וארא תשפ״ג

00:00 Good evening and welcome to tonight's Shiur. Motzei Shabbos Bo'era. Dedicating the Shiur to Zechus Matunech Ben Malcolm Miriam, Sheuchya. She'll be able to have his Bris soon. And all other Kinderlach, Bezrat Hashem, who are waiting for their Bris, should be able to have their Bris Bishivah Bizmanai. And B'tech, everyone who needs a Refuah Shlema should be given Refuah Shlema B'karov. Let's go into our questions. Okay. Now, just a thought. There is an idea that neighbors have an influence on one another. That's why we see with Kohelet, et cetera. "Tevilat tzadik tevilah sheino." And the opposite. How does it work? Does it work that because they're neighbors, therefore they have an influence on one another? Or does it-- Was it possibly that because they have a similar nature, therefore they gravitate to have to live in the same area? That the fact that they've moved b'sheinus is actually because subconsciously they've got some similar, um, mindset, et cetera. There is such a approach by Geshovah, et cetera. Anyway, why am I saying this? People listening to this Shiur, and some of them are gonna be listening to a recording, and probably some of you also listen to other podcasts too. I just think if your mindset listen to this one, you might be listening to other podcasts too. And recently, on the Yeshiva Headlines, there has been, uh, which is produced in the United States, there was a whole discussion about, about careers for women and what's the Jewish perspective about this. And BeHashgacha Protis, just

02:03 this, for this Shabbos, the, look at it, the Sikha, which is published by Va'ad Hanochos Belahag for every, uh, Shabbos. So for the, the issue for this week has got, uh, s- letters, as they have been do- doing the last ten years. At the back of the Sikha, there's also several letters that haven't, haven't been published before. So there's about five letters in this week's issue which relate to this topic. I'd like to share them with you, although no one has asked me the question, but it's interest... It's topical and... Right. So valuable stuff. So here we go. Someone had asked the Rebbe, a woman had asked the Rebbe about look- going into some kind of career. I'm not sure. It doesn't say what. The Rebbe writes the following: "Iker tafkid bas Yisroel nesuah." The primary function, mission of a married Jewish daughter. "Lihiot akeret habayis kidboori," to be the mainstay of the home as it should be. "Hainu henholat habayis bechlal," management of the house overall. "Bemyuchad gidul v'chinuch ha'yeladim," especially the bringing up and educating the children. "Zem mat-im gam kein," this also corresponds to, "Ma she'emar," the pasuk in Mishlei, which we say every Friday night, "Kol kudot bas melech pnimo." The glory of the daughter of the king is, pnimo is in, inside. Now, what about working out of the house then? So the Rebbe puts three points here. "B'koshi hit'ilu shetes asik be'eseik bachutz." With difficulty was negotiated, so was allowed, permitted to have a vocation outside the home, and

04:03 with several points. Number one, "Ki shezehu b'chinuch bnei Yisroel." When it's a, a vocation of chinuch, of education of Yiddishe children. "Chevin sh'lanashi meresh-- regesh imohi meyuchad le'yadim" because women have a, a motherly touch, which for children. "Uvemela hashpa'at hem gedolah u'amuka yoser," and therefore their influence is greater and deeper. So that's the first, uh, um, point. When there's a call for chinuch. It doesn't actually go into whether it's girls or boys, but when there's a need for chinuch, okay, so that's where a woman's, uh, obviously much more suited, um, depending on the age, et cetera. Oy. Second point. "B'kedei lifneh haba'al ha'oisek b'hasmada v'limud haTorah v'dagas parnasah hamuchragas." Or alternatively, when there's a husband, when she has... Her husband is engaging in Torah diligently, so to, to relieve him of the worries of essential parnasah, parnasah for the essentials, so she will work so that he should be able to continue shtagig, et cetera. Okay? Third possibility. "Oy, ki shehis'asus haba'al b'parnasas bnei beito." When the husband's efforts for providing for his family, "Lamre shishtadlusso bozer," notwithstanding his efforts, is, uh, in this. "Komshi nemar," and when the hus-- It is the husband's duty, as it says, "She'ero k'suso lo yigra." We have in the pasuk that the husband has a duty to provide his wife clothing, food, clothing, et cetera. But if the husband's- Earnings are not adding. Einum bas peh. Uh, is not enough. Therefore, he has the need for his wife's assistance. To pr-provide for the house. So there's first, chinuch.

06:19 Secondly, if the husband is a, uh, sitting and learning, um, has mod-- uh, in-in-intense, uh, uh, assiduous manner. And the third one was to supplement the income of the house. Then the Rebbe finishes off, he says, um, you, the, who the questioner, do you have-- uh, do any of these three categories fit in your situation? It looks like there was-- there wasn't that pressure. She wanted to go to work, but just for to-- but not because there was a shortage of money, et cetera. It's-- obviously, it's known that also in Eshel, it lists there that the woman had manufactured a sheet, and she sells it. In other words, that she does do some kind of industry to, to, uh, bring in income. It certainly does not, um, contradict the above, uh, conditions which are drawn from Shulchan Aruch. It doesn't give a specific source. Perhaps in the printed one, they do have. So the Rebbe is-- seems to be discouraging if she doesn't-- if there's not a need. Then we have here a second letter. Also in the same, in the same kuntres. And the Rebbe says, "I thank you for your letter, and you're asking for a broche. I'll read it bedatze'en. The natural priority for any-- every mother, is bringing up and educating her children, in brackets, including the management of the home. End of brackets. When there is missing in this, um, fulfilling this primary role, this inner role, this is confusing to the tranquility of the person. Especially when they are

08:39 very young children. Then he adds, is there... Does it make sense to give the time for a, not a primary role, but a secondary role? In other words, I guess that would mean part-time. This depends on the personal set-- the, the family situation. Not as a, as a position as being, I guess, a management position. As you see in the notes that this woman had been-- in the notes they say that she had been working as a management of events in one of the hotels in her city. And she's asking after she gives birth to her third child, should she go back to being a manager of events in the hotel, or should she drop that? So coming back to the main letter. So the Rebbe's saying, not as a, I guess, primary official, yes, if there is a need to kind of have a bit of a variety of the day, during the day. To ease up on the-- from the tension of just being focused on one thing the whole day. Okay, for a bit of variety. So the Rebbe seems to also... So in add-- this is quite interesting because in condition-- in addition to the three conditions mentioned-- three circumstances mentioned earlier, here the Rebbe also says about, um, having a part-time, um, job to give a bit of variety, to, to, to, to ease up on tension. So the Rebbe goes along with that also. So I just wanted to share that, um, and okay, let's move on. Obviously, these

10:40 are general halachim and the general guidance, and each person will, will, um, have to make decisions, take-- seek guidance for their own situation. Let's move on. So I was asked this week about the minhag in Chabad to-- of what not to give a g-- uh, that choson does not give the kallah an engagement ring. So let's take a look. And this is a, uh, letter of the Rebbe published in the Kuntessichos. And this is from, I took it from Shulchan Aruch. For obvious reasons, it is appropriate, in my opinion, the gifts given to a bride before the actual wedding, there should not be a ring. Whether it's gonna be in my name or not, but it should become... The Rebbe's-- he does see that this is something not only for, uh, Chabad, this is something for the broader Jewish community to avoid this minhag of giving a, an engagement ring. Let's, let's take-- Let's, let's go through this, um, understand the concept of kiddushin. Traditionally, back in the times of the Mishnah, uh, even later, a man would Agreed to, a man and woman had agreed to get married, so he would give her kidushin. That would be a commitment on his part and her part that they're going to get married. They do not live together yet. They don't, don't move in a-as a husband and wife. It's a commitment. Meanwhile, he will save or put aside the money, prepare a house. She will put together whatever she needs to set up home. And

12:27 then after several months, a year, whatever it may be, they will then, should we say, consummate this engagement, and they will get married. So really, if you think about the translation of the word engagement, um, if a young lady walks into work one day and she's got a ring on her finger, a diamond ring, what does it say? It says that she's made a commitment. She's made a commitment to a particular man. And so it, it does reflect the concept of kidushin very, very close. Um, also, the Rebbe took exception to what in contemporary Hebrew, including amongst Haredi, uh, circles, using the word for engagement in so-and-so and so-and-so, morassim. They're using the word, uh, erusin, which is actually the word synonymous with kidushin, and that shouldn't be done. We should-- Because it's not, uh, you know, Chas v'Shalom, if it doesn't work out, we're not talking about a kidushin. We're talking here about an agreement to get married, but not, not in the, um, rigid sense of kidushin. In the note here, there is a quote from, from the Sechas from Tov Shin Heim Alef. Obviously, the chassan doesn't mean it l'shem kidushin, but it is in relation to the concept of, of, of, uh, getting, gearing up for kidushin. And therefore, there is a possibility that through this, she will become a, um, technically eishes ish. And if the shidduch falls apart or is, is canceled, it would require a get. You have the references where this is discussed. And in addition, if

14:13 the chassan directly places the ring on her finger, then there's also a concept of physical affectionate contact, which is, uh, inappropriate until they get married. All right, let's move on. So it's, it's something... Is it, is it... What is it? Is it a minhag? It's more than a minhag. It is, this is a concern. It's a Halakhic concern of the Rebbe. This is very close to a, a form of kidushin, and therefore, to avoid doing so. Can give-- After the wedding, can give also an engagement ring if that's, uh, that's, that's fine. All right. So someone asked me this past week, if you have, for some strange reason, tea bags often come in pairs, and you only need one at a time. So now the shailah is, are you allowed to tear them apart if someone on Shabbos is using it for a lichlachi, et cetera. So the question is, can you tear apart one bag from the other to use one and not have to also use the other or wet it, et cetera. So actually, I s- I looked around and I couldn't find any direct, um... No, no one discusses this very question or this very common question. I saw something similar in my mind, and that is about cups of yogurt, where you got-- they sometimes they come in connected four or six. And are you allowed to separate those yogurts from one another so that the kinderlach in the morning, they shouldn't have to all, you know, eat from one

15:53 pack of yogurts all stuck together. So they should be able to have each one in front of themselves. So here, what you have on the, on the screen is from the Sefer Orchos Shabbos, and I'm gonna read what he says. Gvi'ei Leban, the cups of yogurt which are sold in pairs, and before eating, one would normally separate them from one another where the plastic is scored. Some say that that's not allowed because of maakeh b'patish, because you are finishing, giving finishing touches to these cups, and also mechatech, of cutting something to a specific measurement. And there are those who do permit separating these cups. So the ones who's machmir, he quotes Rav Elyashiv. He sees that the cup is not fully suitable for its function when it's stuck to other cups and when you separate it from all the other cups. So now it becomes more of a sh- a completed cup, and that's why it comes with a maakeh b'patish, in addition to the fact that you're cutting them, the, the, you know, specific line, et cetera. Whereas Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach was lenient on this, and he doesn't see a pra- an issue of maakeh b'patish because the cups are finished cups, a-and they are scored so that they should be able to separate, be separated easily. He doesn't-- Therefore, he doesn't see as the cups to be unfinished cups, which is very, very interesting because Rav Shlomo Zalman, as far as breaking off the lids, you know, with the, um, opening a

17:21 bottle or with, uh, breaking off the ring underneath the, the bottle cap, he was actually very machmir. And here, he's taking a lenient view. All right, um, and he doesn't worry about mechatech because you're not interested a bit more, a bit less. So at any rate, so we have here two opinions about separating, uh, cups of yogurt from one another. And I would say it's exactly the same argument here. When you have two cup, two bags, each one is a container with a function, and they are, they are shleimos. They're, they're completed. But, by tearing them apart, then you're able to do one with, manage with one without the other. So myself, I would, I was inclined to the yogurts also. I was very surprised that Rav Shlomo Zalman was mehikel. I was more inclined to say that it is, um, forbidden to separate them on Shabbos, and I would take the same view with the tea bags. Actually, I, I... That's what I said to the fellow who asked me. But, um, according to Rav Shlomo Zalman, I guess it would be okay. Right. Let's move on. That's meaningful. Right. So someone's asking me whether they're allowed to wear a garment which has a safety pin in place, um, whether they're allowed to wear it on Shabbos. Now, I'm sure some of you remember the Mishnah in Shabbos, which talks about a man we- wearing a needle, a machat. And you've got a machat, an... which has a hole, which doesn't have a hole,

18:49 a needle with a eye, without a eye, and talks about wearing one of those on your garment being a issue of carrying. However, the... So the Mishnah Brewer, when he's, like, is worri- he's a bit worried about using a pin to hold things in place and to wear the garment in, in s- in the street on Shabbos. So Rav Chaim Klinger, he says this, um, this kind of pin is made for wearing. Um, Therefore, it's, it's... This is the way it's, uh, this is the normal use of it, and therefore it's not a problem for Shabbos. Um, it's not so clear here, but in... This is from the Shemirat Shabbos KeHilchasa. You have the reference, page 16. So he talks about the list of things which are not a problem for carrying. which is a safety pin to hold two parts of a garment or something which is holding a tichel, a yarmulke, et cetera, that you are allowed to wear them in the street. And in the notes, he refers us to the Bier Halacha, where the, um, Mishnah Brewer is concerned about this, and he sa- then he echoes this, the idea of the Shulchan Aruch, that this is not a problem here because the s- the safety pin is made for holding th- food, hol- holding, uh, clothing together. Um, uh, it's not used for anything else. It's not comparable to the other needles, which are mentioned in Shulchan Aruch, which would be ne- used for other purposes and maybe carried for

20:21 other purposes. And therefore, a regular needle or pin in a garment would be considered an issue of carrying. But a safety pin, he, um, concludes that it's not a problem to wear. Okay. So here, next question is from a Shliach in a, somewhere in... Has a Chabad house and have a Kiddush every Shabbos. And at the side of the, uh, room, they have hot plates. And so here's the question. Normally, when we serve food on Shabbos, if we serve the cholent, the soup, we take it off the fire, and then we serve. So here's he asking whether the people could serve themselves directly from the, from the kugel or cholent which is sitting on the hot plate. So let's, let's read this. This is from Shmirat Shabbat KeHilchot. A pot which has been taken off boiling hot from the fire, if it's not... If the food is not fully cooked, then you shouldn't use a ladle to take food out because stirring the food is a form of cooking. If it's fully cooked, you are allowed to stir it once it's off the fire. Others are And then he talks about the machmir in stirring, but to ladle out is not a problem. Now, just to clarify, this is not a, um, a, a, uh... What I'm showing you on the, on the screen here is talking about when it's off the fire. And then ladling out, once it's off the fire, is not a problem. Here, we're talking about whilst it's on the fire,

22:08 so then it's more close to looking like an act of cooking. So I told the Shliach, as far as it, the kugels go, it's okay to serve directly from the kugel as it's sitting on a hot plate because there's no stirring at all. You're just lifting it out, and therefore that's not a problem. With the cholent, it depends whether it's a dry cholent or is it a lot of, lot of, a lot of, uh, gravy, whatever the word is. If it's, if there is something being stirred when you pick it up, then other things fall a- fall o- and it's, move around, then that would be something which you shouldn't do whilst it's still, or shouldn't serve yourself or others whilst it's still on the, on the, uh, source of heat because of, of Megas. Let's move on to the next point. So here we have about, uh, someone asked the question, one of our listeners asked the question, if you got pieces of text which were, was, were torn, and can you put them together in order to read them? So this comes to the... This is in Olat Rabbi Shlomo, siman shin mem. Famous discussion about books which have got words written on the edges of the pages. Are you allowed to open the book on Shabbos? So I know some, some shuls would have, some synagogues had the names of the shul, the name of the shul stamped on the side of the book. Now, that is, lechatchilah, some say you shouldn't

23:37 open the book on Shabbos because by opening it, you are undoing the letters, so you're erasing. When you close the book, you are creating the letters. Even that's not your intention, but it's inevitable. So that's one opinion. The second opinion is that you are allowed to close them because the letters are already there. It's just that they need to be brought closer, and that bringing the pieces together is not called writing. It doesn't require, uh, any special, uh, actions. And therefore, the fact they are, there's no... To bring them together is, is okay. And, um, so V'Chein Noyagen, he concludes that it is customary to allow bringing the, to close such a book. So bringing bits together which are now going to form writing is, it's something which, uh, w- which is permitted, or perhaps it's something which we, lechatchilah, to stamp the side of a Sefer, we don't do that lechatchilah. But if, if it has been done, you are allowed to bring it together for, so for the same reason to, uh, te- a torn piece of text and bring it together, if it's needed, you would be allowed to do so. Um, and this is, that's the first quote. The second quote is from Shmirat Shabbat KeHilchot. So he has here, um, a page which is torn. Whether it's, whether it isn't writing or even whether it is writing, the custom, it's customary to allow, to permit bringing the pieces together to be able to read the text. Okay. We'll go on

25:11 to the next point. Um, what was number seven then? Okay. Um, number seven was, may a garden parasol be opened on Shabbos? Ah, here it is. It's... All right. So, let me see what we have here. Okay. Let's, let's read this carefully. The, it says here, "Geder godru gedole hador z"l. It's something which the gedole hador, which means, is referred to the later, uh, post- came in the last three hundred years. That one should not open a, an umbrella on Shabbos or Yom Tov. And even if they were open before, one should not be using an umbrella on Shabbos or Yom Tov, even when there's an eruv. We went through this, if you remember, some of you, about a year and a half ago or more, when it was COVID, someone was, wanted to stand outside, uh, to join a minyan, and he wanted to know whether he could use an umbrella. So we went through this. At any rate, "halof shimshis gino," but a garden umbrella, which is stuck in the ground, and, or a, an awning over a porch, you are allowed to open them or to fold them. So, where this comes from is that in the Gemara, we talk about if it's connected to any, a structure, to, connected to a building, so you are allowed to extend it. And therefore, they're differentiating between a portable umbrella, that one shouldn't be opening on Shabbos. But if it's connected to the ground, it's fixed where it is, then one would be allowed

27:08 to open it, uh, on Shabbos. So that's, I think, the answer, uh, without going into too much, too much around this. The question was also, what if it's partly open? Yes, that also makes it easier because we have the halakha that if one tefach was already open, then to open it more is, is permitted. It's just mosif al oyel arai, uh, temporary covering, and it's, and there's already a tefach there, so to add to it is permitted. So someone's asking, what if the umbrella is placed in a weighted thingy to hold it down? Hmm. Right. Um, I don't know. Well, I, I, in the winter... I'm just gonna dodge this one and say that in the current weather, I'm not gonna worry about sun parasols for another few months. Um, we'll have to get to it another time. All right. Let's move on. About... So, here's a question about women wa-washing mayim achronim. Why do women not wash mayim achronim? So, in Siman Kuf Peh Gimel... Sorry, Kuf Peh Alef, where the dinim of mayim achronim are discussed. So towards the end of the sif, it says the following. "Yesh she'ein noyagin lit'ol..." There are those who don't bother with... There are those who, who have a cu- Their custom is that they don't wash mayim achronim on a regular basis, because, and one of the main concerns why mayim achronim was introduced was because of a belag stumis, a type of, um, s- a type of salt, and if a person with this salt

28:49 would go into their eyes, it would be harmful. And that kind of salt is not commonly found in our regions. And as far as, as far as the grime, the grease on their hands, also, it says, um, we're not worried about that. "Ho'ova achshav ei makpidin lerochtzon milich lo chamayichol, ein ze korui zu hamolano." So if... I, I think also this has got to do with when people used to eat with their fingers. At any rate, so there are those communities where mayim achronim wasn't, wasn't done, wasn't followed. Now, then that doesn't answer about why women would be more, uh, lenient than men. So let's, let's read here. So this is, uh, one of the specialists forum about halakhas for, uh, women. So he had written about mayim achronim, that generally women don't do it. And he quotes here, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. And he says, it could be that women who don't wash, they are relying. There's a whole story in the Gemara. It says, "Mayim achronim horgo et hanefesh." There's a whole story in the Gemara about a man who, um, uh, someone called him, can say, um, um, um, he, he had some valuables at home. And a man came to... He went out of the house, and another man saw him in the morning. Then he went to the house and said, "Your husband told me to give me the, the, the, the je- the je- the jewelry." And he says, "He told me, oh, a siman, a way you should

30:29 know that I, that I'm saying the truth, that he had a very tasty egg this morning." And so the woman gave him the, gave the visitor, gave him the jewelry, trusting it's all true. And it was, uh, you know, obviously it was a fraud. And how did he know that the egg was tasty? Because the man had a trace of egg on his li- uh, just up over his lips. So when the man came home and he, he heard that the wife had, had, uh, uh, he, uh, that she had given it away, he murdered his wife. So it says there in Gemara that "Mayim achronim horgo et hanefesh." So- So that, that, that is here that Rabbi Zalman is saying that that is a more, a, a masculine problem, whereas for women, they don't have to worry about this, this whole scenario, as therefore they don't have to wash mayim achronim. But, um, he says that's not really such a strong, uh, explanation, a-and really where wo-men wash, so in the same community as women should also wash. But that's, um... Then he quotes here from Meshech Chochmah, Rav Oznar: "There's no difference between men and women." But since there is the, uh, opinion that we don't worry... Nowadays, we don't have to worry about melachas chamus, and therefore the men are machmir for themselves, but women will ne-will not mekabel this chumrah to wear, to wash them. In other words, mayim achronim nowadays is a chumrah, and largely women won't mekabel this chumrah,

31:57 and therefore that explains, um, the min hagiven, uh, from Yekke families that it wasn't, it wasn't done. Okay. Let's move on. So here we have a question, very common question, that if your hat is out of shape, are you allowed to put it back into shape on Shabbos? Is that a problem of tikkun? So here we have, again, this is from Piskei Teshuvos, from Siman Shin Beis, which is talking about clothing. That's why it comes up. So he says to, um, to, to make a, to make a garment into shape, that would-- to just in a regular shape, that would be okay. So therefore, let's say to straighten your collar of your shirt, of your coat, to, uh, pleat on your, on your trousers, they, uh, perhaps they fold the cuff, a hat which is b-bent out of shape. And let's say when you take off your jacket, to put it onto a hanger, to put it on a... All of these things. Now, also, I'm not familiar about this, to put a shtreimel, say, well into its box, even though that enhances it. So he says these are not significant changes. This is, like, very minor things, and therefore that it's okay to do them on Shabbos. So that's the answer, that you are allowed to. Right. We have here, the next piece is a little bit more engaging, and that is about... So as you know, we've talked about the new Kitzur Shulchan Aruch with Minchas Chabad. And someone sent me a question

33:39 why a particular point, uh, the, the... So the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, where the Chabad Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, where the Alter Rebbe is, um, disagrees with, you know, psak of the Alter Rebbe is different to the psak of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch. So that has, that varia-variation has been recorded. And here in the Kitzur, it hasn't been included. So he's questioning this. So let's go through this carefully. So first, we have the top. This is Shulchan Aruch, then the Alter Rebbe Shulchan Aruch, and then the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch. So the story is, I think, a very unusual story. If the mashgiach tzibur, in other words, the baal kore, made a mistake, and he finished off the whole sedra with six aliyas, and said Kaddish. So we-- on Shabbos morning, we'd have seven aliyas, and even there were six aliyas, so they finished the sedra. So you don't have to call up this, another person because we're gonna use the maftir. Maftir will repeat that which was read for sh- for the, for the sixth aliyah because essentially, the maftir really counts as for the m- for the, for the seventh. So again, really the minimum aliyas on Shabbos is seven aliyas. The maftir is a bonus. And what he's saying here is, if they finish the sedra with six aliyas, so then the maftir, uh, will make up the q- the, the quota of seven aliyas, even though Kaddish had been said. So now, that's how the Shulchan Aruch writes it. Now, the Alter Rebbe in

35:13 the same place, it's in the Shaar Eitz. "Im, toh, if the chazan, the baal kore, made a mistake, and he finished the sedra with shishi, if he says Kaddish, we don't have to call up another person for shvi'i besides the maftir. Rather, the maftir will repeat that which has been read with the shishi, and that's enough because the maftir counts as one of the seven." And the, the... I think the point which needs to be emphasized, although the maftir is reading the same material, the same psukim which have been already read, that doesn't matter. It still counts up, counts for the, for the seven aliyas. And here, the Alter Rebbe adds in the brackets. As we know, the things in the brackets in the Alter Rebbe Shulchan Aruch very often are chidushim. "Avo limlo yomar Kaddish adain." So here, this is all if Kaddish had been said. But if Kaddish hadn't been said, "Yikra od shvi'i mlvad hamaftir." Then you should re-call up a seventh one besides the maftir. "De-ilot seis af l'ho'im rimm sham maftir ein hu olem minyan ze'ir k'moshle noge'in." On a regular week, we-- regular Shabbos, the maftir is extra, more than the seven. So now you want to use the maftir as a seventh. If you haven't said Kaddish yet, which would be a kind of interruption. So if you haven't said Kaddish, so then you should repeat what has been read, part of which has been read, with the seventh man, then say Kaddish, and then call up maftir

36:47 as usual. All right. So we have now, uh, there's a din in Shulchan Aruch, and the Alter Rebbe picks up, and that depends on whether Kaddish had been said or not. Now, let's read down the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch. Same story. If, with a mistake on, and on Shabbos, they called up the shishi till the end of the sedra, don't say Kaddish, just read the maftir. And the maftir will be one of the seven. Now, that's very different to what the Alter Rebbe had said, yeah? The Shechinach had said if, uh, Kaddish had been said, then the maftir will be the seventh one. The Kitzur Shechinach is saying, "You haven't said Kaddish, so then repeat, and he will be the, uh, the seventh Aliyah. And then the ma- what will you, what will you do with Kaddish? The Kaddish will be after Haftarah." So this is very different to what the Alter Rebbe is saying, because Alter Rebbe is saying, "If you say... If you haven't said Kaddish, so call up number seven, and then say Kaddish, and then call up a m- a maftir." So the question was, why was this d- d- difference not registered here in the Kitzur Shechinach? And the answer is, possibly it was overlooked, and so it, it does need to be, um, noted. The Alter Rebbe would disagree and say that if Kaddish has not been said, then you should call up the seventh one and just repeat some of those psukim with the seventh, and then Kaddish, and

38:12 then the, the, uh... Um, what is interesting, which, um, it was, it was all news to me, because in the references here in the Shechinach, in the new edition, they refer to Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer. He's got a, like, a whole column of discussion about this, and also the Tillat Yad David has a discussion. There's a lot of lamdus about this, but I'm not going to discuss that now. Part of the reason is because I didn't manage to absorb it myself. Okay, let's move on. Um, right. Okay. So I'm in correspondence with a particular shliach who's building a mikvah, Baruch Hashem, and he's also en- engaging with someone else locally. And the... He sh- sent me a photograph. I don't know where the photograph is on... No, it's not on the thing. Okay. He sent me a photograph of a, a, a pipe, like a gutter of some sort, feeding into a hopper, going to a downpipe. And this, this water collection unit, otherwise in English a hopper, um, is made of metal. So the other fellow who he's in contact with says, "Oh, we have a problem with metal. The Rabbeim didn't like that you should use metal for a mikvah," and therefore he suggests lining it with some kind of fabric. Now, I just want to read. What you have on the screen is from the, the guidelines written by Rabbi Yaakov Landau, who was later the Rav of Bnei Brak, but when he, when the Rebbe Rashab built the mikvah in his home

39:45 in Rostov, um, in the last few years of his life, Taf Resh Ayin Zayen Ayin Ches. So Rabbi Yaakov Landau was, uh, he was the local Rav and, yeah, although he was still, I believe he was still a bocher at the time. And, uh, the Rebbe Rashab told him the exact guidelines how it should be done. So he, afterwards, he wrote down a whole list, and this is published also in the Sefer HaMinhagim. It's also published in the back of Chelek He of the Alter Rebbe's Shechinach. The first place where it was published was in a volume called Tohoras HaMayim from Rav Nissim Taluskin. At any rate, let's just read the text. The roof where the rainwater is, is traveling, where it's accumulating from. There should not be any, any blockages, obstacles to the flow of water. The consequence , there shouldn't be any, any, um, metal pipes which are blocked. So what's, what's, what's this about? The way I understood this is that it's talking about, um, that you have... If, if you have a gutter, at the end of the gutter, you normally you have a little wall so that it shouldn't overflow. So the where the gut- that, that place becomes a, a c- a container of sorts. There may be the pshat, he may be referring to something else, I'm not sure. But he's clearly talking about where there is a, a, a... Where it's closed. which is closed, and therefore it's a container. To use metal gutters and to use

41:34 metal hoppers where there's no, no obstacle, no obstruction to the flow of water, as far as I understand, is perfectly okay. What he reads, reads further, that there shouldn't be any... It shouldn't be... It's preferable that the pipe lead- the downpipe from the roof to the mikvah should be straight without any elbows. Now, an elbow, if you think about it, you ho- hold it in a different position, it becomes a container. So try to avoid using elbows. And then he talks about the water traveling over, over cement, which is, uh, a bit absorbent. That's another discussion. So I'm, I'm just sharing that with you that I think that this is a mi- misunderstanding of whatever Rashab's talking about. He's talking about where the metal is actually an obstruction to the flow of water in some form, whereas... So actually, when, when we... Occasionally, I've been involved in a mikvah, uh, the construction. So if there's going to be, let's say, an air conditioner unit outside on the roof, that's gonna be a problem because there, there are places where it could contain water, and also we try to isolate the air conditioner from where the water is gonna accumulate to the mikvah. Let's go on to the next point. So someone's asked me, he sometimes davens in a non-Chabad shul, and as we know, in some circles, they're very generous with the rules of not saying Tachnan. So what's the story about do you s- what happens if you get... They didn't say Tachnan. Should

43:05 you be saying Tachnan? Now, this is... I, I looked up the letter. So the second, second paragraph, ƚbeśeilas haśenia, your second question, which was if you're downing in a minyan, whether or not saying tachnun, whether Kodşam Babri would. Movement, sheha-nagid be-blitos, to do something which is ostentatious, which is obviously different to what other people are doing, ve'ruva de'ruva ein nerutzuyot. So don't stick out like a sore thumb. Don't, don't... Not, not, not to be, um, openly different to other people. I understood this to mean that while everyone's saying Aleinu or whatever, you don't put your head down, et cetera. But afterwards, where the people have left to say Tachnun, it, it's not bothering anyone, one shouldn't be missing out. But I, uh, I might have misunderstood this, but that's, that was my understanding. When it's, when it's be-beit, where people are seeing, that, that is when you shouldn't. But otherwise, why should you miss out? All right. We have another couple of minutes, and I have a couple of things which I want to share with you. One is something very interesting. Someone came to me. They have a Yahrtzeit. Last year, it was a leap year, and the person passed away, passed away on the thirtieth of Adar Rishon. So normally, when there is... In a, in a regular year, not in a leap year, so whatever date was, whether it was Adar Rishon or Adar Sheni, that corresponding date in Adar is observed. The problem is that Adar only has twenty-nine days, so

44:48 there is no Lamed Adar this year. So what do you do for the Yahrtzeit? So very interesting that the poskim say they should observe a Lamed Shevat, which at first glance seems to be, uh, very surprising. But actually, if you think about it, a Lamed Shevat is Alef de-Resh Kaydes Adar. And the person had passed away on Alef de-Res. If it was the third, it was... If it was the thirtieth of Adar Rishon, it was Alef de-Resh Kaydes Adar Sheni. So this is very interesting that the Yahrtzeit would be observed on La-- o-on, on, uh, on Alef de-Resh Kaydes Adar, which is Lamed Shevat. And you always have this very interesting anomaly where you have two children, one born, um, let's say, Chof Tes Adar, and his bar mitzvah will be Chof Tes Adar. And the next one, the other one was born, an hour later was born Lamed Adar Rishon, and his bar mitzvah is gonna be Lamed Shevat. So it's gonna be interesting, but okay. Right. Let's go one more, one more, uh, point which I want to share with you. And that is that there was recently, I saw a news article, um, of a particular place, a shliach somewhere, who had a family celebration. And then they had a, a, a picture, a photograph of all the rabbis in the district all together standing on the, on the, on a, on stage, whatever it was. And the caption of the article was, "Unity in such and such place." I remember... At

46:36 any rate, so I was a little bit, uh, put out about this, and I just wanna share with you what the Rebbe's, uh, the Rebbe's position about this. Going back in the fifties, there was a great pressure, uh, of making, uh, um, boards where there would be representation of conservative reform as well as the orthodox coming together for various, various good things. And the Rebbe was very opposed to these, to these meetings, to these, to these, um, these, these bodies of bringing them all together. So I'm just gonna read here. This is, uh, from a letter. You can see it from Igress Kaydes. Um, in response to a question about my opinion about, uh, recently, uh, recent, recent problems which has come up in, on, on the agenda for Rabbonim in America. Is it permitted for people, Torah-observant Jews, to participate in organizations which inc-include rabbis, um, representing the movements of reform or conservative, whether as individuals, as in the New York Board of Rabbis, or in organizations, as in the Synagogue Council? I don't know the historical details, so I can't tell you more about that. And there are reasons for and against, which have been, um, presented at various opportunities and been, been in the newspapers. In response to this, the Rebbe says, "Actually, in recent weeks, this has become more acute, and it's taken on a new, a new facet, that the broader community, and specifically the younger Rabbonim and the J-Jewish youth in America, are giving a lot of attention to

48:23 this question. Their perspective is that whatever is gonna be the re-- the, the, the ruling here is not only a question, can you join in this organization or not, but it's a question about the over-- the op- the overall attitude to reform and conservative." Question being, are these rabbis, in other words, those who are the flag bearers and the representatives of these movements, are they just Rabbonim Mechillim? Are they, like, a little bit more lenient rabbis, um, as distinct from Rabbonim Charedim, who are more, should we say, right-wing, or are they out of the pale altogether? So that's, that's, that's how the Rebbe presents this. This is-- So the... It's not just a question of, of going to a meeting. It's a question of legitimizing or not. And obviously, the Rebbe's, the Rebbe's involved. The Rebbe's position was very much in opposition to these things. And I remember from Meshulam Hashalom hearing, I don't remember the details, but I do remember that the Rebbe wanted, put-- wanted... He, he encouraged that three very em-em-eminent Rabbonim in America and in New York area should participate in a particular, um, Agudas Harabonim meeting where this was going to be on the agenda. And one of them was Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. I don't remember the other two. And when they said that they don't have means of transportation, so from the Rebbe's office, they said that they're going to... they'll provide them transportation to Upstate New York. And, uh, Meshulam, I believe, was in the car together with,

50:05 well, it was Shafran. I don't remember exactly. And the, the three Rabbonim didn't kn-know of the other ones going out. And, and in the car, they met, and they drove up, upstate to this, to, to, uh, present the position that, that is unacceptable that from a Rabbanim should participate in such a forum. The, the second letter, which you have on the screen, is in this from Igris Kodesh, volume Yud Gimmel. And this is a letter to Rav Zevin, where he says, the Rebbe writes to him that at this moment there are young Rabbanim going out to Jerusalem, a delegation, to have, to try to influence the Rabbanut HaRashit, the chief rabbinate, and specifically Rav Herzog, about the question and the debate which has come up here about whether Shomrei Torah mitzvahs are allowed to participate with organizations which have a, um, they have a, where were we? It says clearly about this, the conservative or reform. And although there had already been a psak, le-issur, a decision which was presented by Rabbanim Rosh Yeshivas in America, they're still trying to push that this should be, uh, acceptable. And some of them, some of those pushers are amongst this delegation coming to Jerusalem. The Rebbe writes to Rav Zevin to try with every, every effort, not that they shouldn't be supported in their dayit hamachazevis, in their misleading, uh, view. On the contrary, the Rabbanim in Eretz Yisrael should express the, uh, very, uh, clear position that it's not okay, absolutely. And, uh, I can't, all

51:49 right. So in here there was also Rabbi Dovid Hollander, who was from, like, from the Young Israel, I believe, that kind of, uh, element. He was going to America, to Eretz Yisrael at the same time. And the Rebbe kind of delegates to Rav Hollander to discuss this with Rav Zevin. So that's, that's what we're seeing from the Rebbe, a strong opposition to this. Now, of course, that does not mean you can't be friendly with a local Reform rabbi. What would be the question, though, if you are making a simcha and the Reform rabbi comes to your simcha, do you give him an aliyah? Uh, do you give him, do you honor him as a rabbi? As a personal friend, that's, that's, I don't see a problem with that. Um, we're charif everyone. I remember the Rebbe once saying, you have a, a butcher and he sells meat. We say to the butcher, we love you as a person. We respect you as a person. Your meat, we have a problem. We can't eat your meat. To, to differentiate between the person and the, the policy, that's true. But when they, this idea of a unity, that we're all, we're all happy, you know, it's, it's kind of a message of pluralism, which is very, uh, confusing. So listen, everyone can do it. It's a free world. But, um, I just want to share with you a perspective. And, um, Bezrat Hashem, all of us, wherever we are, should give nachas to the Rebbe and carry

53:12 out the Rebbe's shlichas behatzlocha. And, uh, yeah. So say, say nemit im Rebbe, dolamato, uchu yigalenu. A gut Shabbos.