יתרו תשפ״ג

00:00 Speaker 1 A good and welcome to tonight's Shiur. Um, good news is that, BeEzrat Hashem, the little boy born to Esther Goller will have the Bris tomorrow in Agudas Yisroel. So, thank you for those who asked, and BeEzrat Hashem we should share good news with one another. Tell me to call her young. Let's go to our first question. Someone asked me this, uh, past week about the extra passuk added in when we say, "In Tachnun, Adovey elecha, Hashem nafshi eso," the extra passuk. So let's, let's go through this carefully. Very, very interesting. We have this chapter, chaf hei in Tehillim, and it has-- It's in alphabetical order. It has three letters missing. It's miss-missing the beit, it's missing the vav, and it's missing the kuf. However, it does have twice aleph, elecha nafshi eso, elekai bachav tachati. So the double aleph makes up for the missing beit. Okay. You can say, "Elekai bacha," also makes up for the missing beit. That's not gonna work so well on the other-- in the second one. Re'eh oni, oni v'anavim ali, re'eh oyi v'cheravu. So the, the missing kuf is substituted for-- by the double reish. Rehiya, hei, zayin, ad richaini ezcho yiracham echad. There's a missing vav, and it's not compensated for. It is actually by the passuk, b'dey elechim. Why does-- How does it-- How does the b'dey substitute for, for a vav? Well, that's because, as you know, there's a way-- interchange of letters, of aleph with tav, and beit with shin. So vav and peh are

01:48 Speaker 1 interchangeable. So the b'dey elechim es Yisroel, michal tzereso, is there to substitute for the missing vav. Now, similarly, in chapter lamed daled, which we say every Shabbos, Adonoi beshanos yesh tamoi. Also there, the vav is missing, and the, i-- the last passuk of that chapter is, Poida Hashem nefashav odov, v'lo yasmu kal achas timboi. So there-- again, there's the peh making up for the missing vav. Fine. The question, which is obvious, is why is there a missing vav? Why was the vav taken out in the first place that it should be okay? Meanwhile, let's just see here, the vehu yifde. That passuk, the vav, the passuk vehu yifde, which is taken from chapter kuf lamed, is to make up for the missing vav. So in the original Tehillim, the p- passuk vav is missing. It's substituted with a peh, and in Minich, which we have, is, is, is, is, it's, um, we have extra passuk to make up for that. The Shaar HaKoidal, or Rav David Lutfot, he was under the impression that this was added by the Alter Rebbe, and, uh, because he saw in the Siddur HaArizal which he had access to, the passuk vehu yifde was not added. Now, just to clarify, in Nusach Ashkenaz, Tachnun is a different text altogether. Vayomer Adonoi el God, et cetera. So this is only Nusach Sefard. So he was under the impression that the, the passuk vehu yifde, since he did not see it in the Siddur Arizal, which preceded the Alter Rebbe, he thought

03:36 Speaker 1 it was Alter Rebbe's addition. But here what we have is, in front of you, in a Siddur which was printed in the year, you can see, reish peh daled. That's almost five hundred years ago. It predates the Arizal, and the Arizal apparently used this print of Siddur. That's according to Machaim Vital. And already there, it has that passuk vehu yifde. And I, I did look at several, several contemporary Sefardi Siddurim, and indeed they do have this passuk vehu yifde. So that doesn't re-- It doesn't solve the mystery, why is there a missing vav, and why is there a vav added in Mincha Yisroel? So in the Tzemach Tzedek's notes on the Tehillim, which we have the, the volume called Yehal Oir, it's notes on Tehillim, he refers to the Zohar in, in, um, Parashat Vaychi. That was it Parashat, yeah, Parashat Vaychi. Or was it Parashat Vayigash? Daf reish yud, anyway. And it's on the words, Ve'hakol nishma beit paar olei meborach Hayosef. The word ve'hakol is written without the vav. And the Zohar there, it's a well-known concept from the Zohar, about davening davka quietly. Kolo, there's a vo- There's a voice which is audible, and there's a kolo de-lo ishtama. There's a voice which is not heard, which is a, a, a, a silent voice. And w-we are familiar in the Shemoneh Esreh, we davka do not raise our voice. We davka daven quietly. Even if you wouldn't be disturbing anyone, you still daven Shemoneh Esreh quietly. It's ko-kolo de-lo ishtama. It's a

05:20 Speaker 1 voice which isn't heard. And that is an expression of tremendous bitul. In, in, um, Kabbalah and Hasidus, the pa-- the, um, nefilas apa'im. This area of, of, of davening is called nefilas apa'im, prostrating oneself. It's an ex-- It's even more bitul, um, than Shemoneh Esreh. Shemoneh Esreh, you're standing before HaMelech, uh, before Hashem. And in the sid-- nefilas apa'im, it says, if you are ready to be Moshe in Efes, to give up your al kiddush Hashem. That's the way it's described in Kabbalah and Hasidus, and this is expressed in these opening words, Elecho havayi nafshi eso. I'm giving over my soul. I'm raising my soul to you. So it's, it's an expression of tremendous bitul to Hashem. And this is the kol lo d'lo ishtama, the voice which is not audible. And therefore, the c- so this is what the Zohar says. The Zohar talks about the words v'hakol nishma. There's also a pasuk, hakol kol Yaakov. And there, also curiously, the word kol, the first one is written without a vav, and the second one is written with a vav. In the Alter Rebbe's siddur, there is a ma'amar beginning with these words, hakol kol Yaakov. Actually, in the Torah Or siddur, this appears as hakdomas hasiddur. In the earlier prints of the Alter Rebbe, this was printed as an introduction. Nothing? So, so we're going through this ma'amar hakol kol Yaakov. And there again, so you have here, the Alter Rebbe discusses this. You've got the kol, which is not audible, and that's

07:30 Speaker 1 the kol talking to Hashem. And then there is the kol with the vav, which is the Hashem coming, bringing down energy and bracha to this world. The vav is, is, is typical a line which indicates hamshacha, drawing down. So the kol without a vav is a voice reaching up. A passionate voice, but with, with, with, in quiet, a whisper almost. And the kol with a vav is drawing down. Therefore, we have here that now the Temim Tedek says, that is his explanation for the missing vav here. In other words, chapter twenty-five to, of Tehillim in the Temim Tedek's explanation is already designated for nefila sapai and for this eman- tremendous, uh, humility and, um, or whatever the, the mode is. And therefore, it's going to be said with bitul and therefore without a vav. This, by the way, I used to have this debate with Rabbi Moshe Katznelberg and other Roshaldim. Do you say Tachnan, the nefila sapai quietly? And I brought some remarks, but here's a, a support to this. It should be said quiet because it's a, you know, mesirus nefesh and bitul, and that's why there's no vav. Okay. Then, all right, that explains why there's no vav. And yet, what is the missing vav? What, what would, if it had been a vav, what would it have been? So the answer is, that's what we have in our Mincha. We have the pasuk, v'hu yifdeh. That would have, that should, that's the vav which is missing. And here's a fascinating discussion,

09:21 Speaker 1 that in the year taf shin nun alef, the Rebbe responded to a particular prominent individual who had been saying that the delay of Mashiach has got to do with Yidden doing, having to deal, deal with their sins. They have to get rid of their sins, and then Mashiach can come. And the Rebbe very passionately spoke about this. He says, "No, it has to be first Hashem should redeem Yidden, and then will be the, be the geulah. Then, then, and then afterwards will be the, the dealing with the averos." So he, and the Rebbe says this, "Look at Minchas Yisroel. First, the emphasis is, Padeah lekim et Yisroel mikol tsarosav. Hashem should redeem Yidden from all their, their, their difficulties. Then, v'hu yifdeh es Yisroel mikol averosav. Then Hashem will deal with redeeming Yidden from all their sins." So the Rebbe took this as a, an in-indicator that the dealing with the sins is not, should not be an impediment for the coming of Mashiach, for the redemption through Mashiach. And the Rebbe, we'll see, and we'll read this inside. And, and this is the way I'm understanding the Rebbe's vort, that really the vav, the missing vav is the v'hu yifdeh. And it was davka put all the way later. Here, he says, let's read this inside. This is from the Rebbe's notes then. Um, even though in various inyonim of teshuva, we say that there are various in, in details which need to be dealt with. A person had stolen money. It's not enough

10:56 Speaker 1 to repent. He actually has to give back the stolen goods. But that should, that chas veshalom does not prevent the geulah, the redemption through Mashiach. Because for geulah is enough a hidur of teshuva, a thought of teshuva, and the shlamus ha'teshuva will be talking about paying. The person is gonna make teshuva by a th- good thought, a, a, a thought of remorse, et cetera. But the actual her shlam was tachiyah while he pays back. We say it is there, says the Rebbe furthermore, that even the thought of teshuva, even that is also not an impediment to the geulah, as we see the said in Toledah Kodesh, Toledah Kodesha, which is, which is Midugshim. We ask, Padeah lekim et Yisroel mikol tsorosav, and then, V'hu yifdeh es Yisroel mikol averosav. And in the footnote, to the footnote they have here, the Rebbe says, "It's a hundred and five chapters later in Tehillim that the v'hu yifdeh, yes, it has to be done, but it'll be dealt with eventually." Bad goshas Sara, this is specially emphasized in the selichos of Asor B'Teves, as well as in the Nefila Safayim, in other words, in our Tachanan every day, where we have the two pesukim, Padeas Yisroel v'hu yifdeh. Let's just turn to the next slide where we'll see a, a, a copy from the opening of Selichos for our Sorot Betavus. Now, the opening four pesukim here all have a theme of pid- pidyon. You got podus, pidei, yifde, pode. But the first pasuk is from chapter kuf

12:37 Speaker 1 lamed. The second pasuk is from chapter chaf he. As you can see here, in, in, in the notes here. The first chapter is kuf lamed. The second one is chaf he. The third pasuk is from chapter kuf lamed. And the fourth one is chapter lamed daled. So this is fascinating that whoever compiled the Selichos saw fit to put the pasuk from capital chaf he before the pasuk v'hu yifde to say, to emphasize this point, which the Rebbe's saying again, uh, saying that Hashem is first. They say that He is. First, Hashem is podeh his Yisroel, and then Hashem will deal with helping Yidden to relieve the That was a separate inyun, which I didn't want to, um, bring in because of, uh, selicha parasha. Uh, what I would like to, if we're really doing, doing this kind of thing, that the fact that it's in-- that the missing pasuk is in capital kuf lamed, and we've said that, uh, that there's a... Kuf lamed is the koel, which is, which is an inaudible voice. And then, so then we have the, uh, the missing pasuk is in capital kuf lamed, which is... Okay. We're, we're... Not knowing too much about this, I was, I thought that probably the bone is taken from a dead... If it's from a human, it's from a dead human, because usually live humans don't surrender bone so readily. Um, and a dead body is oseh ba'anoar. And so consequently, I advised to go for the animal one. The fact that

16:14 Speaker 1 it's from a pig or from a non-shechted, uh, cow is not a problem because there's no taste. It's to- totally dried. It's, it's em- embedded inside. It's not a pro-- question of taste at all. But then, having looked at it, um, I, I spoke afterwards to the doctor who's, you know, doing this, the dentist, whatever, and he said, actually, sometimes the bones would be taken from, from... Let's say if a, a person went through a hip replacement, so then they have spare bone which is re-replaced with a plastic. So then that bone will be then used for medical purposes. And indeed, if that's the case, and that's why you're seeing here the Sefer Nishmat Stavram, a med- a specialist Sefer on Halakha medicine, that one who's... That that bone would not be oseh ba'anoar, but that would be okay to use. There's no, no mitzvah to bo- to, um, bury a bone which was taken out in surgery, and therefore, that bone could be recycled and used into other stuff. That would have been okay. What about taking a bone from a, indeed, from a dead, uh, uh, body? So then, if it's from a Jew, then... We're, we're not talking here about life-saving. So don't start talking about transplants, et cetera, which are by nature life-saving operations. Here, we're talking about a much lesser, uh, type of operation. And therefore, to take from a J- a Jewish body, a body of a Jew had, had died, that would not be okay. Um, taking from

17:46 Speaker 1 a body of a goy who had died is, is oseh bechad noam midrabonon. So if, if push came to shove, perhaps that would be permitted. That's what he's quoting over here. Um, fair enough. So it, well, it seems to be more straightforward to use from an animal than to s- take from a, from a human bone, which you don't know whether it's from a life or, or dead. You get it... It's out, it's sourced from a different country. You wouldn't necessarily know Of course, you don't have to worry if it's coming from another country. You don't have to worry that it's coming from a Jew because it's, uh, you follow the roäv, the majority, and therefore you could rely it's from a guy. But still, it means it's still, uh, you know, questionable because of esnother abonan. Therefore, the animal one seems to be the better option. Let's move on. What I find fascinating is that with all technology, uh, which we have today, still a natural bone seems to do a better job than, uh, than, uh, you know, than something made in a s- in a laboratory. Fascinating. Okay, here we go into a new question about a mezuzah. So here we have somewhere in Europe, and they have this little balcony. It measures about seventy centimeters from front to back, and the width from side to side is about one and a half meters. No way does it have the area of Dal Damas. Does it require a mezuzah? And they've got

19:14 Speaker 1 several of these, uh, these large windows or these small balconies. Do they need to have mezuzahs, and where would you put the mezuzahs? Now, normally, we say that a t- a, a room which has less than an area, an area of less than four-by-four amas is exempt from a mezuzah. So in the Sefer Sechal Taeb, which you've, I've mentioned several times is a specialist mezuzah sefer. He argue-- he brings that some say that that is true for a, a dwelling, because a dwelling less than four ama square is not fit for purpose. For a balcony, by contrast, a small balcony is also fit for purpose. Good. A good argument. Now then, my, my, my, my take on this was the following. Which side would you put the mezuzah? So we know that Minichabad is, we put the mezuzah according to the way the door swings. So since these doors, as you can see the picture, swing into the house, so the mezuzah would be put on the right as you'd come from the balcony into the house. If so, the mezuzah is a mezuzah for the house, not for the balcony. So this whole discussion to me is irrelevant. Once you decide that the mezuzah goes on the entrance to the house, the house has got more than four ama square, so there's no question about making a, uh, putting up a mezuzah. Um, uh, you can ask the question, how are you going to get to the balcony to get in through the balcony

20:43 Speaker 1 to the house? Okay, that you have to have a ladder or something, and also, um, guts to climb up the ladder, but that's a separate posture. Now, uh, this idea of the mezuzah on a balcony, going from the balcony to the house. So here you have a letter from the Rebbe quoted. "Derech Agav," near the bottom of the page on the screen. "Gam ba'ha balkon ve'di rosa shol chakat mur mechamad mur." Also, the balcony, those of you familiar with seven seventy, where the sukkah is built. On the side of seven seventy, there's a, a ba- balcony jotting out, and that's coming out from the, from the, um, study, from the room of the Freydiker Rebbe. There was a su-- Then that's where they built the sukkah, et cetera. And there, the door swings inwards. The door swings towards the room, and the mezuzah is placed on the right as you enter from the balcony to the room. So as I was saying, according to Minichabad, we would put the mezuzah on the, from the balcony to the house, and therefore the question of Dal Damas becomes irrelevant. Okay, here we have another shailah which came through this week. A, a young lady, a mo- young mother who, for whatever reason, is not able to nurse directly, and therefore is extracting milk, pumping milk, and then putting it in containers. So you have now in the house several containers and a pump, and these have to be obviously washed. And asking the question, can they be

22:09 Speaker 1 washed in the kosher sink, or is there any problem with that? So here we have two sources in Shikhon Orach. One is in Siman Pe Alef, which says, A woman's milk is a permitted product. So long as that's been put into a container, if a, an adult would, would suckle from directly, that would be like he'd be suckling from a sheretz, from a rodent. So in, in other words, it's, it's called a despicable behavior to be sucking directly. But if it's, uh, in a container, that milk is, is, is, uh, mutar. It's permitted. It's a permitted product. That's a Siman Pe Alef. Would you be able to use that milk? You know, crazy, but, uh, would you use it together with m- with meat? So here we have in Siman Pe Zayin. Says you're not allowed to cook a mother's milk with meat because of Maras Ayin. If it fell into a, uh, mixed into a food, then it would be bottle, and you don't have to worry about shir, mitl'a bashishim or anything like that. It's, it's okay. So therefore, it's, in, in essence, it's a permitted product. It's a-- and it's a pareve product. It's not a question of basar behala. But Maras Ayin, I don't think that basar, be- that they're, they're washing up in the same sink becomes a Maras Ayin problem. And therefore, I'd, I wouldn't hesitate to say it's okay to wash up normally. Let's move on to the next, uh, question. So someone asked me this week about

23:46 Speaker 1 washing hands with hot water. It happened to be just I was at a chasuna this week, um, and the water in the taps, or coming out of the taps, actually, was hot. And I washed for the Netilat Yadayim in hot water. So I wanted to... Um, perhaps I mentioned this before. The Shulchan Aruch mentions here the opening about Chami Tiberia, the hot water of Tiberia. So I was once actually in Tiberia with my children, and we had no, um, access to water other than a pond of boiling hot water outside a hotel, and it was from the hot springs of Tiberia. Boiling hot water, you couldn't dip your hands in it. Uh, and so we took some water from there and used it for Netilat Yadayim, but later I learned, halacha, that that was wrong because the water of Tiberia, the hot waters are sulf- uh, have got sulfur in them, and therefore they're not, not drinkable. So not, uh, uh, water which is not drinkable is not fit for Netilat Yadayim. But meanwhile, let's come here. Water which is drinkable by a dog, as when it were cold, even if they are by Yonat Chamin, even if they are from hot springs, you are allowed to use them for washing, even with a Keili. And certainly, if they've been heated, not from springs, but heated, uh, uh, uh, from a fire. So hot water is kosher for Netilat Yadayim. So that's what he's saying. So long as it's, uh, if it were, once it's

25:15 Speaker 1 cooled down, it's drinkable, hot water is okay for netilat yadayim. Um, in an earlier note, this is fascinating that in the new edition of the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, new as in the last twenty years, you have, um, you have notes which they found from some manuscripts of the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch which weren't available till, till recently. And what they have, a manuscript has there, the whether to use hot water as-- even if it's yad soledet bo. And some say, no, it has to be, uh, not yad soledet bo, and you can be makeil even with yad soledet bo. But, uh, but regular warm water is not a problem for netilat yadayim. That's w-washing for bread. What about for mayim achronim? So there we have in Siman Kuf, Pe Alef. One should not be washing mayim with water which is yad soledet bo, which is hot water which you'd-- your hand would recoil from, because it does not remove the grease from the hands. It just actually spreads it. Then he says, "V'yesh oysvim," now those who forbid for mayim achronim even with hot water, which is not so hot, which is just ain't yad soledet bo. One can be makeil, the halakha will deliver us safe from. So for mayim achronim, one shouldn't use hot, hot water, certainly not very hot water. For, for netilat yadayim, you are allowed to use hot water. So it's a straightforward halakha, but, uh, I had to look it up, and therefore, I thought it may be

26:44 Speaker 1 worth sharing also. Let's move on to the next question, and that is... Here's gonna be an interesting one. So at the same chasanah, as minhag, minhag Anglia is that they make the chuppah, let's say about five o'clock, and the dinner is seven, seven, eight o'clock, and then you have a long interval. And especially for the people who came out of town, from out of town, so people, they lay on a, a reception of sorts. So at this chasanah, I was at the reception, and a woman came over to me and said to me that I am aware that I have actually had... They, they had at this, this, uh, reception, lots of, uh, pastries. Not sweet, but, uh, with vegetables, et cetera. Like a more savory type of pastry. A sweet thing, you can't have too much. It's, uh, after a... But whereas with, with, with, with savory, you can have more. So now she had-- she says to me, "I've had-- I want to, but I, I want to have another bit more. Should I wash just say haMotzi and, and do the full benching?" So I told her, "Yes." I was on the s... Are you on now? I'm back on. Sorry about the interruption. So here, so, um, so to recap what's happening here, this woman comes over to me at the, at the buffet, and she's asking. She's had enough to, to warrant saying full benching, but she wants to have a little bit more. Should she wash and say netilat

28:54 Speaker 1 yadayim and haMotzi and, uh, and full benching? So I said, "Yes." Now, afterwards, I looked up the halakha, and let's read this inside. This is from Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch. Uh, sorry, that's Sefer Biur HaGra, Peh Alef, Halacha Daled. So he has this story that you have, "Michilo ho ymedayti lecha lachilas arain." Person started off having just as a snack, and therefore made mezonos. But then, "Va'acharchach nirmelach lecha oydis svio kviersud." But then the person says to them, "I, no, I'm going to have now a meal out of it. I'm gonna have more of this to, to make myself satisfied, not just a snack, but to have a, a larger amount." So it says an upgrade from mezonos to haMotzi. So what do you do? So the Alter Rebbe says, "Nochoin lot sei sideichal sofok." To solve any problem, what you should do is wind up your first meal. Say Men Gimmel. In other words, say Al Hamichya on what you've had until now. Take a little break, and then wash your hands and say haMotzi, and then have the required amount, and then you'd have... Then you say the full benching. Even though your satisfaction factor will only be in combination with what you had before, that, that doesn't matter. But then he adds, "Vehhu sheochal bach roin kadal bein lepachos." Provided that in the second session, this person will have the shir of four eggs in, in volume, which would be, like, about three slices of bread. Now, that is what the Alter

30:37 Speaker 1 Rebbe writes, and I had obviously not told this woman what the Alter Rebbe says. Obviously, I'm saying that, as you can hear, what I'm telling you. A couple of points here. Why does the Alter Rebbe say, "Wind up the first session, and then start a new session a little later"? So one explanation is the woman or the man, doesn't matter, made a brocha boreh mine haMezonos and now is going for an upgrade, is gonna become haMotzi. If I took haMotzi bread- And, and I made boreh miney mezonos. Is the bracha valid? We all know that if I made boreh pri ha'adama on an apple, I don't have to repeat the bracha. So here's the question. If I said mezonos on a challah, am I motzi? So those... There's two opinions. So therefore, to solve this problem, she wants to-- This, this person wants to continue eating and is gonna be hamotzi. What about the old, the old bracha? So to solve this problem, wind up the first session. Say, al hamichya, and then you'll go into a new session of hamotzi. That solution would not work in our situation because the ref-- the woman had already eaten in excess of the, of the hamotzi volume. So she can't now say al hamichya because she's already had a volume which warrants the full bentching. So I can't wind it up. So therefore... And on the other hand, what the Alter Rebbe is saying, in the second session, you could have a shir of dalet beith. She--

32:20 Speaker 1 I don't think she was ready to have such a large amount, but a little bit more. Therefore, it, I think was right what I said, that she should wash hamotzi. If she's gonna have now a little bit more of this pastry, this past-pastry is hamotzi now. Because she's eaten a larger amount, it's all hamotzi. So therefore, she has to wash netilat yadayim. Where I was wrong is, I told her that she should say hamotzi. Really, she didn't need to say hamotzi because she already had the boreh miney mezonos, which was still, how you say, operational. So she shouldn't have said the bracha hamotzi, uh, for this continuity. She just wash netilat yadayim, provided she could have a shir of kaveia of, of mezonos or this, these pastries. And then the end, um, of birkat hamazon, the full bentching, yes, absolutely yes. That would've been... That was, that was the correct thing to do because she had already that shir, and whatever else, uh, would, she was gonna have would be included in that full bentching. Right. Uh, let's move on. That was a complicated one, but let's move on. So here, one of our dedicated listeners is-- has this question. He's davening in another shul, not a Chabad shul, and he was hazzan. Very, very kind. And then as hazzanim often have to suffer, some people say, "Why you say this? Why you say that? Why you don't louder, quieter, you know, quicker for slower?" Yeah. So I call upon him. So he, as a

33:52 Speaker 1 hazzan, someone came over to him, "Why did you say the passage of Kadesh aloud? You should say only aloud, only resembling Shacharis, Mincha, and only of Devekotscha. But you shouldn't be saying the opening word, the, the..." Which is actually related to today's, uh, haftarah, the passage Kadesh, Kadesh in today's haftarah. resembling Zeh al Zeh v'Omer, Kadesh, Kadesh, Kadesh, and passage Yeshayahu in this week's Torah, in this week's haftarah. Um, so, so let's start with the Rambam. The bottom of the page, on the screen, we have here from the Rambam in his Siddur-- Sefer Ha-Tefillah. He writes the following. "V'chol elu ha-devarim she-onin ha-tsibur, these parts of Kedusha which the tsibur joy-- um, respond to the prompting of the hazzan, hu k'ore imoehem. The hazzan says those pieces together with the tsibur. V'lo yagbia kolo v'eis sh'hein onin imo. He shouldn't raise his voice when they are saying along with him." So the Rambam seems to be fairly clear that Kadesh, Kadesh, Kadesh, the hazzan says along with the tsibur. We, the Lubavitchers, remember very clearly the Rebbe, when the Rebbe was hazzan three times a year, or when the Rebbe, when the past, the Rebbes that passed away, um, throughout the year. "Kadesh, Kadesh, Hashem Sharchis v'cholis, kavedai loma samei shabechim v'yibrim." And then he said, "V'ach, v'Hashem imechu imei, v'yibrich kots'cha kats'u l'mei." So apparently, the Rebbe would often miss out the first word. He start off, "V'na'arecha, Kadesh, Kadesh," and then, uh, um, um, he would apparently, uh, say, um... The first word,

35:45 Speaker 1 he would say together with the tsibur, and then he said the rest, uh, he said, but he, he would say the rest of the opening together-- uh, uh, a-aloud afterwards. So I, I took here a Veltisher Sefer. Here's a Sefer called Ishei Yisroel, a Litvisher Sefer, uh, classic Sefer on, contemporary Sefer on davening. And he writes the following. Let's read it carefully. "Hashatz tzorich lehatzchil oi mer-kadesh, baruch kodem sheytzaimu ha-tsibur loi mer-kadesh. The hazzan should make a point of starting Kadesh before the tsibur finish saying Kadesh." Be-- And he has here the note, "Because if he will start Kadesh after them, that might be seen as he's saying Kedusha alone." One doesn't say Kedusha alone. Apparently, in earlier years, the Rebbe did say the whole Kedusha, whole Ka-Kadesh, all three s-words of Kadesh after the tsibur. Okay, but here there's this... There are those who are saying that the first passage, at least it should begin whilst the tsibur are in session. But then he says, "But baruch, uh, uh, mer-kadesh, baruch kevod v'tzorich hashats lo mes hakdusha b'chol. He should say the Kedusha aloud, and also the words Kadesh, Kadesh, and Baruch kevod, he should say aloud, and Shabbos and Yom Tov also. He shouldn't start just by Os mikir avodach Godol. He should start saying Kadesh." So very different to what the Rambam is saying. He's saying this, he's quoting here. They, they have the notes. This is from a Sefer called Lovushim Mordechai, which is, um, he was a Hungarian Rov about,

37:23 Speaker 1 uh, a hundred and fifty years ago, perhaps. And then we have Yigros Moshe, and he says, "Why is it important for the Chazan to say the ps- Kaddish aloud? Because there may be somebody, the Cha- Chazan to be Moide people who have, who, uh, who have to be Yoitze from him. There may be someone who Davening requires, Davening Shemoneh Esreh, and there could be someone who's in middle of a Shemoneh Esreh, and when the Chazan comes to Qiddush, he falls silent in order to be Yoitze, um, um, um, Qiddush by listening. Say, if the Chazan's not gonna say it, so who is the person in Shemoneh Esreh, who's he gonna be listening to, to be Yoitze Qadd- Qiddush? Therefore, they take the position that the Chazan should say Qaddish and Boruch aloud to be Moide. The Tzibur, whoever in the Tzibur needs to hear him, should be able to hear him. So here you got, despite what the Rambam's position is, and I, I'm, I'm sorry, I did not look up the Lovushim Mordechai or the Yigros Moshe, whether they, um, respond to the Rambam saying differently. But here you certainly have a clear source of the Chazan saying those parts aloud, Qaddish and Boruch aloud, in order to be Moide, anyone of the Tzibur who needs to listen to be Yoitze. Okay, let's move on. Is a non-Shomer Shabbos Jew, can he be trusted, um, to be lighting the fire, that it should be considered Bishul Yisrael? So you have here, let's say, a

38:53 Speaker 1 restaurant, um, a bakery. Uh, not a bakery, um, a res- a restaurant. And you have here a kitchen, and there's a person working there. He's a Jewish boy or a Jewish woman and not Shomer Shabbos. So can they light the fire? Now, it's very interesting. What's the reason for the Issur of Bishul Akum? So the primary reason is of Chasidus, we... of intermarriage. We want to create good relations with people.

39:24 Speaker 2 Uh, is a area where people who are very often found to be unemployed used to be able to get more training. And I think that's about twenty-two percent. There's twenty-two percent proportionately less invested-

39:40 Speaker 1 I hope that solves the problem. Right. So again, so we have here a, uh... Why, why is there an Inyan of, of Bishul Akum? So that people shouldn't get too close to their Goyishe friend or Goyishe neighbors. Invite her for a meal. So, no, it's kosher, you know, not kosher ingredients, but it's a way of, of breaking down social barriers. No. A person who's not Shomer Shabbos is a, is as far as marriage is concerned, is considered a Yehudi. Therefore, there shouldn't be a problem of having him, uh, lighting the fire. In-- so in this realm, as far as Chasidus, he's a full Jew. There's another reason for Bishul Akum, that the person doesn't keep Torah and Mitzvahs. So then there's a worry he might smuggle in some non-kosher ingredients. And therefore, if a person is not Shomer Torah Mitzvahs, so you wouldn't be allowed to trust them. And therefore, according to that second reason, a person who's, who's a Mechalel Shabbos in public, one shouldn't rely on them for, uh, for lighting the fire, for cooking. So here we have two, two views, and certainly I had two situations where I pasken two different, I had two different psakim. I had once a situation where there's a boy of fourteen years old. He became Shome- Shomer Torah Mitzvahs. He's still living at home. Dad and mom don't keep Shabbos. If mom cooks... Now, they make the kitchen kosher, but Mo- they still, they're Mechalel Shabbos. Is he allowed to eat at home with, if

41:22 Speaker 1 her mom's cooking? So I said, "Yes. We'll rely on the more lenient opinion that says, as, as far as Chasidus is concerned, they're allowed to, um, you know, they, they're Yidden, therefore you don't have to worry about it." Then someone else asked me a question. I've got this, um, this Israeli guy who's running some kind of a restaurant or whatever. He's totally Mechalel Shabbos. He drives his bi- moto- motorbike on Sh- on Shabbos in public. Can he be the one to light the fire in the restaurant to make it, to make it, you know, Lamachadrim, to make it a, a Bishul Yisrael? I felt that's not... No, that would not be acceptable. So L'chatchila, someone's writing over here, "Chabad House volunteer could be non-Shomer Shabbos." So L'chatchila, one should try to, one should try to have a Shomer Shabbos to light the fire. Certainly Bedieved, we would rely on the first opinion that as far as Chasidus is concerned, they're all Yidden. Um, L'chatchila, to rely on a person who's not Me- who's, who has got no pun- wasn't Mechalel Shabbos. He's got no compunction to be, to violate Shabbos in your presence. So that kind of person shouldn't be your, uh, Mashgiach Hakashrus. Let's move on. So someone asks me, "Are medicines Muktzeh for the other people who are not re- not using that medicine?" So here we have a quote from the Sefer Milchas Shabbos, which is a commentary on the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch. He writes the following: "Medicines are not, not, not,

42:54 Speaker 1 not food. They should be considered Muktzeh. But if there is a Choleh who needs them, then it's not Muktzeh even for other people to move them, even if not needed for the patient." The, the point being that Muktzeh is, depends upon the owner, so to speak, the primary user. So long as it's not Muktzeh for the primary user- Then it's not muktzah for anyone else. And, um, so therefore, the medicines which are in use for one person are not muktzah for other people to, to bring over to help them, uh, take it, et cetera. Not a problem. Right. Okay, we have a couple of things left. One was about feedback about one who, at the end of davening, takes off his tefillin and realizes he's wearing Rabbeinu Tam's instead of Rashi's. Should he make a bracha on the Rashi tefillin? So a couple of people got back to me and told me that some Rabbonim, one said in the name of Rabbi Amal, one said in the name of Rabbi Brian, that they would recommend that the person should use the bathroom, uh, um, in between. And then when they come back to put on their Rashi tefillin, there's no question at all because the activity in between would have s-served as an inter-an interruption from the, uh, the bracha, and they wouldn't have to make a new bracha on their, on the Rashi tefillin regardless. Okay. When we have one... Then we had a discussion about, I'm sorry about the internet is playing up

44:31 Speaker 1 today, but that's what we have. The going, walking between Shaliyad and Shalosh, if you remember, we had the discussion, a person has put on his Shaliyad, and then he's going with his Shalosh, let's say walking over to the mirror to make sure he's gonna put it on in the middle. And I mentioned last week, uh, two weeks ago, I mentioned from the Munkacsher, uh, in, in Mukei'achaim, who says that you shouldn't walk in between. Then I mentioned last week that the Alter Rebbe says that walking around itself is not hefsek. And so what's the story now with, with, uh, what's the bottom line? So I've just... a couple of people came back to me on this, and we see here that it says that between Shaliyad and Shalosh, you shouldn't even wink. You shouldn't even motion with your fingers. And then we have here the, uh, between Shaliyad and Shalosh, even if it, we went through this not so long ago. Even if there's no bracha involved, let's say in Rabbeinu Tam's, still we learn from the possible Vahayar Lechol Ois. It says in the singular, Vahayar Lechol Ois, not Vahayu. It, it doesn't say Vahayu. And therefore, because of that, we see that they are, eh, should be as one unit. That they should be a single unit. And, that they should be as close to one another without interruption. So just one a little joke. There was a, this is a Russian joke, and there's a fire. And the word in Russia for

46:13 Speaker 1 fire is Pozhar. So there's, there's a fire, the man's screaming, "Pozhar, Pozhar, Pozhar!" And someone comes over to him, "No, no, no, it's, it's not Pozhar, it's Pozhar. You made a mistake. You pronounced it wrong." This is like a mockery of people making overemphasis on, on the dikduk. When focused on the, on the, on the issue at hand rather than whether it's pronounced this way or that way. So coming back, what's it got to do with it? There's a din of hefsek, and walking around is not a hefsek. Walking around within the same room is not a hefsek. On the other hand, when there is an emphasis of that they should be as close to one another as possible, like you have, et cetera. So then walking around is a pause. It may not be a hefsek to warrant repeating the bracha. It doesn't violate the sequence. On the other hand, it is taking away from the, the pro... You know, if they should be, uh, in, in proximity to one another, it is diminishing the proximity. So it doesn't come under... So walking around between Shaliyad and Shalosh, um, so being pedantic, it doesn't come under the heading of hefsek. But it does still come under the heading of that you should be, they should be as close to one another as possible without un-undue, uh, pause. Let's go on to one last point, which is not on your list. I think the previous one was also added on Erev Shabbos, uh, afternoon. But

47:54 Speaker 1 someone came back to me with some very interesting thing. If you remember last, the last point last week was about , with the ear, pulling the ears and all that. If you remember, and, um, I mentioned that the Targum of was , and I suggested that the word, which means to hope, connects with the word , which means good news. So someone obviously was intrigued and made a search, and came up with this fascinating article. It's from some kind of journal called , whatever. Or was it ? Whatever. And, um, so here's some i-interesting stuff. One is that you have Basar and Gidim. In the body, you've got Geshmakah meat, and if it's a Geshmakah Ingalah to pinch his cheeks, a little Geshmak. And then you've got Gidim, which are the, um, the sinews, which are hard. And we have, so you've got the more Geshmak is the Basar. In comparison co-corresponding to that, we have the word Besura, which is good news. Then we've got the word Gidim, and then we've got the word Hagadah. And if you remember, the Rashi on the in Pasuk. Rashi says, "。" So there's different ways of speaking. There's a way of speaking in a Geshmakah way or in a, uh, rigid way. So this, he's, he's associating the word Besura with the word Basar, which is in a, in a, in a, in a, in a Geshmakah way. He then points out that the word Basar is, uh, is five hundred and two, and that is the,

49:46 Speaker 1 equals the years of Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov. Um, one forty-seven plus one seventy-five plus one eighty. I'm relying on him. Uh, it equals to five hundred and two. And so when we talk about Yah giving Besuras Tovos, it's because of the Avos, uh, who together had five hundred and two years, Basar Shana. Um, towards the end, he also comes to the Pa- the , which I mentioned last week, and the Furkan of Savoris, and he connects to the Sabir Soism, which I mentioned last week. And it was in Rashi in this past week, in Parshas Yisro, about the way, uh, that they, they use physical h- human terms. The Sabir Soism, to give the sh- the ear should be able to hear. So we've got this, the word Sabir, Sian, Base, Reish, and Besoro. And now it's connected with Basar, with the Gishma. So I'll finish on that note. We should hear Besorus Tyrus, Gishma, uh, good news and, um, and, uh, yeah. So with Eliyahu HaNavi should come and tell us Besorus Tyrus, Besorus Haguula, Bemheir UYomeinu Mamash. A guet voch.