נצבים תשפ״ב

00:00 Speaker 1 Good evening, and welcome to the, uh, shiur this evening. Last shiur of, uh, this, uh, panorama shiur for this year. And for all of you for participating and the support, the encouragement. I wish you all a . Let's start with a question about the Selichot. And that is that I'm a bit bothered that in the Selichot we have here every day, we have this piece. We start with then we have et cetera. It goes in alphabetical order. Two, um, preliminary points. This-- the same list of, um, praises or whatever was also in Hoshana Raba. et cetera. Curiously, there the vowel is not as it is here, but it is which is more like an Aramaic structure perhaps. I was told that the Rebbe would in, in Selichot also pronounce it like it is in the Siddur, in Hoshana Raba, et cetera. Um, fine. What's bothering me here is why all of the, all of the, uh, items, there's one word for it. There's, uh, et cetera. There's one exception, and that is . So I'm curious, and I don't have a satisfactory answer, why is the Gimel made into, um, why is there an extra term there? Could be, it could have been, uh, or . Why is it put together? What I did find is in the Siddur Sha'ar, I think it's actually in the Hoshana Raba, where he says the following: "corresponds to Yaakov, as it says, Yaakov. corresponds to Yitzchak. There's Yitzchak. And corresponds to Avraham. whom Hakadosh Baruch Hu had

02:38 Speaker 1 promoted and made famous as it says, I will greaten your name," which I find in itself interesting because here we're talking about , the greatness of Hashem. Whereas the of Avraham is the greatness of Avraham. But be that as it may. So he's-- He, he, he-- The Sha'ar is saying, "correspond to Av-- Yaakov, Yitzchak, and Avraham." That doesn't explain why fits along with, with Avraham. If anything, would have fitted better. With Yaakov, which is it is in the third place. So I'm, I'm a little puzzled. I don't have an answer. I did look around. That's it. I'm just sharing with you in the hope that someone will find a good explanation and, uh, share it with us in the future. Let's move on. I was last week in, uh, New York, and my apologies for the-- not having the shiur ready on time. Um, I'll blame it on the poor Wi-Fi in, uh, Gatwick Airport. But meanwhile, I went to visit a shiva house of a, uh, friend. I'd gone on Selichot with him to Australia, Rabbi Mendel Rosenfeld, his father, Rav Yosef Rosenfeld, had just passed away. So I went to visit the house, and I noticed something curious on the mezuzah, and I asked them permission to, uh, make a photograph. As you can see, here is the mezuzah in the steep diagonal, but beneath there, lower down, there are the holes where the mezuzah had been. And so I was curious, why, uh, was the mezuzah previously lower down, and why

04:40 Speaker 1 was it later raised higher up? As you can see in the larger doorway, so you have here a straight po-- door post which goes up till about six foot, and then you have an arch above it. This actually enters into a Machloket of Rambam and Rashi. How exactly do we regard the lin-- this round lintel? Do we say that the, the, the straight part is the door post and the entire round lintel is considered lintel? Or do we say no, you could actually, um, fit-- You could-- You, you-- Let's say that just the middle part, part of that lintel, the middle fourth fochim would be considered lintel, and the rest of the slope of the curve would be considered door post. So there's a, a dilemma which-- whe-where do we-- do we consider that, that, that curved part as doorway or lintel? And therefore, when we have the way, way of measuring that the mezuzah should be in the top third. So is the top third on only of it-- of the straight part or is the top third of the overall, um, of the overall doorway? And that's the original placement of the mezuzah was looking at a third of the straight part. And that's why it was lowered down. Later on, someone obviously pointed out that it's-- if you would s- make the overall measurements for full height, the mezuzah would be not in the top third, it would be closer in the middle third. And therefore, the mezuzah was raised up to

06:24 Speaker 1 be, um, on the bottom of the top third of the overall height, whilst being still, obviously still in the top third of the, um, medium height of the... Now, meanwhile, since we were talking about mezuzah, so Reb Mendel, my colleague, s- um, shared with me that he had th-- when he was-- shortly after he was married, within the first couple of years, he had some, um, medical issues, Crohn's disease, whatever, surgery, and he asked the Rebbe for berachos on-- for the various-- before the various surgeries. And on three occasions, the Rebbe told him, answered bedikas tefillin and mezuzahs, which he did, and they didn't find anything. But at a later stage, years later, he said he would make a point of each year, a long time, he would give his tefillin and mezuzahs to a different sofer. So years later, he, his-- one of his mezuzahs was found to have the same word appearing at the end of one line and again at the beginning of the next line. That's a kind of classic thing which the human eye will, uh, will overlook. And it was-- so it was possible all those years, and it wasn't-- it hadn't been noticed by numerous soferim who had been by th- that, that mezuzah. So that was one thing. Then years later, or some stage, he gave his, uh, tefillin to Reb Hershel Pekar. Pekar, we knew him as in England, um, but he then m- moved, moved to America. In addition to being a silversmith, um, he

08:11 Speaker 1 also would fix up tefillin, um, batim of tefillin. And so he gave him his tefillin to do some fixing up. And meanwhile, Reb Hershel noticed that the parchment of the parshiyos, although the kasav, the script was from Rabbi Zurkin alav ha-shalom, but the parshiyos were-- the, the, the actual parchment was not Rabbi Zurkin's classic parchment. So it was c- curious. And turns out that the... Some of you may remember about, a- about forty years ago, perhaps a little bit less, there was a scandal in, uh, the United States where the, the parchment which was being used by the soferim was actually not from a Jewish source. It was from a, um, a goyishe source which had been making parchment for drums. And some sh- unscrupulous, uh, Jewish tradesman, merchant had sold this as being, uh, fit for, uh, Sefer Torah and tefillin and mezuzahs. At the time, there was the Sefer Torah HaKlal, which had been written on such parchment, and Rav Zalman Schimmin was then alive, and he had paskened that it was okay, um, bedi'eved. And, and so this, this, this parshiyos of the t- um, the, uh, tefillin were written on that parchment, that, you know, that, from that, from that source. And bedi'eved it was kosher, but it was certainly not l'chatchilah. And at the time, Rabbi Zurkin was ready to give you a new set of parshiyos, um, with a hundred dollar discount because he felt, obviously, to a degree, although it's kosher, but it was, uh, something which he

10:04 Speaker 1 felt a bit he had to, um, repair. Right. We have our, uh, resident soferis pointing out that that, that, uh, that, um, mistake of the layout. There's a set layout which words go on which line. Well, obviously, uh, it happened. Uh, so, right. Let's move on. So now we have the same question came to me from different p- different people, and two-- from two different people. Um, is a beracha said at hatafas dam beris? So I, I told them no. One, one was asking-- One of them was asking, uh, about a twelve-year-old boy who had been circumcised by a goyishe doctor, and is now, Baruch Hashem, becoming frum, and he wants to have a kosher, to, to, to say upgrade, it should be a kosher beris. And what's done in such a case is, uh, that the mohel does a prick ne- near about where the original cut had been, and that, that's, that's, uh, called hatafas dam beris. And the question is, does one do a beracha? Now, hatafas dam beris could be in various situations. One is a case when a child or a baby boy is born, nolad keshu hu mohel. But this doesn't seem to have been any-- So he was born without the extra skin. Another case is when a Jewish child was circumcised by a goy. And the third case is when a non-Jew wants to be maggi, wants to convert, and when it comes to a beris, he says, "Actually, I was, I was circumcised as a goy."

11:46 Speaker 1 Um, and now w- well, what do you do in those, those situations? So the-- in all of these three situa- three situations, there is the idea of, um, of hatafas dam beris. So let's g- take the case of the ger, which I think is the most extreme, where we have a ger who had been already, um, circumcised as a goy for no mitzvah reason at all. So then, the Shechinach says, "Tzorich lehatif." This is in Resh Samachez in Dinim of Gerus. So, "Tzorich lehatif mimenu dam bris, ve'ein mevorchim alav." Even though one does do the prick and extracting a bit of blood, but one does not say a beracha because actually this need to do hatafas dam bris is, uh, actually subject to a machlokes. So though it's done, but there's no safek beracha lechatchila, so one would not say a beracha. There are Rishonim who say you do, but the halacha remains, as you see in the Shechinach, that you don't. If you want to read more about it, you have on your sheet, you may have, there's Encyclopedia Talmudis volume 10. It's got a whole entry on hatafas dam bris. There you can see the various opinions, et cetera. The second quote is in the case of a child who had been circumcised, a Jewish child circumcised by a goy. And really, there the Shechinach just says, "Ve'imol," if a goy had done the circumcision, "ein tzorich la'azor olam pa'am shniya." The Shechinach, Rav Yosef Karo, he is of the opinion there's no

13:18 Speaker 1 need to do anything. There are more in the Rashi letters. "Vyeshuim limlechayav la'azor lehatif mimenu dam bris." There are those who say that you also... You have to do hatafas dam bris. So you see the difference. In the case of the ger, the Shechinach said you have to do dam bris, uh, because it w- he was, uh, his circumcision was clearly as a goy and had no connection to a mitzvah. In the case where a goy had performed a brit on a Jewish child, arguably, all right, so there's a mitzvah has been done. Um, therefore, there's no need to do hatafas dam bris. Well, you say, "No, it wasn't done by a Yid." All right. See, there's, there's less of a case for hatafas dam, dam bris. Either way, the- there's certainly no beracha because it's, it's-- there's no, uh, the, there's, there's no consensus that's zachir to do that hatafas dam bris. No, you wouldn't say a beracha. Right. Let's go on to the next point, and that is, we have a Lubavitch minhag, and this is from... Both quotes are from Sefer Haminhagim. Now, the one is that by the end of the beracha of Avos Olam, before Shema, that the chazan finishes off the beracha in what we call an undertone quiet so that the people in the, the tzibur should not have to answer Amen. That's because there's a safek whether, whether it would be correct to answer Amen. Is it a hefsek? Whether it's correct to answer Amen after B'av

14:48 Speaker 1 or before Shema. Is the b-- And what exactly the beracha is. So to avoid this she'ela, so the minhag in Chabad is that the chazan finishes off B'av. He doesn't say it aloud, and then you can't answer Amen because you didn't hear the end of the beracha. The... By contrast, by Ga'al Yisroel, there's also the same, a very similar dilemma. Should the tzibur answer Am- Amen to Ga'al Yisroel, or is it a g- worry of a hefsek? And here, the, uh, Sefer Haminhagim says that the shliach tzibur concludes, "Vaga'al Yisroel b'chol rogel," the regular tone. Now, these, both of these notes are from the Machzor, from the Rebbe's notes to the Machzor, and therefore he adds, "Ke'neigeen l'kol ha-shana. Kol yemei ha-shana." Now, uh, all right. The Rodosh and Roshomas are gonna pick up. Why does it say here, "B'chol," and here it says, "Kol"? I don't know the answer to that. I'm just looking at it now. Meanwhile, the more glaring question is: Why is it by Ga'al Yisroel-- So how do we solve the problem of whether they should answer the, the, um, Amen over there? So the Alter Rebbe in the siddur says that the tzibur should say the words, the beracha, they should finish off Ga'al Yisroel together with the chazan. They-- In synchronized with the chazan. In that way, they don't have to answer Amen because you don't say a- Amen on your own beracha. So the question still remains then. Why is it that we are-- We have an

16:27 Speaker 1 identical dilemma, whether to answer Amen or not. And by Ga'al Yisroel, we have the minhag to say aloud, and the solution is that the tzibur say it in, in, in sync with the chazan. And by Vechochbam Yisroel BeAvos, the advice is to say it quietly, and we don't s- use the solution of saying it together with the chazan. That's the question. Very good question. And there's a Sefer I mentioned a couple weeks ago, a Sefer Hefsek b'Tefillah, from Reb Uriel Ember. And he wants to say that the solution of Ga'al Yisroel-- by Ga'al Yisroel, and, uh, which I just said, that's mentioned in Poskim. Whereas the solution by, by Vechochbam Yisroel BeAvos is not mentioned in Poskim. And therefore, the hetter is therefore to say it quietly. Um, my suggestion is a different answer, that Reb Meir of Premishlan is quoted as having said that although in Shechinach, there is a concern about answering Amen after Ga'al Yisroel, says Reb Meir of Premishlan, that was in, in generations bygone. But now, in heaven, they want that Yidden should say aloud Ga'al Yisroel. They, they're waiting for Yidden to ask for the Geulah. Therefore, instead of suppressing, we could have... That's the Veltish minhag of suppressing, not saying Ga'al Yisroel aloud. No, actually, it should be expressed aloud. I-- But Amen, okay. So then the people will say Amen together with him. So I, I think, therefore, the solution, the answer to this question is more on a Should we say an inspirational level, that by

18:14 Speaker 1 Ga'al Yisroel, we don't want to suppress the Ga'al Yisroel, therefore, it's said aloud. Whereas in the case of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we can say they quiet. Let's-- Let me see. I see a couple of poi- comments have come in in the-- on the chat. Um, due to an opinion, Ga'al Yis-- one opinion, I guess, on by Ga'al Yisroel, you answer on your own berachah. Right. According to the Minchas Chinuch, you should be answering amen on your own berachah. All right. Um, right. Someone's pointing out the literature also say Ga'al Yisroel quietly. No, that's actually the very point which I'm saying. That the Minchas Eliahu is to say, um, to say Ga'al Yisroel quietly. And here, Minchas Chabad is to say it aloud. So here we are different to, um, we're different to the Minchas of Rav Eliahu. Actually, in Tof Shin Nun Beis, the Rebbe-- it's not, not in the Muger DeKesira. And there, the Rebbe had said something that the simplest solution is to say it quietly. Um, but the pearl, this is the Efamin Hogemistas, the Chazan says it aloud, and so that's how it remains. You mentioned that it men-- that the Sefer Minchas Yisroel has an Arevus on this issue. Please share with us. Do you mean Minchas Yisroel Torah, um, from Levi? Probably that's whom you're referring to. Okay, fine. Well, I was really just exploring what the Minchas Chabad, what's the explanation between-- to Minchas Chabad. Let's go on. So here we have a very interesting, uh, Halacha,

19:47 Speaker 1 Psak, and that is about Negel Vasar on Yom Kippur. So on Yom Kippur, there are five activities which we abstain from, and they are to fulfill the mitzvah of Ve'inissimas Nafshei Sechem. And the Gemara Yoma says that the Inui, the self-affliction, doesn't mean rolling on a bed of thorns. It doesn't mean going into a, uh, ice-cold pool or a ice bucket challenge, um, all of these creative forms of self-affliction. Instead, it's a affliction brought upon through abstaining. So we abstain from eating, drinking, wearing shoes, et cetera. And one of the five activities which we abstain from is washing, bathing. For that reason, Negel Vaser in the morning, we wash our hands. So there are many, uh, um, um, opinions who say it's enough to wash just the fingers until where the fingers join the hand, which is called knuckles in English. And then there's a Chumrah to wash until the wrist. So whereas the rest of the year, we will wash Negel Vas up until the wrist. When it comes to Yom Kippur and On Tisha, where the Halacha restricts us from bathing. So we wash Negel Vaser only the fingers. And then in Motzei Shaba- Motzei Yom Kippur, we wash again, uh, without a berachah. But here comes a very interesting Psak of the, uh, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch. It's based upon the Note of Yehuda in the Note Daga Marvova. In Tof Resh Yod Beis, I think, where there's a zoom of bathing on Yom Kippur. And he says the following, The Kohenim who

21:35 Speaker 1 are going up to will give, uh, will give the blessing of, uh, uh, by the, at Musaf. And before they do so, they have to wash Netillas Yadayim Ad Hasroya until the wrist. So again, in some areas, m-most Poskim say it's enough to wash just the fingers. For Netillas Yadayim even. But there are things like, uh, for, for Kohuna, where they, they, it's, uh, uh, it's imperative to wash until the wrist. So the Kohenim, when it comes to Duchanan, they're going to wash until the wrist. The Im Leilot Yudayim Beshacharitz Raketz Bo. If at Shacharitz, in the morning, at Negel Vaser, they'd only washed their fingers. Afshe Beichu Os Al Netillas Yadayim. Even if they'd said the berachah, Al Netillas Yadayim, which was for an adequate washing in the morning. But Kim Shehityo Hayahi Lo Hayilo Lahem L'Ducha. For the morning's washing is not adequate for Duchanan because that washing requires until the wrist. Im Kein Shenotlin At Ad Hasroya. Now that the Kohenim are washing again, and this time they're washing until the wrist, because the earlier washing wasn't adequate. Tzrichin L'vorech Al Sheinis Al Netillas Yadayim. They should have to wash Netillas Yadayim and make a berachah again, Al Netillas Yadayim, because that Al Netillas Yadayim is, uh, that wasn't adequate for what's needed now. And therefore, this is the Note of Yehuda's, uh, suggestion. The Tov Yois, uh, that the Kohenim should wash Netillas Yadayim in the morning up until the wrist, and in that way, they don't have to make a

23:18 Speaker 1 berachah again when they wash before Duchanan, as in any other Yom Tov. Of course, you can argue that every o-- between the, uh, Netillas Yadayim, when you got up until you stand up by Musaf or do Duchanan, there's been lots of activities of touching this and kratzing or whatever it may be. But the same jug-- logic that you don't make a berachah, Rabbi Cohen. You don't make a berachah when you wash on Sukkot before Duchanan. So that same logic will apply for, for, for Yom Kippur, if you wash till the wrist. So the Note of Yehuda and the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch is paskening this way, says that the Kohenim should wash Negel Vaser on Yom Kippur up until the wrist. Now, then you can see this little gimel, which is a reference of the, to the Misgeret HaShulchan, who brings several Poskim who disagree with this, and they hold that you, that you-- that a Kohen should not wash his full hand. He should do like everyone else on Yom Kippur, washing only the fingers and not to the wrist. In the Otzar Minhagim Chabad, which is the lower quote over here. So, Rabbi Haman Shineul Shalom is quoting Rabbi Lebel Kahn, who's the uncle of the Re-Rebbe Kahn. And he had asked the Rebbe, "Do we follow the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch's Psak to wash as a Kohen, to wash on Yom Kippur until the wrist, or do we follow the other Poskim who say that a Kohen, like everyone else, only washes until-- only

24:52 Speaker 1 washes the fingers on Yom Kippur?" And the Rebbe had answered him to follow the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch and not like Misgeret. Okay, so far, this is the information which is maybe known, maybe not so well known. My question now is... I've got two points, actually, I want to add to this. Number one, when we say Negel Vaser in the morning up until the wrist, is that talking about the first one or the second one? Namely, that in the morning we wash netilat yadayim right next to the bed. Then as a human being, as- uses the facilities, and then you get dressed. And then once you're dressed, you wash netilat yadayim a second time and you say now again a brocha on the t-- Then, then, and then you say on netilat yadayim. So now when it says here in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, he doesn't go into this detail of washing t- twice. So when he says, "Wash in the morning until the wrist," is he talking about netilat yadayim or is he talking about the second time? Is he talking about washing next to the bed or is he talking about when you-- o- once you're dressed? That's really my question. I'll rephrase the question. When you say the brocha on netilat yadayim in the morning, are you saying the brocha for the second washing or are you saying the brocha on the first washing? So what I've seen is... I don't know, I'm, I'm, I believe that this idea of washing twice is,

26:22 Speaker 1 is quite widespread Minchat Yisrael, but I haven't seen this addressed so, so, so clearly. Um, I see someone's only amened to do it a second time. Okay, thank you. Um, yeah, I'm, I'm intrigued about this. The idea of not the, the idea of not touching your clothes before netilat yadayim is written in, is, is drawn from the Zohar. So I don't know how other people manage. Okay. So meanwhile, this is-- it's not s- actually, all right. The, the point is clear that it's not well documented about washing netilat yadayim twice every morning. And back to my question, when you make a brocha, do you make the brocha on the second washing or the first washing? And therefore, should the Kohen be washing the netilat yadayim next to the bed till the wrist or the second time? Now, as I said, what I've seen in, in the various Chabad sources, they take the view that the brocha is on the second washing. Personally, uh, my, my, uh, my research is, seems to lead me elsewhere. Bear in mind, it's the first washing which gets rid of the ruach ra. That's clear. Now, here's a very interesting thing. In Siman kuf samech daled, the Alter Rebbe talks about a person who washed for bread and in the middle of the meal, he needed to use the bathroom. So he comes back. I don't know, perhaps we once discussed this. Anyway, he comes back to the meal, he has to wash netilat yadayim again. He has to make

27:59 Speaker 1 a brocha. But the halacha, the Minag HaOlam, already from the Maharshal, it mentioned the Minag HaOlam would not to make a brocha again. And the Poskim struggle, why not? Why, when you wash, you, you have to wash because you know that you touched a unclean part of your body, so why shouldn't you say a brocha? So the Alter Rebbe says a very interesting chiddush. He compares this to a person who was wearing tefillin, and he took off his tefillin to go out for a minute and puts them back. So he's restoring the tefillin from before. So if he didn't go to the toilet in between, just went outside, put them back. He's restoring the original mitzvah. He doesn't need to make another brocha. Similarly, if a person had washed b- for bread at the beginning of a meal, taken a pause to use the bathroom, he's coming back. He's restoring the original state of purity. Therefore, he doesn't make, need to make a new brocha. That's the Alter Rebbe clear in Siman kuf samech daled. I want to take this, uh, and kind of take a liberty of, of, of adapting this in, in our situation. The real netilat yadayim is the one you wash next to your bed. That's when you get rid of the ruach ra. The problem is that even then you don't make a brocha because then you have to right away, you're going to touch this and, and you're not dressed properly. So therefore, you do whatever else you have

29:12 Speaker 1 to do. And then once you're dressed, then you make-- you wash your hands again. But in a sense, you're restoring the purity of what you did next to your bed, which is the main netilat yadayim. And now you make a brocha. Okay, now you can make a brocha, but you made your brocha is for the first washing. That's, that's, um, that's my theory. Um, on, and according to that, if the brocha is on the first one, then the Kohanim should be washing netilat yadayim next to the bed and to the wrist. Whereas according to the wisdom of, of the other, uh, authors, then you'd say it's the brocha, it's the second netilat where, uh, where, where the brocha is said. Fine. One other point about this, which I want to share with you, is that the Minag in at least the Chutz La'aretz, is that the Leviim wash the hands of the Kohanim. I know netilat yadayim it's because they wash every day, it's not so standard that Leviim wash the hands of the Kohanim, but this is certainly Chutz La'aretz, it's only about 13 times a year. And, um, the, the Leviim wash the hands of the Kohanim. And the Leviim wash their own hands before they wash the hands of the Kohanim. So now, I, I've never really gone to observe closely, especially on Yom Kippur, especially because I'm a chazan, so I can't go peek behind the curtain to see what's going on when they're washing hands. Um, do, do the Leviim

30:39 Speaker 1 wash until the wrist before they wash the hands of the Kohanim? So I've seen that they say that the Leviim should. But then I've seen both in the Hiskashrus and in the Sefer Shulchan Kohanim from Rabbi Hengel of Migdal HaEmek, and they're say- taking this further, which I'm not very, uh, um, enthusiastic about. They're saying that the Levi should also wash until the wrist in the morning. Since he's gonna wash until the wrist by, by, by Duchenne, therefore should wash also until the wrist at Negovas. I think, I think that is, um, fault- faulty. Because what the Ki- Kiddush of the Ne'ida Behuda is the Kohen has a chi of to wash Netilat Yadaim. And if his Netilat Yadaim is clearly the earlier one was inadequate, and now it's a, a new level, therefore he has to make a new Bracha. The Levi, when he washes his hands, would never make Al Netilat Yadaim because he doesn't have a mitzvah. It's a Min HaTorah for the Levi to wash his hands before washing the hands of the Kohen. It's not a mitzvah. Therefore, there's no question of a Levi making Bracha Al Netilat Yadaim when he washes the hands of the Kohen at Matnosah. Therefore, I don't see any justification for the Levi having to wash, and if, if full... Until, until the wrist in the morning. I don't see where they're coming from. Um, I would say no. The Levi should wash only the fingers like anyone else, and whether just before washing the

32:09 Speaker 1 hands of the Kohen, if he wants to wash until the wrist. I mean, I'm not gonna object on that. But to say in the morning you have to do, I think is, is, is, uh, is, uh, a misunderstanding. Okay. Let's go on to the next point, and that is a Shliach somewhere in Europe. Um, he lives in an apartment building with non-Jewish neighbors. He's the only Yid there, so it's, it's not a question of Eruv. Here's a question of there is an open space, a shared space. Many times these apartment buildings have got a bit of greenery or whatever, uh, or somewhere some open space, and everyone's allowed, allowed to use it. He wants to put up a Sukkah over there. His question is, does he need to ask permission? Now, of course, some of us are attuned to the LeChatchilah Haribah mode, and therefore, yeah, sure, who's gonna ask anything? It's not so Pashut. It's not so Pashut. Because sometimes if you're building the Sukkah is in violation of, of whatever, then you should not be making a Bracha. You can be LeChatchilah Haribah, but you might be getting into a question of Bracha L'Batul. So let's read the Halacha carefully. So this is in Tof Reish Lamed Zayin, and this is, uh, the Dinim of Sukkah Gezulah, of a stolen Sukkah. And it says the following. One should not build a Sukkah on public ground, like on the street. Be mokim shehaRabim ovrim sham, where many people are passing by, where the, the

33:51 Speaker 1 public have their rights of way. And even if it's a Jewish-populated city, and the Yidden are certainly mochel that you put a Sukkah, uh, on the street, but the street also has... The, the Goyim are also entitled to use the street. And they're not mochel that you're blocking their street with your Sukkah. And therefore, Vaharei Sukkah Gezulah. It's a form of Sukkah Gezulah. Now, it's a form of a stolen Sukkah. Ah, Be'di Ever. You haven't stolen anything because the fact that you're squatted on someone else's land. Land, you can't steal land, so you're a trespasser. You're not a-- You're not walking off with someone else's property. You're using someone else's property without authority. Nevertheless, says the Alter Rebbe in the second paragraph, LeChatchilah, one should not use a Sukkah which has been put on someone else's land without permission because it's not considered Shel Cha. And the Torah expects the Sud-- the Sukkah, it's a Tas Lucha. Ah, you can borrow. When you-- when it's given to you with permission on loan, that's also enough to be called Shel Cha. But if it wasn't loaned to you, then it's not r-fully Shel Cha, and therefore LeChatchilah, that's not okay. And then he finishes off the second paragraph. One should object to those who put up Sukkahs on the street. Now, this is in Chutz La'aretz. In Eretz Yisrael, it's, it's, uh, standard permission. It's, uh, it's assumed that's, that it's permitted. But the, the thing which I'm worried about is the next point, where it

35:46 Speaker 1 says in the third paragraph, Mokim She-bi'ar. Whenever we've said that you cannot build a Sukkah LeChatchilah, and you did, although the Sukkah is kosher, Ein L'vorech Alah, because it's come through an Aveira. You can't make a Bracha on an Aveira. So with all LeChatchilah Haribah. But if you are violating someone else's property, so you cannot make a Bracha on, on, on that act of mitzvah. So this is really where I was a bit concerned. Now, I w-I would then-- But then I was happy to see in the Dirshu edition of Mishne Berura, so it's quoted here from Rabbi Yisrael Korelitz, that if you have a Sukkah, you're in a, in a shared plot of land which belongs to a building, so then you don't need to ask the neighbors. And he says they don't have the Koach, they don't have the authority to object, because that's-- it's normal, it's a c- a shared piece of land, and this is a normal usage. Unless one of your neighbors says, "I want to put up a Sukkah there." Now, possibly Rabbi Korelitz is addressing the situation in Eretz Yisrael. When he has this statement, Um, I don't know whether that would wash in Chutz La'aretz. I think the neighbors could raise objections to the fact that someone has built a, a shared on sh- on shared property. Um, but nevertheless, I was-- I felt a little bit reassured. My main point why I feel it is okay because in the second line, first and second line of

37:20 Speaker 1 this paragraph, the Alter Rebbe says, "What's the problem of building in public property?" It's where you are interfering with the traffic. Here, it's in the back. It's not, it's not-- There's no traffic there. It's a place where... Or it's a bit of recreation there, but it's not taking away from anyone's usage there. Uh, the normally, the normal use is obviously not interfering with anyone's usage, and therefore it doesn't fall into the Ah, then about ownership also. The second point about ownership. Here, he is a owner. He is entitled to use this land. It's not like Someone else's land. He's paying rent or ownership. He does own that area of land, and therefore I, I felt that it is, it is legitimate to build a sukkah there. And he, he doesn't want to start asking all the neighbors because then they will start saying, "We have to have a, a, uh, you know, tenant," how you say, a, a meeting of the various stakeholders, et cetera. It's gonna be a whole, a whole headache. And so as the expression in Yiddish, So he didn't want to start asking the question, and he asked, does he need to ask the question? And I felt no. He's got-- he's permitted to, um, he's permitted to use that area. He's not inter-- He's not disturbing anyone. Yeah. Someone's pointing out about these restaurants. Yes, absolutely. The restaurants are also... Nowadays, you see it's very common that they have, in the hot weather, warm weather, they will have tables and

38:52 Speaker 1 chairs out on the street. So the same margin of pavement which they could use for, uh, for diners in the hot weather, you can't say that when they put up a sukkah in that same, uh, area, that they are dis-disturbing anyone because they are, are entitled to do so throughout the year. Um, if they would take up the whole pavement, uh, that, that would be a different story. I don't think they would be, they would, don't think they'd get away with it. So, yes. So now let's go on to the next point. Um, so here, um, point seven. So a student of architecture visit-- well, is asking, can he visit the Sistine Chapel? Whatever. I'm just giving this as a, as a marshal. Um, I was asked the question. I don't remember whether he was a student of architecture or just he likes art, and he wants to visit the Sistine Chapel. For those who don't know, that is somewhere in the Vatican, and it's got the, uh, the ceiling has got the artwork of Michelangelo. And all right. Are you allowed to... Basically, are you allowed to visit inside a church? This is really the question. So here we have a Where it says that Even the land which is, belongs to the church or temple. Some say it's like a city of Some say that it's like just a, a, a city which is populated largely by idol worshipers. And when they-- it's not a time of worship, you would be allowed to

40:31 Speaker 1 enter the There are those who disagree, and they say. That you're not allowed to enter even the Unless it's the route, the only way to get to another, uh, place. But basically, one should not. So really, my answer was that Jews should not be entering a church. The-- But you can see here, although here it's talking about a And people were asking a little bit about, um, by the royal funeral, that some Jewish personalities, um, were present at the proceedings. And, um, is there any heter for that? I, I, I, what I can say is I can understand very much that they were, um, almost compelled to be there. Other-- Their absence would be seen as a, um, a... It would be seen as a, as a, a affront to the royalty. But probably that's why they felt that they had to be there. I did see recently, um, something about the late Rabbi Yisroel Brody, where he actually, when it was King, when King George passed away, he was, he stood outside, and he paid his respects standing outside. Um, but the, the... What you're seeing here, meanwhile, there's, uh, well... But even, even, even though, The first, the first opinion. But that's only when it's not in operation. If it is in operation, where there is a service going on, um, the whole lot's not okay. But I'm, I'm just saying that I understand, uh, at least the motives were just to avoid creating, um, uh, very misunderstood, uh, messages. Right. Now, the

42:29 Speaker 1 next question, number eight, is a, a very simple, uh, question. But, uh, because it was asked, I think there may be other people out there who also may have this question. Um, so people, before going to the Was it correct to watch the proceedings on television? Well, I don't understand. For me to have a television. That's, that's the first thing. But to see, to watch, uh... Actually, I, I... You know, it's a serious question. That today someone asked me, "Is it okay to go to a wedding?" You have a friend who's not Jewish and is getting married, not in a church, getting married in a, in a neutral venue, but it will be officiated by a, by a priest. Is it okay to be present at a, at a Christian service? And again, I felt that it wa- it wasn't the right thing. To be there at a Christian service is, for us, it's something which is, um, we don't belong there. And so the same thing to watch the proceedings on, on the television, uh, to s- So you're basically, you're watching a, a, a Christian procedure. Right. Um, so now let's come to our question over here about a woman, a schli-- a schlucha asked me- I'm not sure if I pronounce the same. Humpleswatch. The question here was about she has got some guests coming for Rosh Hashanah, and let's say Yom Tov comes in at six thirty, but they're making dinner at seven thirty. If the guests come at seven thirty

44:23 Speaker 1 on Sunday evening, can they bench licht? This is, this is, this is Sunday night, yeah? So it's obvious that they could. It's Yom Tov, and Yom Tov you can light a flame from an existing flame. And I just want to clarify actually that there are many communities where they don't want bench licht at, at the, at sunset on Yom Tov. And the D'chat Chila, they light the candles close to the meal. As you can see here, there's a custom in our town, they light dovka samach la-suda to emphasize that the lighting of the candle is suda. However, there are those who disagree, and they say, no, that they-- actually, it would be correct to light the candles for Yom Tov at the onset like we do for Shabbos. Because it's not, it doesn't, doesn't, it's not in-- It's not nice that people come back from shul, the parent, the father comes back from shul and the house is still in, in the dark. Why not? You know, relatively speaking, yeah. So, and, um, again, this also raises the question, um, on the second night. But certainly the first night, although our minhag is certainly that the women light the candles for Yom Tov at the onset of the Yom Tov be, before sunset, and that's how women are kind of welcoming the Yom Tov. But it's, it's, it's not imperative that way. And there are-- And certainly in this case where the guests have come later, they can bench licht, um, later on when they,

46:01 Speaker 1 when they-- just before the, um, meal. Or whenever they come, they can light. Here in the second part, this is from the Piskei Teshuvas, um, in Siman Tov Kof Yod Dalet. He's got a discussion if you-- could they even light a bit earlier, let's say on, uh, if you want to light on, on Monday evening before sunset, before dark. The point of that, it's not, not our minhag. The m- It's on the calendars, it says, on the second night, not to light before this and this time. So that's what w- what we're gonna be doing in any case. The second night, we wait until after the, after nightfall before lighting candles. Okay, that was point eight. Um, point nine I have here on my list is that it's ten minutes after sunset on Friday, and I realized that the hot plate hadn't been switched on. May I ask a non-Jew to switch on the electricity? And so we have a, a general rule that, um, you are allowed to ask a goy to do, um, an isur during... because it's bein hashemesh to sof, you know, sof zman. And you're asking a goy, so therefore it becomes kind of a sof derabonon. If it's a tzorech mitzvah, you would be allowed to. So the answer is that you would be allowed to. Uh, if, let's say if a woman hadn't lit candles. I've had this sometimes. A neighbor comes around, but then it's already after zman and they hadn't lit candles. So if, as long

47:33 Speaker 1 as it's bein hashemesh, um, so then you could ask a goy to light the candles for you because it's a tzorech mitzvah. Right. So yes, the answer is that you could ask a goy to switch on the hot plate so that you should have hot water-- sorry, hot food for, for Shabbos, et cetera. Um, the next point I want to share with you is, uh, following on from, was it two weeks ago, we spoke about Refaenu and why we say Baruch atah Hashem rofe chelei am Yisroel. And I'd mentioned then that since we had possibly in Refaenu had in mind a particular chele, therefore, we say at the end, rofe chelei am Yisroel because of the idea of incorporating. Uh, we-- Like when we do a Mi Sheberach, we say, mi sheches rofe chelei Yisroel, to kind of have the merit of the tzibbur. That's why we say rofe chelei am Yisroel. It should be incl-- This person who you're thinking of should be included with everyone else, all other Yidden who need a refuah. At the time, I mentioned that, that despite what I had said just now, but the Minhag Chabad is to, if you want to mention a chele, it should be not in Refaenu, as is in many siddurim, but in the brach of Shema koleinu. And someone asked me, one of our listeners asked me to clarify this a little bit. So here you can see, uh, this is a quote from the back of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch volume

49:02 Speaker 1 thirty-nine. And where the Rebbe writes, "Bakoshas refuah laanosim nosim mesuyanim yeridim." When you are p- pleading for healing for specific people, not for a klal, for a, for a community, but for specific people, that should be said in Shema koleinu. And then he says, "Ask the details from your local rabbi." So this is a quote from the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch. This is, as you may be familiar with the series of Shulchan Aruch, where the Rebbe's halacha and minhag guidance has been put together in a mesoratic way with footnotes. So here we have a footnote to this point. In Shulchan Aruch, the Alter Rebbe says that you could ask for refuah in birkas Refaenu. And so you, in the brach of, of, of Refaenu, you could insert a name of a specific individual. And as, as I said, in many siddurim, it even has a, a kind of format for doing so. However, in the Birkei Yosef, that's from the Chida, uh, who quote-- he quotes from Rabbi Yaakov Molcho in his Shalas Shavuos that it's better to pray for an individual chole in the bracha of Shemoneh Tefila. And that you see the Rebbe's emphasis here. If you're praying for yechidim, it should be in Sh'ma Kolenu. If we're pray-pray-pray-praying for a, for the rabim, it would belong in R fuenu. And the Birkay Yosef sa- writes-- the Re- Chida writes further, "Have in mind the chole at R fuenu, that should be in, in machshava, in thought. But to stipulate the name for whom

50:46 Speaker 1 you're davening, that should be done in Shemoneh Tefila." Bearing in mind that in Shemoneh Tefila, you are allowed to include whichever prayer, whichever ple- um, plea you wish, whatever it may be. You want, uh, someone to, uh, I don't know, uh, whatever it may be. If it's, uh-- You can, you can include a, uh, whatever tefila which is necessary, which you're asking for at the time, you can include in Shemoneh Tefila. And further, in the Birkay Yosef, he writes that that is also, um, written from the Gurei Ha'Ariza" That mean the cubs of the Ariza, which, which means the Talmidim, the um, of the Ariza. When it comes to if you're asking for parnassa. So then in Mevor- Berakhas Hashanim, in Mevorakh Hashanim, there it should be b'machshava. It should be only in thought. If you had a particular need for parnassa, you wanted to ask a specific bracha for that. Say, Berakhas Hashanim, which is about parnassa, there you-- it should be in thought. And in Shemoneh Tefila, there you can say it, uh, articulately. You can ask, let's say, if there's a particular business deal which you want to have a bracha that it should go through successfully, then you could say so clearly in Shemoneh Tefila, "Hashem," you say it, uh, preferably in Lashon Hakodesh, whatever, uh, "Send Hatzlacha in this, this venture which I'm going through, uh, today-- hope to go through today." That, that, you, you'd say that explicitly in Shemoneh Tefila, and in-- earlier on it would be, um,

52:22 Speaker 1 only in thought. Just wanna finish off, and that is with, uh, I-- as I said, I was in, at the Ohel over last Shabbos, and really it was, um, very inspiring to see so many young people, um, inspired, and lots of chayas, and the Koch. This is the Koch. Uh, it's a year of Hag Ha'el. Um, the idea that in the times of the Beit Hamikdash, the melekh would-- the whole of Klal Yisroel would come together, and the melekh would read from the Torah, and this would be-- the Yiras Hashem would be inspiration for Yiras Hashem for, for their whole-- for the forthcoming period. And, um, la-- Well, fourteen years ago. No, sorry, not fourteen. It must have been more than that. Um, it was must have been five thousand and six. Was, I believe, Hashnas Hag Ha'el. And I went to the Rebbe for Shabbos Bereishis, and when there was a yechidus for everyone, for the, for the guests, I passed by, and the Rebbe gave me a dollar and he says, "Zos ton in Hag Ha'el." So there's encouragement each one of us to do what we can to gather Yidden together, whether it's a family, whether it's friends, or whatever it may be, and to use that group therapy, if you wanna call it, to encourage one another in yonom of, of, uh, of, uh, Yiras Shamayim and Avodas Hashem. And, uh, with this, I'd like to wish you all a ksiva vechasima tova, lashana tova u mesuka, uh, and a shnas

53:50 Speaker 1 geula, pidyon and geula. Shna peh gimel pidyon ugeula, and moShiach tzidkeinu. Kol tov.

54:00 Speaker 2 Okay. Shakaik kol tov.