כי תצא תשפ״ב

00:00 Speaker 1 Good evening, and welcome to tonight's Shiur, Parashat Ki Tetzei. And we'll go straight to our first question. Um, the question was asked by a shliach who, um, is-- he would like to in, in, uh, s- do his meals in the Chabad house on Sukkos. Wants to do the first meal, the first night of Sukkos early, and also Shemini Atzeret he wants to do the meal early. His motives are that if people will come for a meal earlier, then there's not a worry of... Well, at least on the way there, they won't be driving on, on Yom Tov. So that's his, um, his interest. So is it okay to do meals to, to be mechaper Yom Tov early and to do the meal early? So, actually, both of them are a bit problematic. With Sukkos, we-- So we all know there's a concept of Pesach, Shabbos, Pesach, Yom Tov. You can start Shabbos early. When you start Shabbos early, all right, it, it, it becomes that you are not allowed to do melacha. But if you start Pesach early, it didn't mean that-- it means that Isu melacha starts early, but not that it's actually Pesach. You can't have your Seder early. You can't have your Korban Pesach early. You can't have your first cup of wine for a Kaddish, which is one of the Arba Kosos, early. So that's the big challenge when it comes to the Seder night. But this s- similarly, the first night of Sukkos, there's a mitzvah of eating a Korban

01:44 Speaker 1 Pesach in the Sukkah, where we have a Zera Shovav, Chamisha Asar, the fifteenth of Nissan and the fifteenth of, uh, Tishri are compared to one another. And so you, uh, just like you cannot have the Korban Pesach earlier before s- before, uh, Tzet HaKochavim, before night. So the same thing with Sukkos. You wouldn't be able to have your first Korban Pesach and to be Mekayem the Mitzvah and say, "Shekech shona mitzvot sefirat haOmer leishat basukkah." That would have to wait until nightfall. So, so the first night of Sukkos, you can Davened Ma'ariv a little bit earlier, but the meal would have to start, uh, at nightfall. The-- comes to Shemini Atzeret is not such a problem. But if you'd start the meal on Shemini Atzeret, let's say before sunset, half an hour before sunset, so it's still Sukkos. So here you have a dilemma. If you're gonna start making Kiddush for Shemini Atzeret, B'yei Shemini Atzeret Halachah, but you're sitting in the Sukkah because it's still technically Sukkos. So you're not-- You have-- So really, you should be making a Brocheh Leishat basukkah. But you can't really say Leishat basukkah just when you've just said it's B'yei Shemini Atzeret Halachah. So this is why you wouldn't be able to start the meal on Shemini Atzeret before sunset. Whereas I think it would be okay to start after Shkiah. Although here you have a Taz in Siman kuf, reish samech ches. It's a very large, um, piece in the Taz. It covers most of the page.

03:33 Speaker 1 And he's quoting here from the, the Rashal, Rav Shlomo Luria, in the name of Rav Tevil, who would not have the Shemini Atzeret meal until Layla. Because otherwise you'd have a problem of Leishat basukkah. What I'd like to say is that once it's bein hashemoshot, once it's after Shkiah, you can't say the Brocheh of Leishat basukkah in any case because it's Safek La layla. So on that basis, I felt it's okay for-- to start the meal as long as it's after Shkiah. So then the whole problem is, are you, are you gonna make a Brocheh Leishat basukkah? But if it's already after Shkiah, that should be okay. Right. So that's the first question, um, of having the meals early on Shemini Atzeret, the first night of Sukkos. First night of Sukkos has to be after nightfall. First night of-- The night of Shemini Atzeret should be after, at least after Shkiah. Next question. So, let's scroll down. Someone asks me, he has an Esrog with a pitom. Sorry, with a pitom. With no pitom. Uh, actually, the one who's asked me this question, he's-- I guess he, uh, is a, a retailer of Esrogim in, in Jerusalem. And he asks me, "What's the story about the hole in the Esrog?" Where if you have a pitom, so there's a, a growth which goes out of the Esrog, a little, you know, nipple of some sort. When there's-- For the way the Esrog grows, there's no pitom, so there's a slight recess. But sometimes that recess

05:11 Speaker 1 is a bit more than just a little bit. It's actually like a hole. And we know that there is one of the psulim of Esrog, one of the things which we disqualify as, of Esrog, as discussed in Siman kuf, reish mem tes. I think it is, or mem ches. Whatever. It is in, in that area. It talks about what would disqualify an Esrog. If an Esrog had a hole. All right, there's different levels. And the Halacha is, if the hole is through and through. What does it mean through and through? Either all the way through the Esrog or the Esrog has got what's called Chadrei Hazera. It's got the chambers of the, um, the seeds. So if the hole would go all the way through to where the seeds are, that would pa-- disqualify the Esrog. True. So what I told this fellow, I, I told him, um, "Well, we could-- we're gonna have to check whether this, this hole in the tip of the esrog, does it go down to chadrei hazerah? My experience is, uh, w-that they don't, but it's just too well to check it out." This is from a sefer which talks about this q-very question. It's called, um, Kasrus Arba'as Haminim by Rabbi Zev Chil Mechel Stern. He mentions that this is common in, in the Temani Esrogim. Well, we know the same is with the, uh, he's quoting here from the Bikurei Yaakov, from Rabbi Yaakov Ettinger. Sometimes there is a recess, and if it goes all the way

06:44 Speaker 1 to chadrei hazerah, to the-- where the ch- where the seeds are, that would be a problem. If it doesn't re-uh, reach that far, then that's okay. And he says you can check it by putting in a needle. Don't push the needle. You see how far the needle goes, and then you'd be able to see whether it, uh, had reached far enough, um, you know, far enough to be a problem. I remember seeing one of the senior dayanim here take a hair from his beard and tr- instead of using a needle, he put a hair from his beard and stuck it into the hole and saw how far it goes. So this, um, the one who asked me the question, or he's a retailer as he has quite a few esrogim, he took ph- he took these photographs for me. And he measured this, he called it a Chinese needle, for whatever w- for whatever reason. You can see there, there's the needle, and it's got like a little handle. So the actual needle is one centimeter. And he put the needle down in that hole at the tip of the esrog, and it went-- You can see it's not-- It's about, it's about a half a centimeter that it went penetrated. That's as far as it goes. He then cut open one of the esrogim, and there you can see that half a centimeter goes till, you know, it's, it's way, way away from the chadrei hazerah. It's about two and a half centimeters from

08:02 Speaker 1 the tip to chadrei. This is very typical. And as a result, I don't see it as any problem. These, it's a natural hole. It's not a damage. It's a natural hole and, um, it's not penetrating. It-- and I don't think it's a problem at all. Um, uh, then he asked, "Is it mehudar?" I can't say, uh, is it mehudar. Uh, if it's-- If people ask a question, then why do you have to have a question? But, uh, I, I told him as a vendor, I don't think he has to point it out to people. If people are buying this... And I don't see any compromising kasrus in this esrog at all. Let's move on. Okay. So here we come to a very interesting, um, discussion, and this is about the interruption in davening for responding to Kaddish. Some 20 something years ago, the late Rebbe Yosef Yitzchak Edelman put together a, a book, a, a booklet about the interruptions in davening, what you're allowed to interrupt for, et cetera. And he created a graph, and he created a, a, uh, a table. And it w-became very popular, and to the point that Marcus, or Kehos, first in Israel and then in America, they included that table in the back of the siddurim. So if you're in the middle of davening and you-- there's something else going on, you're not with the minyan, so you could flip to the back of the siddur and see whether you should or you shouldn't interrupt. Okay, this was Rebbe

09:44 Speaker 1 Yosef Yitzchak Edelman, alav ha-shalom. Some years later, it's also more than 20, I don't know, 15, 20 years ago, whatever, someone by the name of Rebbe Yoel Lemberg, who lives in, I think, in Chabad. At any rate, he's, uh, eminent Talmud chacham. And he, a young man, and he started delving into this whole topic of Hefsek Betefillah, of interrupt-- or what are you allowed to interrupt to, uh, for in davening. He subsequently put out a sefer called Hefsek Betefillah, and it's been published. It's been reprinted with an expanded edition, so it's obviously a successful sefer. The fact that a sefer's got a second print usually means it's, uh, been well-received. At any rate, the two authors are at loggerheads about several points, but one I was asked to be the referee upon. And so here we go. Um, it's about, as I said, it's about in-- if you are in Pesukei D'Zimra, after Boruch She'amar until Yishtabach, not inclusive of either of those, just during the Pesukei D'Zimra, and you hear Kaddish. So do you respond to all the Amens of Kaddish? Do you respond to all the Amens of Kaddish until the Amirim B'alma V'imru Amen, or do you only respond to two Amens of the Kaddish, Amen Yehe Shme Rabba and Amen of the Amirim B'alma? So the way Rabbi Edelman put it is that you answer all Amens until the Amirim B'alma, but not the last, the ones afterwards. Yehe Shlomo or, um, Yisgabel or Al Yeshovah Rabbonon. Those you don't-- That

11:39 Speaker 1 part you don't respond to, but the first five Amens of the Kaddish, he took the position you do respond. Whereas Rabbi Lemberg, zotza"l, he takes the view that only two Amens you respond to. And so now I'm going to share with you a letter of the Rebbe, and be, be assured that it's not befursh in Shulchan Aruch so clearly, and therefore, there is the, the room for reading it both ways. So there's a letter of the Rebbe, and this was written in response to Reb Nachum Lapkovsky, alav ha-shalom, who some of you may remember. And he had asked about interrupting during Pesukei D'Zimra. And here the Rebbe quotes- The Alter Rebbe's Siddur. So we've got the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, and then we have the Alter Rebbe's Siddur and, uh, which has several halachas, and those are also printed at the back of the Shulchan Aruch. And there, the Alter Rebbe is talking about when you're interrupting in Birkat Kohanim. For the moment, we're talking about Birkat Kohanim. Um, if you're interrupting for Moedim, you only say the first three words, Moedim U'nezachim Lo. If you're mafsik for Kaddish, you only say-- I'm gonna, I'm gonna scroll down. You'll see, um, what the Rebbe's quoting. When you, when you interrupt for Moedim, y-you, you'll bow, you'll say, "Moedim U'nezachim Lo," no more. You mafsik for Kaddish, you'll say, "Omein shel Rabo," and then you'll say, um, until the Imru Amen, and you answer. But Tiskabel and onwards, you don't answer because those are just minhag.

13:16 Speaker 1 So again, the rest of Moedim, they, um, and the rest of Kaddish, the, the other omens of Kaddish are the level of minhag. Then the Alter Rebbe goes about Kedusha, and he says, "If you are in Birkat Kohanim, you only answer Boré Kodesh, Pasuk Kodesh, Pasuk Boruch, and Pasuk-- and also Yimloch." Which is Chiddush of the Alter Rebbe. "But the phrases which we add on Shabbos, they are not an indigenous part of the Kedusha, and therefore, in other words, they are on the level of minhag, and you would not respond, you would not say those parts when you're in Birkat Kohanim." Now, he says further. He goes-- I skipped a bit. Then he says, "Other berachos, you don't answer amen. But in Psukey de Zimrah, you do answer amen even in the middle of a chapter." Okay, so now we're going to go back to the Rebbe's letter where he's quoted the Alter Rebbe, who mentioned three ex- three, uh, items, Moedim, Kaddish, and Kedusha. And in Ka- Kedusha, he said only the parts, the essential parts, not the extra parts. Says the Rebbe, "Mized yachtish tai." That first of all, I've in-in-in infer-- in-inferred from this two points. Number one, uh, the Alter Rebbe sees the end of Moedim-

14:35 Speaker 2 Call from

14:36 Speaker 1 ... after the first three words, and the other parts of Kedusha, they are on the same level. Number two, I've inferred that if you're not allowed to, uh, interrupt for them, if you're not allowed to interrupt, you can't say those pieces. "Veim kein, gam bePsukey de Zimrah dein kein." If so, I'm going to assume that in Psukey de Zimrah, you can't say the whole of Kaddish. Uh, you can't answer the whole of Kedusha. You can't answer the whole of Moedim. And he, and he says-- If you read further, the Alter Rebbe says, "In Psukey de Zimrah, you can answer amen." So he's only conceding on amen you can answer, every amen. "Vezomashma," that this is the only difference between Psukey de Zimrah and, and, um, Birkat Kohanim, that you can answer all amens, but everything else is the same. Okay. Then let's go to the next piece. The Rebbe says, "Then I was hesitating." And then he says, "What I've seen, ve'ro'isi noyagin. I've seen practically the minhag is to answer in Psukey de Zimrah," not Birkat Kohanim, yeah? We're-- Again, our source is in Birkat Kohanim. Our application is about Psukey de Zimrah. And the Rebbe says, "What I've seen in Piyal is that people are answering the whole of Moedim in Psukey de Zimrah." And they have a yehi from the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch. Okay. "Goy dra isi noyagin." And I was told that this was the minhag of Tob Gra'tuvim in Poland, to say not only the whole of Moedim, but

16:12 Speaker 1 also the whole of Kedusha. And that's how it's mashma from the Chayei Odom and the Derech Chayim. Okay. So what's, what we've seen here is, at the beginning of the letter, the Rebbe has taken a stricter view and said that the only concession as far as, um, the only concession with amen, uh, um, is in relation to an amen of a beracha. He hasn't said anything about amen of a Kaddish. And he's also been quite rigid about, quite machmir about answering Kedusha and Moedim, only the very essentials. The end of the letter, he says, "What I'm seeing is the other way around, that they say the whole of Moedim and the whole of Kedusha." At this point, he hasn't addressed about the whole of Kaddish. "L'maase." This is in Tof Shin Tes, in 1949. Uh, "L'maase, I asked my, the, my father-in-law, the Rebbe, and he said that in Psukey de Zimrah, you still, uh, say the whole of Nusach HaKedusha and the whole of Moedim." So if the Rebbe had been at first taking a more r- strict position and then saying that Piyal, Piyal are taking the more lenient position, what did the Friedrick Rebbe say? Kol Nusach HaKedusha, the more lenient position, the whole of Kedusha is said in Psukey de Zimrah, and Moedim, the whole of Moedim. So he's, in those two, he's taken the lenient position. The, there, now we have this ambiguous last five words. "Avalo amen shemitiskabel ve'elech." The Rebbe says, "But not the rest of Kaddish, from

17:51 Speaker 1 Tiskabel onwards." So now, what about the f- until Tiskabel? So Rabbi Edelman understood, and that's what most of us understood, that until Tiskabel, you do answer all the amens in Psukey de Zimrah. Rabbi Lemberg, zo zein gezunt, has taken the view, no, that in, um, in Kaddish, you only answer the two essential amens, or amen shel rabo and ad me'ir v'al malchuto. So this is the-- these are the two views. And I'm, I'm, and I was asked what's my, um- What's my take on it? And I'm telling you, I'm sharing this with you, that I'm seeing here that the starting off from a stricter position, and then the end of the letter, and certainly the consent of the Yeah. W-w-what I, what I, I hesitate. I wanted to say, what, what's gone on over here? We have here a more Halakha position, which is stricter, and the more , which is more lenient. Possibly, La- were following more of the Kabbalah, and therefore their Kabbalah to say the whole of Kedusha, the whole of Modim, and therefore I'm going to say it means all the Amens too. Now, it's about s- might sound like a bit of guesswork. Okay. So let's go down now and see what... Well, we're going to see a bit more support for my, my position. Um, okay, so there we go. We have here the Ben Ish Chai. Yeah. W-w-what I, I hesitate. I wanted to say, what, what's gone on over here? We have here a more Halakha position,

19:21 Speaker 1 which is stricter, and the more which is more lenient. Possibly, La- were following more of the Kabbalah, and therefore their Kabbalah to say the whole of Kedusha, and to say the whole of Modim. And then we're going to say, well, what does Kabbalah say about the importance of those Amens? Bear in mind, in the Gemara, there's not a word about of this. The reason... Well, the reason why we do interrupt, we do and every kid who learns a bit of Mishnah says that in, in knows about this. So then the Poskim said, "If you can interrupt for, that they are cooking in klil shlishi." He gives an example, a raw egg. The next word, if you can't read Ivrit, is kvaker. Um, otherwise known as Quaker, or in, i-in Hebrew, Kocharedi. Um, so, uh, he says Quaker Oats, et cet- et cetera, similar, y- you're not allowed to put them, even those who, in principle, do allow a klil shlishi. But that's only about foods which are not cooking. But, um, but if things which are clearly being cooked, then you wouldn't be allowed to do that even in klil shlishi. And he says what, where, where klil shli- sheini, where klil shlishi would be allowed, um, he says things like salt, tea leaves, where it's just changing the color, okay, that you can use a klil shlishi. But something which is clearly changing the food, and that's what Bishul is about, using a hot... using heat to change the form, the format, the consistency

26:16 Speaker 1 of the food to make it edible. So that's what Bishul is about, that's what cooking is about, and you see it is cooking. So no, you cannot use the Quaker Oats in klil shlishi. He has a similar position about the c- soup in a cup, which we're familiar. You have these, uh, polystyrene cups, and you've got these noodles and whatever, and it says, "Fill f- with hot water until this point and leave it for two minutes." That kind of thing. Also, Rav Farkash says you wouldn't be allowed to use them on Shabbos. All right. Um, someone... I gave the same shiur yesterday, and someone asked me, "What about baby cereal?" Uh, I think that's different. And the, it's not cooking, it's, it's, it's, uh, it's been cooked already possibly, but it's, it, it's... There is, uh, uh, the only thing I, I think once it's klil shlishi... And by the way, klil shlishi is only if it's ya'ad tzeledes. But if it's gonna be cold and liquid, that's not a problem. Cooking's only with, with ya'ad tzeledes, boy, which is about, whatever, 120 degrees, whatever. If it's, if it's, um, regular, uh, hand temperature, that wouldn't be a problem. Um, with the baby cereal, we have a different issue, and that is lisha, or losh, which is making a dough, and making, making powder, loose powder particles into a mass. So you've got a... When you'd add water or milk, let's say, to a powder, and then it becomes a mass, that comes under the

27:43 Speaker 1 question of losh, or lisha. And the ha- way to do it is, in a, in permitted way, is to make it more, um, uh, sorry. Let's use less viscous, less thick than on a weekday, and two other shinuyim. The two shinuyim are, one is the way you combine water or liquid and powder, and the other way, shinuy, is the way you stir. When you p- If normally you'd f- put first the li- the powder and then the liquid, on Shabbos, you'd put first the liquid and then add the powder. So that's a change in the way you combine the liquid and powder. Second change is, whereas on a normal day, a weekday, you'd stir with a spoon in a circular motion, on Shabbos, you do shasya ve'adem. You do a crisscross. One, a- across and, and, uh, uh, which way is lengthways. Instead of stirring in a circular motion, you'd stir it in a, in an unusual way. And so those are the shinuyim which would be necessary to use a baby cereal on Shabbos. Let's go on to the next question. Um, someone asked me, it's actually a fair straightforward... Well, the question is straightforward. The question and the answer, lav davka. Um, so here's the question. It was, um, Rosh Chodesh Elul was Shabbos and Sunday. But th- this fellow was, uh, so carried away with the Rosh Chodesh Elul. So on Monday, or Sunday night, he was still in the Rosh Chodesh mood, and in Shemoneh Esreh he said, "Ya'ale ve'yavo," which

29:20 Speaker 1 is, um, was really Beis Elul. So here's the question. If you said, "Ya'ale ve'yovo," ve'yehi Rosh Chodesh hazeh, and it's not Rosh Chodesh, it happens to be the day before, day after, whatever, do you have to repeat the Shemoneh Esreh because you said something inappropriate, or can you ignore that mistake? So here we have a straightforward halacha in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, Siman Kuf Ches. Uh, it's straightforward here, or fairly straightforward. We'll see. In other Poskim, it's not as straightforward. But let's read the halacha inside. Hatoiyeh, one who makes a mistake, and mazkir me'uro. He mentions the, a, an event of other days. She'ar yom im b'tefillah. Uh, b'shlo biszemanah. In other words, he mentions something which doesn't really belong today. Like he said, "Ya'ale ve'yovo," it wasn't Rosh Chodesh, or it wasn't Halal Moed. Or it was a weekday and he said the Shabbos davening, and so on. So then, well, if you realize, "Why am I saying Ya'ale ve'yovo? It's, it's not, it's not Rosh Chodesh." Just stop short and just s- go on to, uh, ve'safer zeh ne'einu. But if you only realized once you've f-finished the bracha, or you've finished Shemoneh Esreh. So are, there are those who say that the fact that you mentioned something which doesn't belong today, that's not called a Hefsek, and you don't have to go back. You don't have to repeat. Ve'yesh oimvim, there are those who say it is a Hefsek, and you do have to repeat. Well, le'inyan halacha, what's the conclusion?

31:03 Speaker 1 Although generally we take the view, ""Sofer Brochos Lo Hakel,"" so if you're not sure whether you are yoitzeh or you're not yoitzeh, so then you don't have to repeat. However, in tefillah, we take the view that since, as Rabbi Yochanan says in the Gemara, "Halavai Sheyesh Palal Odom Kol Hayom," tefillah, you can really connect to Hashem any time of the day. All right, so we have three set times, but you can-- really, the whole day is a time for davening. Therefore, Kol, now here's a beautiful loshon. "Kol Mokom She'adov V'muchrach," where the scales are balanced, there's no more weight to one opinion to the other, it's fifty-fifty, then the advice is, "Yachzol V'yesapal B'tiras Nidavah." You should repeat the Shemoneh Esreh as a nedavah, and you don't have to be mechadesh davar. You don't have to add any innovations into the Shemoneh Esreh, as discussed earlier, as he-- you can look inside, it gives you the reference. And we have a very similar psak when it comes to Aseres Yemei Teshuva. If you forgot to say, "Hamelech Hakodesh," and you said, "Hakela Kodesh," you have to repeat the Shemoneh Esreh. If you said, "Hamelech Oyetz Tov uMishpat," instead of, "Hamelech HaMishpat," then there is a machloket whether you have to repeat the Shemoneh Esreh or not. And, l'ha-min ha-din, you do not have to, but the advice is still, "Yachzol V'yespal B'toyes Nidavah." So I think it's a very similar ruling, although I didn't actually compare the wording here and the wording there word for

32:40 Speaker 1 word. Okay. So that's the, the answer. If you said something which doesn't belong here today, and you said it in Shemoneh Esreh, some say it's a hefsek, some say it's not. You-- min ha-din, you don't have to repeat, but it is, um, recommended that you repeat. The halacha says it's recommended. Um, that's why I'm a little bit hesitant. I think there in, in the dinim of, um, HaMelech HaMishpat, it might be a little bit less emphatic. Here, he just gives a psak that you should repeat the Shemoneh Esreh B'tiras Nidavah. Let's move on. Okay. Here's a question. One of our listeners, Baruch Hashem, I discover new listeners from time to time, and he says he listens to-- He lives in Eretz Yisrael, and he listens very regularly. And, uh, he tells me that he has a problem, his wife actually, that she is, um, extremely intolerant of grain and therefore does not have bread. All right. He didn't ask about matzah, say tonight. Just generally, she does not have bread. So what come-- what do you do Friday night in Shabbos for Lechem Mishneh? Well, if you don't have bread, you don't have bread. Is there-- I thought, hang on, let me re-word the question. Is there any value in being present when someone else makes the bracha over Lechem Mishneh? She's gonna have fish, she's gonna have salad, have cholent perhaps. She's not, just not gonna have bread. So is there any value in her dafka making a point? Well, it's not so difficult

34:22 Speaker 1 in many, in a, uh, established family to be there, but to be yoitze Lechem Mishneh just by being present. So it took me a while to find anything about this, and eventually I found in Encyclopedia Talmudis under, uh, Lechem Mishneh, page tof reish, you have it in your notes. And it has there five different views about Lechem Mishneh. Now, there's a famous letter of the Rebbe where someone asks, he saw in Chabad where it's common that the baal habayis will make a bracha on the hamotzi, and then other people are also making hamotzi on the piece which they receive. And the person asks from the Alter Rebbe in Siman ein reish daled reish, is the impression that you're only yoitze Lechem Mishneh if you hear the-- yoitze the bracha from the one who's making, you know, the one who's breaking bread, as they say in English. And the Rebbe, um, says that, he-- Rebbe said, uh, justifies, um, the minhag which is done, that you are yoitze Lechem Mishneh, even though you are not yoitze the bracha. You're making your own bracha. You're still yoitze Lechem Mishneh from the baal habayis. And he quotes the Bachoch Yerov. The Bach-- I've mentioned it many times. The Bachoch Yerov was a Talmud of the Baditchova. And, um, Bachoch Yerov says even more so, that if you are-- even could be that the baal habayis had made, um, hamotzi, and some of the family, some of the guests, haven't even washed their Nesikdin. They'll wash Nesikdin, then they'll

36:07 Speaker 1 come to the table, and he'll give them a slice of his Lechem Mishneh. And he says that's also okay. The essential is that the meal starts with Lechem Mishneh. But here's it going even one step further, because there, the Bachoch Yerov is talking about people are actually going to have a piece of challah. Here, we're talking about a, a, um, a lady who not gonna have any bread at all. So is there any point of her-- So here, what you have in front of you, which I found from r- the reference from the, um, from the Encyclopedia Talmudis, a sefer called Ha'arei Kedem, and it's, um, it's from, uh, Rav-- the Rav, the Rov, um, otherwise known as, uh, Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik. And he takes the view... Now, he compares it very interestingly. Um, when, when you're in shul, yeah, at Shabbos by day, there's a farbrengen or kiddush, and one person makes kiddush, and everyone else, how are they yoitze kiddush? There's a din of kiddush on Shabbos by day. What do they have here? They don't, don't have... Well, some, some people make a point of having some of the wine. All the rest of the people who don't have a bit of the wine of Kiddush. So they didn't have the Hagafen from the one who made Kiddush because they didn't drink any wine. So with what are they Yoitzer the mitzvah of Kiddush to say that, "Ah, I was Yoitzer Kiddush." So the understanding is the Kiddush Hayom is that they're

37:38 Speaker 1 setting the table. The, the meal should start with, with, with a Bracha on a, on a cup of wine, a杯 ריאגפן. And so b- so long as this meal will start with Hagafen, a cup of wine, then we've had Kiddush. I'm not talking about Shabbos by night. There is the long Bracha. I'm talking Shabbos by day. The דקונא of Kiddush by day is that the meal should start with a, with, with a Bracha over a glass of wine. Um, and then there's a ... All right. If there's no wine, there's a whole story what you use. The , we're not gonna go into that. So, uh, Rabbi JB says the same thing with, with, with the Lechem Mishneh, that the דין is that the meal should start with Lechem Mishneh. Whether you're eating from it, that's irrelevant. And so not if you're, if you're not eating bread at all. So there's one thing that the סודות Shabbos, you should have bread. That's a separate thing. But this woman's not able to have bread, so you can't go... But is there any point of her being present at Lechem Mishneh? So this is what, um, well, at least that, that the meal where she is starts with Lechem Mishneh. Yes, so there is value in that rather than just eating it, uh, on her own without any Lechem Mishneh. Be it done before, if someone else does Lechem Mishneh, uh, and she's partaking of the meal which started with Lechem Mishneh. So he seems to

39:00 Speaker 1 be taking the view that she is מקייים the inyer Lechem Mishneh. Let's just read a little bit of his text. The קיום Lechem Mishneh. הוי קיום בפני עצמו בברכת המצה. להודו ממש לקידש היום שדין אליאס על היין. והמקדש מצות הרבים לחייבם. So Motzei, everyone. And they didn't taste anything of the wine. די כן המצווה לקדש על היין. כמו כן, הרבים יוצאין לחייבם הברכה, הברכת המצה, הלחם עמשנה דאמרי. Even if they're not actually h- using that Bracha themselves, the fact that someone made, at the beginning of this meal, made HaMotzi on Lechem Mishneh, that is covering for everyone. Very, very interesting. Um, which was, which took me by surprise, and I'm happy to share it with you. Let's go on to our next question. Uh, now, um, this is a Question Mishpat question. And, um, so yeah, someone asked me this question, what are his entitled. It's not an arbitration. He's asking me what's, what's, uh, his, his side of the, of the story. So he had some work done, and he had an air conditioner in a particular place, and the, uh, the work involved, the builder's work involved moving the air conditioner. Now, air conditioners are rather new to this country. They are, uh, very, um, how you say, um, sensitive creatures, and if you move them not with tender loving care, they sometimes decide to say goodbye. Thank you. Delicate. Thank you. So there we go. So this was the question. They, that, that after the builders had finished their work and put

40:51 Speaker 1 back the, the air conditioners, well, there were the two units. One of them worked, Baruch Hashem, and the other one did not work. And then now, really though, the builders n- know this, how, um... And they should really have called in a, an air conditioner specialist to move those air conditioners, those units, and they did it themselves. So there's a degree of neglect, which is, I think, admitted. And the builder says, "Okay, he's ready to re- compensate." The question is, how much? Now, I asked how old are those air conditioners, those units. He said, "They are 10 years old, a bit more." So, so here's the, here's the question. You have to replace the unit. I don't think there's a big market where you can buy second-hand air conditioners in this country. So it means replacing with a brand-new unit. Well, is-- Well, the builder could say, um, "I damaged a 10-year-old unit. Do I have to give you a brand-new, replace it with a brand-new unit, which is obviously much more valuable?" So here we go. Let-- What I've got here with, um, in front of you is from the Sefer Piskei Hoshen, which is a contemporary encyclopedia of don-- m-mo-money matters. And he says, תשלום הנזק כפי מה שהפסידו. You pay for damages according to how much you damaged. Um, and שווי הנזק בשעה הנזק. You're going to pay for the value of the damage at the time of the damage. So if you killed an animal, dam-- broke Keilim, you'd work out

42:42 Speaker 1 how much the, the animal was worth at the time, how much the imple- equipment was worth at the time, and... Sorry. You work out how much it was, this, this animal was worth before you killed it and how much it was aft-aft-after you killed it, and then you make the difference. That's the damage. And so you'd pay the difference. אבל אינו חייב לעשות לו או לשלם כלי אחר ולקח השבורים אצלם. We know in Torah it says the whole story of an ox goring another ox. והמעז יהיה לו. That the dead ox, the damaged ox, remains with its original owner. And the one who p- has to pay the damage, he'll pay the difference between a dead ox and a live ox, whatever that is, 80%, 90%, whatever it may be, he pays the difference. But the damaged item remains in the hands of the original owner. So here it's saying a similar thing. You damage something, the damaged item remains the property of the victim, and the d- the perpetrator has to pay the difference between the original, the value before and the value now. Um, now there's a separate discussion whether I would have to... If it's repairable, can I say, "Well, I'll just pay you the damage," or I have to go and go about repairing it? Can be, let's say, with a car. Let's say I borrowed your car and I smashed something. Um, how much is the car now worth less? Let's say it's worth 100 pounds less. Sometimes to repair

44:28 Speaker 1 it will cost 500 pounds. So does the perpetrator only have to pay for the loss in the value of the car, or does he have to pay to repair it? So the Shah says, actually, that he has to pay. Since it's repairable, then he has to pay for the repairs, which is much more than the loss of that value. That's in that case. But here, what we're talking here is that the, the, um, goods which, th- are not repairable, that that air conditioner unit is not repairable, and so how much was it worth? What was-- how much was it, was its value last year or whatever before the builder got his hands on it, and how much is it... Now it's, it's scrap, yeah? I, I don't know how much scrap of a definition is worth, but it's scraps and there's really nothing to talk about. Not much. How much was it worth? Well, a 10-year-old air conditioner is not the same value as a newer. And therefore, you'd have to replace... You'd have to pay the value of, uh, the, a 10-year-old air conditioner. Now, I want to share with you something which you might find, uh, very disturbing, but nevertheless, you know, that's part of the fun, isn't it? Um, someone-- I went away for a month, and I come back, and there's someone living in my house. Actually, you know what he did? He really felt very hamish, and he got some paint and painted my front door a nice color. And,

46:07 Speaker 1 um, this didn't happen. It's just, just, just, just having you on. Uh, he, he, he painted my house and now I come back. Really, my house looks beautiful. But you know what? You don't belong here. It's my house. So he says, "Okay, I'm, I'm moving. It's all y- I s- I'm sorry. I mean, I didn't-- I thought it's, you know, just it was available." But, uh, then he says, "But wait a minute. I just spent a few hundred pounds on decorating this house." So do I have to pay him for decorating my house? Never invited him to do it. Well, look, look what you have here, Dinish Genarag. So there's a field out there, and someone just went and squatted someone else's field without permission, and he planted trees. He planted seed. So if it's a field which is, you know, as you call arable land, it's dedicated this, well, then the, the squatter has to be paid for what he planted. Um, this... And this, which means like this. Uh, it-- Sometimes you can say, "Well, the materials cost 200 pounds. The increase in value is 500 pounds." So this squatter could be, Chutzpah can say, "Yo, wait a minute. Your field is now worth 500 pounds more." Say, "No, no, no. That, that, that not." I'll pay you your expenses. Or it could be the other way around. I spent 500 pounds on fixing up this, this field, but it's only 200 pounds increase in value. Okay, so I'll pay you the increase

47:38 Speaker 1 in value. I'm not gonna pay you for, for your costs. That's what it means, . I'm gonna pay you the lesser of the increase in value or the costs. But he does have to get paid. And this is... And, and you, you find this, uh, I'm, I'm sure some of you are gonna find this very, very surprising. So someone took my property and put something in of value. So in the second he put, planted trees. So the owner can say, "Take your trees," . So then he can do that. Um, but, uh... And then we have here, um... All right, so there's lots of detail here. But the, the principle is, and this is, this is why, why I'm sharing this. The principle is that someone was wrong. They should not have come here, and they shouldn't have touched my property. Yet, they-- I'm not justified in becoming richer because of them. They have to... If they damage, they have to compensate me for the damage. But it's, it would be wrong for me to turn around and say, "Wow, look, someone squatted my property and now I've got a brand-new kitchen which is installed. I didn't ask them to do it. Now I've got a brand-new kitchen which is worth 15,000 pounds, and I, I kicked him out." Which I, I was justified in doing that. But the, the brand-new kitchen, actually, uh, you would have to, you'd have-- You, you can't walk away with that brand... Well, obviously you're not gonna walk away.

49:04 Speaker 1 You can't, you can't just say, "Oh, I'm gonna keep it because I didn't ask you to do it." You are obliged to pay for the increased value. So coming back to this air conditioner, um, now you understand where perhaps where I'm coming from. That the builder, um, damaged your air conditioner. He has to pay you the value. But to say that now I've got a much more valuable piece of equipment, the builder could turn around and say, "Listen, I damaged a cheap piece of equipment. Now you've got an expensive piece of equipment. Pay me the difference." So, um, yeah. Let's go on to our last question. And although it's fairly straightforward, but let's, let's share, let's discuss it. So at l- last week or two weeks ago, we had a discussion about very wide gates, to the point that they're so wide that when they're open, it's more than ten amas. And we discussed whether the loses its status of at the time the gates are open. So since we are already on this field of Eruv, so someone asks me the question, "If perimeter wall of a property is made up of Tzurah Sa'peh, which means poles and wires across, but each of those poles is less than 10 ammas apart, is that enough for the-- to enclose the entire property to make it a Reshus HaYachid? So here we have, this is from the Alter Rebbe, the Shulchan Aruch, Siman Shin Samech Beis. See, if you test, if you did a Tzurah Sa'peh,

50:42 Speaker 1 even if it's more than 10 ammas, that works for the entire perimeter. Um, now, that's the first view. The second view is, I'm making this quick, V'yesh oimrim that Tzurah Sa'peh does not work for a gap of more than 10 ammas. Now, this is people talking about the, you know, city eruvin, which many of them rely on, on poles and wires, um, which may be, if it's the m- the majority of the perimeter. So according to... And these city eru- eruvin, the distance between the wires, between the poles, is typically well over 10 ammas. So is a Eruv, or what we call the Eruv, with, um, more than 10 ammas apart, is that valid if that's the per- majority of the perimeter? The first one says yes. The second view says no. But, this is important to our answer. Aval b'pirtzas eser. If the gap between the poles is 10 or less, so then Tzurah Sa'peh does work. V'apilu kol haruchois hein al yedai Tzurah Sa'peh. Even if you've got the entire perimeter is surrounded with poles and wires across in the c- in the correct way, even it's, as long as there's ve'ein bo hen eser al eser. Eh, if the, if the... In other words, if the gap between the poles is less than 10, 10 ammas, then that would be a valid, um, mechitza. It would be considered like a wall around, and you'd be able to carry without any hesitation. So that's the answer to that question. With that, I'm gonna

52:32 Speaker 1 finish a couple of minutes early and wish you a good night and a Good Shabbos and a ksiva v'chasima tovah. Kol tuv.