin Alef, in Oraichaim, talks about using food. You're allowed to use food. Let's say you can't dip your bread in, in, uh, the soup. You can use your bread to wipe the soup, and then eat it. That's okay. Um, now here, the Magen

35:03 Avrohom is saying the following. Mukach Begemara, VeKamah Duchta, that you are allowed to sprinkle wine in your, uh, house along, on, on the floor. They used to make this to make a nice smell in the house. You could use it for other domestic uses other than drinking. You can use also for anointing, even if it's not for medical, uh, reasons. Now, he, then he says the reason why this is permitted, because the Rambam words this. He says, "You're not allowed to waste food, Vederech Bizui Ubeito, in a disgraceful way. Um, but if it's something which is, let's say, for human need, so that's not called in a disgraceful way, and therefore you are allowed to." And then he quotes from Gemara Shabbos, Hefset Oichlin. But if there is a legitimate use, so then it says there is a Tzorech Le' Adam, then that's not called wasting, and you're saying you're allowed to use, use food for a non-food use, but if it's a, it's a legitimate use. So now let's-- toward the end of that Siman, Siman Kuf Ayin Alef, it says that they used to have a custom of throwing grains of wheat in the celebration of a Chasuna, in front of the Chassan. So Shechinach says that they should only be thrown in a clean space and to be swept up afterwards, so that they shouldn't be trodden upon. It doesn't say they have to put it in the Cholent, but it says that they should be-- the, the scattering these grains of

36:39 wheat should be in a clean place, otherwise it's disgracing food. So to use grain as a kind of confetti, that's what he's, uh, addressing over here. And he says they have to be in a way they shouldn't get disgraced. In the Mishnah Brurah, and he's-- on the Biur Halacha is a bit more, um, uh, um, elaborate about this. He says the following. "Im Hu Dvar Shehu Tzorech Le' Adam V'Derech HaOlam La'asos Bo Ochel, Tzorech Ze." If it's normal for people to use food for this other purpose which you're using it for, that's also okay. And as a result, that's the justification for the sprinkling of wine and for the anointing of the body with the wine or oil. See, it's slightly different which-- to the Magen Avraham. Magen Avraham has said, "Seder ha-Adam," which the Brures added another element. "Derech ha-olam lasus beroch el tzeir zeis." It's a, it's a common behavior, which is a very interesting. How does it become a hum-- a common behavior? Um, right. Finally, we have here a quote from the Ben Ish Chai, and he has a, a case. He talks about where he laments the fact in his community, the night before a bris, they will have a, a, uh, whole flower display, and in order to support the flowers in this display, they would make a dough, and they would use this as like the, uh, foam where we'd have nowadays a flower display. They'd use a, a dough to hold it together, or they would take

38:19 a fruit. It doesn't-- And it says a word, a fruit called numi, which I don't know, uh, what that means. A sweet fruit or a pomegranate, and use that as the base for sticking in the flowers. And he says, "The food becomes disgraced." And therefore, one should, one should, sorech limchos. He says, "One should object. They shouldn't use food in a way that the food is disgraced." All right, so we're seeing here using food, and as you're using it, the food gets disgraced. That's not okay. Um, com-coming back to the, the beans. Are the beans being actually spoiled when they're thrown? I don't know. But we, we do say-- we see even by the chitzim, by the grain, by the grains of wheat, it says you can only throw them bemokim noki. Um, so I don't really find a clear heter for throwing beans which are edible, um, and, and throwing them in a place in a way that they are going to be, uh, not in a mokim noki, and they're not gonna be swept up. I think that is a problem. Fine. The famous story which is quoted in, in, uh, Sefer HaMinhagim about the, the, the Ruzhiner. That in Ruzhin, there were some of this kind of playing around, a tishbav, and they had a, a trick. That they lowered a bucket. Whoever would come in, the bucket would fall on their head, and they would then pick him up in the bucket. Somehow, I don't know how they managed that. I'm

39:48 curious. Um, but meanwhile, they did this trick on the next person who came in, and it happened to be the Rebbe, the, the Beis HaLevi Ruzhin. And so when they saw that, they quickly but carefully lowered him down. And the Ruzhiner then says, "If it's a Tatte, you know, Father in heaven, your children-- you gave your children a yomtu, and they don't know how to look after to, how to keep this yomtu properly. Take it away from them." Let's move on. So here a question was put to me. I don't have a clear source, but the question was put to me that, uh, a woman says her f-- mo-mother's gravestone has the, the name wrong, her name and her father's name, Shmayo, Shmaryo, some other, some mistakes. Is it a duty to correct the, the mistake on the gravestone? So my feeling was about it that a gravestone is a kind of a document for posterity, and it should be correct, and therefore it should be correct. I know it's sometimes an expense, perhaps to put aside money w-eventually to, to, uh, correct it. I thought perhaps, I don't know practically whether that's possible, to take a, a plaque, a plastic plaque and, and put that or have that engraved and put that on, onto the marble. Um, if that would last, I don't know. But meanwhile, I wanna share with you a story of Rav Isaac Hummel. Um, so here's a story of Rav Isaac Hummel. That in Hummel, it was a minchag that

41:33 on Sanlak Be'omer, there would be a-- the Chevre Kadisha would go to the, um, to the cemetery, and they would go around and check the, uh, condition of the cemetery, if it needs any, any fixing up. After they've finished their survey of the cemetery, then they go to a side room or, uh, other, whatever, and they would have their... No, they-- not in the cemetery itself, and they would have their Suda, the head of Chevre Kadisha over there. Rav Isaac Hummel, he was a very eminent chosid of the Mitzlah Rebbe. He was a rabbi in, in Hummel. So after the survey, and they made this Chevre Kadisha, so then they would send a carriage, and the Rav would come, and he would join in this Chevre Kadisha by the-- for a little while, and then he'd go back. So then he would say, uh, um, some, some Divartovars, some Hasidims. One time, he came to Lak Be'omer. He came, anyway, he entered the Beis HaLevi, and he stopped by a particular gravestone. He wrote-- He saw the inscription on the gravestone, and he stood there for a little while and thought. Then he turned to the head of the, uh, head shammash of the Chevre Kadisha. He says, "From heaven, they're asking this person with the deceased, where are all those virtues written on the gravestone? Where are all-- You know, show where you have, uh, all those virtues." He started, um, uh, he's-- he waited a bit long, and he said, "Bring an ax."

43:02 Then the, the, uh, gabbi, the shammash brought an ax, and Rav Isaac told him to chop out those wo-- that inscription, those, that, those questionable, uh, words, to chop them out. From the gravestone. Once he finished, then Rav Na Isaac went and joined the Fabrengen, and he says, "May I be rewarded. I did a tremendous toiver for the-- this, the, for this deceased. I did him a tremendous favor." Now, that's-- this is the story writt-written by Rav Zevin in Hamoye-- in Sipur Yechzid. Now, it's not the same. There was a, a, a, a virtue which was not, not deserved, and that was the problem. Here we're talking about an inaccurate, um, name, et cetera. Nothing criminal about that. But I still think that, uh, we see that there's, there is a emphasis on making sure that a gravestone is, uh, is correct. Okay. Um, Rabbi Singh is, is suggesting that the story was with, with the-- in Russian was with a lasso. Okay. Sounds more likely, uh, or a bit more dangerous, but fine. Okay. So here, someone... Question number eight is someone asks me that she attends a, a Zoom, uh, shiur, a regular Zoom shiur, and one of the participants there isn't Jewish. But her-- he, or the spouse is Jewish. I don't know if it's a man or a woman, but the, it's a non-Jew whose spouse is a Jew, but also where-- at this, um, and joining in on a regular basis. The rabbi is aware of this person's status, but,

44:45 um, I'm not comfortable about this, and so am I being overly sensitive? So this is her question. So what I responded to the questioner is that, as perhaps I've said this before, as a policy, I don't answer Reuven Shimon's question. I, I, I have a, this, uh, belief that a person owns his shaila. It's your right to decide whether to ask the question or not. Um, so in this case, whose shaila is it? I think it's more the rabbi's shaila than any, uh, than, uh, the participant's. Having said that, let's take a look at the question. So we're talking objectively rather than what this person should be doing or not. So the question about giving a shiur when non-Jews will be there, when Jews are not allowed to talk, not allowed to teach Torah to a goy. So actually, this question first came up, to my knowledge, by, um, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, where Rabbi Pinchas Titus, alav ha-shalom, would give a weekly shiur in Gemara on the radio. And that was in Yiddish. At, at a particular stage, Rabbi Pi-- Titus' son started doing a shiur on the radio, a weekly shiur in English. And then came the question, but who could be that they're gonna be goy also listening to the radio. And he asked the question to Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. And Rabbi Moshe took the view that so long as you're, you're giving a shiur to your desired, your intended audience, which are Yidden, the fact that there's going to be a goy

46:27 listening also, uh, unin-- which is not your intention, that you can, you could, uh, overlook. That's Rabbi Moshe's, uh, position. I, again, I looked up the Sefer. There's this Tzukut Mishivas. So he brought me to another, a more recent Sefer called Shevet Ahakah Hasi, and he has this si-- very similar question to our own question, is someone saying he travels often to France to do Kirov Rechokim. Doesn't sound like Lubavitch Yadva, but fine. Doesn't matter. Every-- there's enough work, work for everyone. And he gives shiurim. And in one of the cities where he gives a shiur, he gives shiurim, there are those who are intermarried. And many times, uh, uh, there'll be a, um, a, a Jewish woman will come and her goyish husband, and you can't stop him from coming. And, but most of the people present are Yidden. So this was the question, which is very, very similar. Um, and he, uh, inspired by Rav Moshe, he says, "You're doing the right thing. You're giving a shiur. The fact that there are-- if a goy is not meant to learn Torah, that's their lookout rather than yours. And therefore, you, you should-- you're, you're focusing on, on, on spreading Torah to Yidden. The fact that the goy comes in and listens, that's, that's not so much your business." Uh, just one more, uh, po-positive note. Sh-more on a, on a, uh, perhaps str-strategy. Perhaps it's, uh, by, by, um, by being more welcoming to this. They're, they're, they're married. A ma-- a Jew

48:04 and a non-Jew are married. The-- If the, if the non-Jew, non-Jewish spouse will be more, uh, happy about understanding Yiddishkeit, the likelihood they'll have a hashpah on the Jewish spouse, and hopefully both of them will come closer, one through Geyrus and one through possibly Miscarim. So there may be there an element of strategy to be welcoming, and one has to be careful, though, of course, to, to give them directly, uh, in Yannam Torah or Teshuvah, particularly one has to be careful. But, uh, I can see possibly that's why the rabbi is, is, um, i-is kind of tolerant of this and not saying you can't join in, because he sees this as a view, as, uh, his tolerance is a, as a, as a method of reaching to the Jewish spouse to get closer. Let's move on to the next question. Um, yeah, this is interesting. About taking... There's p-- there are these vitamins, in English we call them, in England we call them vitamins, which help you, um, fast better. Somehow it builds up some kind of energy in the body and makes the body able to cope with the fast better. So this person writes to me that they use them every time before the fast, but here the question is about taking them on Shabbos. So here's actually two questions. One is about taking medicine on Shabbos. One doesn't take medicine on Shabbos unless, uh, matzav ha-zechayah shebes akana, bedridden. The other question here is, hakana mi Shabbos lechaia. So these are two

49:49 questions. And I'm gonna tell you that I saw this earlier in the week, and then I s- I was looking, where did I see this? And I looked up in two other sources or three other sources, and they say you're not allowed to. Both I saw in Nitte Gabriel and I saw also in Piske Mishivas in, uh, the Dinim of, uh, Teshuvah, and then perhaps in the third s- third, third source. But I d-- I... And then I remembered whereI, I did see this. This is in s-- in, in the, uh, Piskei Teshuvos, in the newer edition, in the edition of Tofsin Ayin He, seven years ago. And here, he's dealing an interesting question. We're not going to take medicine on Shabbos. Medicine means for someone who's ill. What happens if I'm perfectly okay? I just wanna take a, um, a, a medicine for a well person. I just want to f-- get a boost of energy or something. So he writes the following. A healthy person is taking medicines of sorts, pills of some sort. Let's say, um, for insomnia or to help them for, to help their fast. Let's say a person's overweight, and so taking a medicine will help them lose weight. Um, could be, you know, to, it suppresses their, uh, their appetite. So th-these are not medicines for ill people. They are healthy people, but they have a problem which can be solved with a type of medicine. Is that included in the isur of taking medicines on Shabbos?

51:16 So he's taking the view at the moment that that is okay because it's not, it's, it's not a medicine for an ill person, therefore it's not included in the isur of taking medicines on Shabbos. In the following pa-paragraph, he says not everyone agrees with that, and therefore he's suggesting, recommending to blend this, uh, medicine into some food before Shabbos, I guess, and to eat it in-inside another food. Be that as it may, but we do certainly have a heter here to take those medicines. Now, um, in the footnotes, he brings a couple of points here. He brings it from the Sefer Bigdonsei Eliyahu, which I've never seen the actual Sefer, but I'm very impressed by the quotes which I see from him. He was-- He became the Rav in Antwerp, um, uh, and he passed away very shortly afterwards, sadly, and seems to be an e-excellent, um, um, Shul Sefer, very practical. And he says, um, he's a healthy person. He do- he doesn't fast very well. The effect of the tablet or the drops is to, to muster energy in the, to the body that it shouldn't, um, dissipate quickly. Therefore, it's not called healing an illness. What about Shehakol Nihiyya Birshon L'chol, where he says, "Well, actually, you want the effect now." And so therefore, you want to be now feeling more energized, number one. Number two, we have a, uh, a, an interesting, um, heter about Shehakol Nihiyya Birshon L'chol. If that is not gonna be available at night, let's say, on,

53:05 um, there's a... Let's say to, to fetch, to fetch wine from the cellar, but at night it's gonna be impos-- for, for, for-- Never-- Let's say someone... There's a story about milk, bringing milk from the milk parlor to the house, and by night, that's not gonna be possible. Are you allowed to bring it now because you say it's hakol. I'm not doing it because I wanna save time later. It's not gonna be effective later. Uh, not gonna be possible later. So then some say that's not called a problem of hakol. That's, so that's why he's, he, he uses these arguments to say it's okay. Then he quotes, you know, some Shlomo Zalman, who goes, takes a totally different heter. Very interesting. We-- You are allowed to take medicine if you are bedridden. Well, that's not, yeah. Now, this person, if they don't take the medicine, so they will become bedridden tomorrow. So therefore, he's preempting what's the difference of taking it before you're bed- before you're in bedridden or, uh, or after you're bedridden. You're taking it, that you shouldn't become a cholah sh'bas hakol. And so, on that basis, he says you are allowed to take medicines on Shabbos. Even if you do call it a medicine, that makes it easier, you know, because of this thing about the argument of mixing with another food. But, uh, Shlomo Zalman says you're allowed to take it. Well, who says it's only if you're a cholah sh'bas hakol to-today. Probably it'll be tomorrow also. Um, and

54:25 you can't deal with it later because it's Tisha B'Av. Now, you want-- You'll be fasting. So from both sides, we have, we have a heter. So the, the bottom line remains that, um, yes, there are heter to use. If you are using this same cow thing, you have a heter to use it. Um, okay. Uh, going back to the previous question, um, about the person giving the shiur, uh, with none-- with a Torah class, whether this is a, a woman. All right. So I, I, I still think that the, um, principle of whoever gives the class, it's their prerogative to make, to make the-- to ask the question. But, you know, you can certainly give them a link to this shiur, um, subsequently. Finally, finally, um, people asking about washing clothing for Shabbos. And so here we have... This is in, uh, Mish-Mish-Mishnah Berurah is saying, um, L'chvod Shabbos, you'd be allowed to wash clothes on the Thursday or the Friday. Um, but if, uh, that's talking if you don't have a shirt for Shabbos, then you would be allowed to wash a shirt today. And then if you're giving it to a Goy to do, then for sure that it would be allowed. By contrast, having a haircut in honor of Shabbos, that definitely is not allowed. The difference being that, uh, people do wash clothes on a weekly basis, but they don't have haircuts on a weekly basis, and therefore, the haircut will wait for afterwards. Um, I don't know whether I told

56:01 you that. I think I mentioned it last week. I heard from the Rab-Rabbeinu Chayim Padua, alav ha-shalom, that in Vienna, there were these, these, these Grieche Balabatim, these millionaires, and they were very frustrated. They had, uh, they couldn't shave during the three weeks. So whenever there was a bris of a poorer family, there'd be a, a whole line of queue of, of Balabatim offering to be Sandek and pay for the whole lot so that they should be able to have a, a, have a shave to cover the... Yeah, that's a bris. I'll kap on him. Um, I'll stop here and wish you all a Gut Shabbos and a Yofech L'simcha, and, uh, we should see B'nan b'place ha-midosh. B'sach sanah, ein einu b'shuch la'sin varachamim, uh, in good health and al ken u'virashayno. Chazak.