אמור תשפ״ג

00:05 Speaker 1 Good evening, and welcome to the Shiur tonight, Sunday of Parsha . And, uh, we'll go into, straight into our questions. So I've had this question several times. There is a mention in the Gemara about certain things which are asking for a ruach ra, which is an evil spirit, to reside. And so we're gonna read the Gemara. Uh, um, it mentions there about a peeled garlic or peeled onion and eggs which have been peeled and left overnight. So the Gemara says, even if they are in a basket, even if they are, um, tied and, and sealed, still there's a problem of ruach ra. But they are moron. That's only, the ruach ra is only an issue, the low shi'ar bohen ikron oiklipason. Only if you did not leave any, uh, r-root or peel. Avo shi'ar bohen ikron oiklipason. If there was a leftover bit of root or a bit of peel, then that is okay. So that is-- It's interesting that this is a halakha which is in the Gemara, not brought in Shulchan Aruch, but the Alter Rebbe does bring it in his Shulchan Aruch. So we'll read that again in the Alter Rebbe, where he says not to eat a peeled garlic or a peeled onion or a peeled egg which have been left overnight because they will b-invite a presence of a evil spirit, even if they have been wrapped up in a garment, in a cloth, and they are sealed. But if you left ikron, the, the word ikron means root, and

01:55 Speaker 1 he explains, v'hu hase'ar, that's the hair, sheberoish hashom va'botzo, which is on the head of the garlic or the onion or a little bit of peel, that's okay. So this is their little bit of the ambiguity. What does it mean, the hair on the head? So does it mean on the onion, I did not make a graphic picture here of onions with, with green shoots coming out, but it does say the word sheberoish hashom va'botzo, but it says clearly hase'ar. And the se'ar is the, the, uh, the root side, where it has, like, uh, these straggly threads which come out, therefore resemble hair. So if we're talking about cutting an onion or peeling an onion and leaving it in a way that you should be able to leave it overnight, we're talking about the hair at the, as the root at the bottom and not about the green shoots at the top. Let's then focus on, I know we've done this before, but s-someone asked me again recently about drinking liquids which have been left overnight. If they've been di-di-diluted. So if you, if they're left overnight in a metal container, so it would be also inviting a ruach ra. And here, the Alter Rebbe is the one who adds not only other drinks, but also water left overnight in metal, um, containers. Now, we discussed this last summer, Parsha Shreiftim, and I did refer to the Rebbe's comment on this. And nowadays, people are not particular about this. We all have, the Rebbe does

03:48 Speaker 1 not mention this, but it's so obvious that everyone, we have, we use water from taps. And the water from taps has been left in metal pipes overnight. And, um, so we have the idea of shomer b'shom Hashem. When there is something which is mentioned in Gemara as being a risk, but it's widely done, so then we will take the view of shomer b'shom Hashem. Hashem protects the, the foolish, and we're protected. So although the Gemara does have a worry about liquids left in metal overnight, nowadays it's, it's not an issue because it's so widespread that people are doing so and the Rebbe obviously protects us. I just wanna share with you something, though. Last night, we watched the, the Living Torah, and there was an e-e, uh... Actually, I found it very, very surprising and a beautiful work. The Rebbe was talking about illnesses and how... It's actually this context with the B'halot. And the Rebbe was saying that each generation there are, there are illnesses which may have been in a previous generation that didn't exist, and they would, they may come up in a later generation. Then he says, "Every, every illness has got a cure. It's just a challenge." Uh, he didn't use the word challenge. Just, "When is it going, the cure going to be discovered?" I, I found that quite remarkable, the Rebbe said it, like, quite assertively, that every illness has a cure. And because we have the concept in, in, in Torah, the Rebbe says, "Machtim refu lamako."

05:35 Speaker 1 He creates the healing before the wound. So we know this in various situations. We use this expression. But the Rebbe used this in, I believe in medical terms. He's saying that there is an illness, there must be a cure. It's just, when's that going to be discovered? Be'ezras Hashem. And after that, there was a, a fascinating, uh, interview we saw with someone, the story of the Rebbe, how the Rebbe, um, gave him a diagnosis. After the doctor said that they don't know what they're talk-- what it is, and they've been told that it's just a hormonal thing, and it'll pass, whatever. And yeah. Let's come back to our, our... So that was questions one and two. And now question three. So one's-- someone's asking me that they made a batch of dough, and there is a minimum amount of flour which would justify s-s-taking challah, saying a berachah for doing so. So if you make a small amount of dough, you would not take challah. So I'm not gonna go into the specific amounts. Number one, because I don't remember the, the details, and the, the ladies who do baking challahs, they have already... They know this well, fair. But there's, there's a specific amount. So they're asking the question, "I'm making challah or making a dough, but the dough is going to be less than this year, less than the amount for making a, um, a, a ti- separating challah with a berachah, but I'm also incorporating into the dough rolled oats." So here's

07:14 Speaker 1 the question: Do the rolled oats make up the quantity to be able to take challah with a berachah? This is the question. Now, I did do a little bit of homework. I did not find anyone address this clearly. Um, I'm... Sorry. Honestly, afterwards, I did find it on Google. I found, uh, some, one of these, uh, Israeli websites. It was, it was Sha'al, Sha'al HaRav. I don't remember which one. And it was a similar conclusion, which I'm gonna share with you. But, so this was a question. Does-- Do oat flakes serve as equivalent to flour to make up this year? So the best I could do was the following. That we have here a halacha. Now, before we go further, the fact that the dough is made of wheat flour and the, the, um, oats are obviously from oat. Because they are made into one dough, they would be combining to one year. If they'd be separate doughs, that's another discussion. You make one dough, let's say, of spelt and one dough of, uh, uh, wheat flour, would they, they-- would they combine? Um, but here they are actually mixed in, so they do become one dough. The question is about whether the flake, the oat flakes are going to make up the year. So here we have a halacha. You've got the main grain, which is the, the white stuff. Then you've got in the dough-- Then you've got the subin, murason, you've got the, the bran. So if your dough is made up,

08:58 Speaker 1 the, the, the minimum amount of dough is made up of also with yeast and the bran, so they will make up this year. But that's all if you made the dough before sifting. But if you sifted the, the flour, and you separated the bran, then you put it back in. So then that, that... the bran does not combine, does not contribute to this year. So here we have... It's not identical to our situation. You've got ground flour, wheat flour, and it's got the, the white flour, and you've got the bran. And you separated the bran, and then you put it back in again. Then that does not make up this year. But th-those-- that same bran, had it stayed, had it never been separated, would make up for this year. And that tells me that these bits, which are obviously bigger than flour, they... these bits of bran, they-- that's not a problem for them to become part of the dough. It's-- So, um, so therefore, that, um, that was my, my answer, that the, the rolled oats will-- may-- folded into the dough, they would also contribute to the volume to be able to take challah with a berachah. So then the next question was, a biscuit dough of a similar nature with a berachah or without a berachah? So despite my profound amoratus in, uh, cooking, but, um, a, a little bit I know is that when you make biscuits, you don't make them with water, but you make them with, with margarine,

10:54 Speaker 1 uh, or something like that. It's made with... It, you don't need to use water. It's a thick dough. Uh, and so I told them that since you're not using water, then you should not be making a berachah. Now, here you have a halacha in Shulchan Aruch. It's in the same siman, you know, dear Shin Chaf Daled. A dough which is made with fruit juice without any water is a, is a chayav b'chalah. You do have to take challah. Now, in the Shach here we have, uh, yes, some-- but some say it's patur. The Bartenura is not sure. Therefore, challah is taken without a berachah. Or if you have another dough, then you make the two, uh, berachahs together. But if a dough is made... It's got this right amount, but it's made without any water at all, then challah is taken, and that's the Shach of the Shulchan Aruch, but without a berachah, as per the Shach. Now, you may be wondering what's, what's the water or mepeides got to do with it. Interesting. Very interesting thing. That it's like, uh, the dough has to be a mass And there is an understanding of Chazal that, according to one opinion, that mepeiros do not serve to fuse the particles into a, a mass. It's as if they're separate particles. Either all right now into a dough, doesn't matter. Uh, because they wouldn't, uh... because it's not made with water, water is able to kind of make the dough into one entity. But, but, uh, mepeiros,

12:36 Speaker 1 pure mepeiros would not. Now, um, perhaps it's worth mentioning that if the mepeiros is reconstituted orange juice or reconstituted apple juice, et cetera, that's a different story. But if you're talking about pure mepeiros, let's say an example of margarine where there's just mepeiros, then you would not be able to say a beracha on a dough, um, even though it's got the right amount, right, right quantity. Let's move on. So that was, that was, that was three of four. So now we go on to chocolate-coated matzah. So one of our... Someone in, in, in, in Riga, in, in Yemen, he sends me questions from time to time, and chocolate-coated matzah. So now you know, if you go to Riga, you can get chocolate-coated matzah. So now he's asking, what's the beracha? And really, I got into a dilemma here because we know the rule. Generally, mozo, um, a dogon becomes the dominant component of a mixture. So here we have, this is from the Alter Rebe, Siman Peh Yod Gimel. Grain, because it's called mozo, it's always called, it's always counted as the ikar, the ma-main thing. And even if the majority of the mixture, of the food is honey or other things, and its only minority is made from grain, chameshet sheminim, even if the main thing is, Tachi, you want the, the sweet stuff, and the grain there is only to give it a little bit of taste, lachshira, is a bit of, um, um, unclear term. The grain becomes ikar. . All right.

14:25 Speaker 1 There are exceptions. We know that, let's say, fish balls, which are made with matzo meal. So there, where the understanding is that the matzo meal is there just as a binder, not for, not for taste at all. But generally, we say that the, the grain becomes the dominant feature. How does that, how does that dominance given to grain, how does that match up with the famous Mishnah, which we-- everyone's learned in Berachos. If you have a s-- y-y-you, if you have a s-s-strong piece of herring. Strong piece. Um, um, whatever, however you want to say it. It has a very strong taste. Yeah. So you have this piece of herring that's got this strong flavor, and in order that it should not hurt you in your throat. So then you love that herring, but that's why you're eating it. But, um, but nevertheless, it's, it can be a bit painful. Therefore, you take a piece of bread. So you don't make a bre-- you don't make a beracha on the bread. So now m-my, my question is, how do you reconcile that the grain always becomes the main thing? Or, and here we say, "No, it's a piece of..." And, and really that's what's bothering me about this chocolate-coated matzah. Why are you eating it? Because you want chocolate. But w-when, when the grain becomes the dominant feature. But in the case of the, the herring, we said, "No, th-it, it, it, it isn't the same thing." It, it doesn't become the dominant one. And

15:56 Speaker 1 you make a beracha shehakol on the fish, and you don't make a beracha on, on, on the bread. So how do you reconcile? So I thought, I, I thought of a solution that perhaps there's a difference between a mixture and another form of combination. In a mixture, both foods, then the grain becomes the dominant, the mixture. But here with the, the, the herring and the piece of bread, they're not mixed. So the Rebbe helps. Let's... I looked a little bit further, uh, and I saw I was wrong. Because here it says, if you have in Sif Zayin, the same Peh, Peh Yod Gimel, a dough which is, got a-- is filled with meat, fish, cheese, obviously not the same one. Uh, so then the filling... So let's think of a falafel, but baked that way. So the filling is tofel, is subsidiary to the shell, and you make, whether it's hamotzi or hamotzi, you make a beracha on the shell, and you d- And he says, "Even if the filling is a rav moed," there's lots of filling, and the main thing for this is, in this, is, is the filling. Nevertheless, you make a beracha on the grain, on the hamotzi. All right. But there, perhaps, here's the answer. . There is, after all, still, there's a m- the, the primary, uh, desire to, and there's a secondary desire. And although the main thing I want here is to have the meal, I want to have this, um, th-this filling, but I also want

17:35 Speaker 1 to have a bit of bread, whatever it may be, and therefore the bread becomes the dominant one. So coming back, so we're gonna have to say this is the answer. When in the case of the fish, uh, the herring, there's no interest in the bread at all. It's just there to temper the taste of the, of the herring. And that, again, the Alter Rebe does say so clearly. He has no-- He's not hungry. He has no interest in having the bread. And if not for the, for the herring, he would not be eating bread at all. If he does want to have the bread, then, okay, then it's, then he has to make a beracha on the bread. So coming back to our, our chocolate-coated matzah. Um, and the fellow writes it's a thick layer. I've never, I've never, I've never... He didn't send me a sample from Riga. Um, so the b- uh, he, he tells me it is a thick layer. So then my understanding is it's a piece of chocolate. It's a piece of chocolate. Instead of having nuts in it, instead of having, um, raisins or whatever it may be, so they've put in, they've put in some, some matzah. But really, that's just a base to hold it together or to give it a little bit of crispness or something, perhaps to temper. So that was my, my feeling. I felt that it's very much a... it's a piece of chocolate, which has got a bit of matzah just to,

18:57 Speaker 1 to, to hold it together or something, and therefore it would be shochet. I might be wrong, but that was, that was the way I felt about it. Right. Going on to... Uh, here's a question. So a shliach is going to visit people. That's what shlichim do, Baruch Hashem. And he went into someone, and comes in, and they have some cause for celebration, and he offers the shliach to say... to, to do a l'chaim. Now, the shliach probably is the closest rabbi to this fellow, and he did not... this fellow did not sell his chametz through the shliach. Therefore, he has reason to believe that this fellow did not sell his chametz. We're all of two weeks after Pesach, approximately. Is he allowed to have a drink of vodka or whiskey, whatever it may be, in the house of someone who quite possibly did not sell their chametz? So here we have a halacha from Siman Tov L'Meches. So it says, "Immediately after Pesach, if there's a possibility that it, that the chametz developed after Pesach, you can take the lenient view because Safek Devaris Soferim Lehakil. Therefore, you are allowed to buy from a mumer, a person who doesn't keep Torah at all. You'd be allowed to buy from them after Pesach beer or other alcohol if it's possible that it was made after Pesach and didn't overstep even a bit of Pesach." So where there's a possibility, then you can take the view of a Safek Derabonon, you can be lenient. So that's the

20:52 Speaker 1 first view. "Vayesh machmirin bechol safek she'or v'alav haPesach l'osre bakil." There are those who disagree, and they say, "Safek chametz she'or v'alav haPesach is not allowed." And although it's a Devaris Soferim, and still possibly because of the Chumra or Chametz, but we've seen clearly there's two opinions here whether we are allowed to take the liberty of relying that possibly the fellow brought the chametz after Pesach, possibly he sold his chametz. Um, yeah. "Vayesh lachos l'divreihem b'mokom she'ein chef sham chef sebirah." So bottom line is that if there's no major loss, then we should take the cautious view and not get... not have this chametz which might have been ohr v'alav haPesach. Vha'no it's mutar in any case. I think I told recently, uh, we had this... My father, alav hashalom, did a bris about a week after Pesach, and this was in some US army base, and the fellow gave him a bottle of vodka. Uh, it was a whole liter, bigger than the average bottle. And my father was not sure whether it was, whether the fellow had bought it before during, you know, before Pesach or after Pesach. And for many years, that bottle was just sitting in the cellar, just undecided whether it's going to be, uh, used or not. But, so what I'm seeing now is, it would have been okay to sell it to a goy. Vha'no it's mutar in any case. Um, to use it would be a, a, a safek. Okay. It probably wasn't used. Uh, now let's

22:39 Speaker 1 move on. So here, the question here is about naming, naming a child. So the naming of a child, and there's a great-grandfather who has this name, and I want to name after that great-gra-great-grandfather. I've given the example. The great-grandfather's name was Yitzchak Isaac, and it's known as Isaac. And then there is a fa- there's a grandfather of the child who's, who's living, v'yochiya uvesha v'tov, whose name is Yitzchak. So is it... And he says, "And, and let's say the father who's, or the grandfather who's alive," he says, "I don't mind." So do we, do we say that it's, it's okay, or, or are we taking the stricter view? Now, my understanding... Now, the, you know, we know that there's a difference between Ashkenazim and Sephardim on this. That by the Sephardim, it's actually, um, it's a done thing, and it's actually... That they give a name after the grandfather who's alive. And if they don't do that, they take deeper offense. But by Ashkenazim, it's the other way around, that we do not give a name after a living person. My feeling about this is that it's not just we don't do it, but there's actually an element of, of, uh, sakona, et cetera. A kapayda not to give, uh, not to kind of say, "Oh, I don't mind if you give," as if... The person is saying, "I, even though I'm alive, I don't mind, as if I'm not alive." Yeah. That's, that, what they're saying, in effect. Um, and that's kind of preempting

24:21 Speaker 1 stuff. I know that in the family, there's someone who did give permission. Um, it was actually just, uh, he gave his permission to, to use his, his own name for his grandchild, uh, and he, uh, he passed away much younger than any of his siblings. And, uh, say p'shat however you want, but fine. So here, the, the, what I have in front of you is from a sefer called the Ziv HaShemes from the late Reb Shaul Zusha Wilhelm. That's the name, Ziv. It's Reb Shaul Zusha Wilhelm. So he published a, a book all about Sephardim. Uh, sor- all about, a sefer all about names. And he writes the following in a note: "When my first s-son was born, I wanted to give the name Menachem Mendel." This is And he asked Rav Dvorakin. That's, and this is going back in the early members. So he asked Rav Dvorakin, a, what was the question? He wants to give the name Menachem Mendel, but actually the, his wife's grandfather was, re- whose name was, um, Yankel Sperlin, was known as Yak- His full name was Jacob Menachem Mendel. So can he give the name Menachem Mendel when there is a Zede whose name is Jacob Menachem Mendel, but is known as Yankel? So Rav Zalman Shimeon answered me at the time, although there are aspects to be, for, to, to be lenient, first of all, because he had another name. Plus, he's not known as Menachem Mendel, he's known just as Jacob. Nevertheless, since this has all

26:01 Speaker 1 got to do with Kapayta, uh, do people see it as, as, as, as the wrong thing to give a name after a living person? Therefore, better not to do something which people may ext- find it, you know, uh, uh, up- upsetting. So that's really why I answered to this, uh, Bal Simcha, which is meant to be tomorrow, I think. But not to give a name, even though the grandfather says, he, he gives the go-ahead. People sometimes don't realize what they're saying, and they give a go-ahead, and, uh, this is what the wi- the wisdom, Baruch Hashem, we have as far in which tell us it's not a good idea. Right. Okay, let's move on to the next question, and that is one of our listeners is asking, so in the United States, where a lot of people go away for, for, uh, for Pesach, they've got these hotels, they take over a regular... An, an, a, you know, a non-Jewish hotel, and it becomes a... the whole Jewish community over Pesach. The question is about saying Berakhah Me'ein Sheva on Friday night. So on Friday night, we don't have Halat Mayri, we don't have a Chazarat Hashatz, but we do have a condensed kind of Chazarat Hashatz called Berakhah Me'ein Sheva. It's the, um, how do you say, a, a, uh, an, an abbreviated Chazarat Hashatz. So we always say the middle part, Vagen Ovos, whether you have a minyan or not. But the question is about saying the full Berakhah, which the Chazan says,

27:49 Speaker 1 is it said. So now the Halakha, which we're gonna read now, we'll go through the Halakha in Shekhinoro. So this is in Simrei Shamakhvo. Ein Oi, this Berakhah is not said. Only if it's a Beis HaKnesses Kavuah. Only if it's a fixed shul. A Mokhal Mokim SheMispalel, a place where there's a minyan of ten people who daven there on a regular basis. Now, the background for that is that this was instituted by the Khakhakhim because they used to daven out in the fields. Their shuls used to be out in the fields. And the worry was that Friday night, if someone davens a little bit longer than everyone else, because he came late, let's say, so then everyone else will finish davening, they go home, and he's left alone in the fields, and that was considered unsafe to walk home on, um, on, on your own in the fields. And therefore, they, they protracted the davening by having a Chazarat, a, a kind of short Chazarat Hashatz to give this latecomer another, another, another minute or two. So that's the basis of saying that this whole institution of having this extra Berakhah is only if it's a fixed place for davening. But if it's a Mokim SheMispalelim BeYosor Ba'achrai, but if it's only an ad hoc setup, like he says, sometimes people make a minyan in their homes, or BeBeis Chasanim. Let's say there is a week of Sheva Berakhos. So there's lots of family, and so there's enough to make a minyan at home without

29:26 Speaker 1 having to everyone to go to shul. Or Aveilim, on the other hand, Rachman Litzlan, there's again, there would be a lot of family, possibly, in, converged in one home, and they would make a minyan at home. They can go to shul. They, they, they decided, you know, "We, we have enough for minyan at home." So in those Minyanim, he said, not to say Berakhah Me'ein Sheva because there is no Minyan Kavuah, because it's not a venue where there's a minyan on a regular basis. So then the reason for which this whole Berakhah was instituted, for those who are latecomers to be able to finish their davening, but that wouldn't apply in a, an ad hoc minyan. Even though nowadays our shuls are in a built-up area, and therefore the whole worry is obsolete of leaving them alone. Lo Sha'ah Klal Tam Ze. Therefore, now this whole, the whole concern doesn't apply. But we still keep up the saying the Berakhah, that Takkanat Khakhim, that the institution, that the extra Berakhah. Okay. So he says, "B'kol Makom," but mo- where, where there is no, where, where there is no Minyan Kavuah, there was never an institution to make such a Berakhah. So there, this is where the problem is. So you have here a space, a sh- hotel, where it's not a mokim kevua. Of course, over Pesach, they've designated one of the reception rooms for a shul, very comfortable, but it's not a mokim kevua. Does it-- Should they be saying, rocha meain sheva? Goes

31:27 Speaker 1 further. If they do designate a space for davening over a period, and he says, like the Yaridim, they used to have these large trade fairs where people would come from various cities, and they would come to Leipzig or wherever, but they would come to these large fairs, and it was regularly, where mokim al kamos shevuos. It would be even several weeks. The traders would come for several weeks, and there would be a, an ad hoc place for several weeks. Still, so then, yesh misihoy ro, the omro shul. Some say that you should say the, the, the bein sheva there. Shegam shom yesh meachim lo, but there are latecomers there also. Um, and then he goes further. Bemokim sheomru, nogu leomro, af bemin yishu bakrai be alma. There are spaces. There are, sorry, there are, uh, places where this is said even at an ad hoc minyan. So ein limchis bi yadam. One should not reprimand them. So since this, this idea, a-an ad hoc minyan doesn't have rocha meain sheva, is not mentioned in the Gemara. So what we're reading here is, the primary view is, in an ad hoc minyan, you don't say rocha meain sheva, and therefore in the hotels, they should not be saying rocha meain sheva. If they are, it's not, don't, don't make extra fuss about this. It's just, it, it's tolerable. Now, so then what's, what's the bottom line? Is, is there a bottom line? So let's... This is a note of everything in the siddur, that there are

33:10 Speaker 1 those who maintain that, uh, that, that according to Kabbalah, this should be said i-in any case. This rocha should be said in any case of Kabbalah. And yet, Rav Chaim Nora, in Shas Hashulchan, writes that if there's no set minhag, then don't say the rocha. So that l'cho should be the bottom line. We're not finished yet. Then, I've, I've shared with you that, uh, about two years ago, three years ago, came to light a, a, a, a wall, uh, a wall chart of minhog, minhogi Beis Haknesses, according to Chabad, from the year Taf Reish Samech Vav, which is, um, a hundred and twenty, almost a hundred and twenty years ago. And it has there, Minhogi Chabad, and there it says, also bemin yishu hu bakrai be alma, efsholu hem lo ma morgen avas. This is interesting. He's telling us in that luach that even in ad hoc minyan, you can say morgen avas. So that if you ask him, "What's the historic..." I mean, in Chabad, so I'm seeing there that a hundred and twenty years ago, this is, this wasn't okayed by any... It's not, not nothing to do with the Rabbeim. This has got to do-- This was just the Minhag Chabad. He's saying that that was the minhag. That in ad hoc minyan, they would say the, uh, the rocha meain sheva. Then there's a reference here to an article by Rabbi Boruch Oberlander, and he was taking the view that you shouldn't be saying it. And then there's another article by

34:54 Speaker 1 Rabbi Chaim Lerner, who's the, uh, Rosh HaKollel in Crown Heights. So he takes the view of that you should be saying it. So is there a bottom line? Not totally. W-what I'm seeing is, though, although Rav Chaim Nora says there, there's no minhag yedua not to say it, but I'm seeing that the Luach Minhogi Beis, the, the Minhag of Chabad in Russia, this luach is published in, in wherever it is. But in, in, it's, it's for various cities in Russia, and it's saying that the minhag is to, to say the rocha, uh, even by minya shubu bakrai. So that's interesting that it looks like the minhag, uh, was accepted to say it even in ad hoc minyan. I was once in a, actually years ago, many years ago, I was in someone's house in a small shtetl, and we had a family, a family, yeshiva rochos, shekhinah shabbos. And I told the chazzan not to say, not to say, um, rocha meain sheva. But afterwards, the balabos told me that actually they do. And they, they, it's not the first time they've had a minyan Friday night. Sometimes they make... It's, the walk to the shul is a long walk. So very often, they would make a minyan in their house, and they, he had been advised to say rocha meain sheva. So now you've got a little bit of background that, that there is room to be make or to say it. Okay. Right. Here, I got, I got a, uh, lot of unusual

36:33 Speaker 1 avera dezora questions in the past week. But one of them I'm sharing with you now is that a shliach received a gift of a large etching, or if that's the right word, of the Last Supper. And it's made, though, it's made not a painting, but it's made of... It's, like, embossed. So it's like, like s- like statues, et cetera. And it's probably in the... It's, it costs seven, several thousands of dollars. And he's asking, does he have to just destroy it, or can he do something with it? So what I answered him is that this, this, uh, this m- this picture is not an object of worship. It may be made for inspiration, but it's not an object of... No one bows to the picture. And here you can see at the bottom of the page from Sinai Kuf Mem Aleph, there are more. He says, "Images, um, images which are b- were, are bowed to, they have the din of a, of, of an image, and they are also, unless they have been dismantled by a goy. But those which are hung from the neck." So, um, they're not called an, a tzelem, and they are not also hanukkah. Just a, just a funny thing. Um, uh, Friday night, a fellow from Antwerp was, uh, he heard the shir. I mentioned this about the shir in shul. So he says in Antwerp it's very common that, that the Yiddish, uh, jewel- jewelry shops had these on sale. And so then there's one, one Frommer

38:26 Speaker 1 fellow, he, he called up. He, he see, he, he sees he has to have these tsitsit for sale, and he calls them. He couldn't bring himself. He couldn't himself according to his suppliers. He said, "Could you sell me one of those things, you know, where the..." He says, Which one do you want? So, um, upon him. So if it's just there, uh, as he says, if it's just lizikaran, it's not for Mishtakhvim, like, not for worship, then it's not a Hanukkah. So then I told him, "I don't think that picture is an Hanukkah at all." What then? It is an image, and it's an image of a sculpture of a human being. We're not allowed to have... We've gone through this before. You're not allowed to, uh, have a sculpture of a human being. And this is where we have, again, the same, same siman, Kuf Mem Aleph. They are there. An image of a person. Uh, we wouldn't be allowed to make a, a sculpture of a person, a human, even if it's just for decorative purposes. If a goy made it for you, you're not allowed to re- leave it at home. You're not allowed to retain it. If you find one, y- it's permitted. What does that mean? It's permitted, says the Shah. It's permitted. If you find one, means you're allowed to have benefit from it. And so in other words, you can sell it, but you no- don't leave it at home. And says Mekitzah. So that's why I told

39:58 Speaker 1 the Shliah that you are, uh, you're allowed to have Hanukkah from it, and you're allowed to... Therefore, you're going to sell it. You can sell it. He said he wanted to give it to another goy. So I said, "I'm listen, I'm, I'm not sure whether you're worried about giving an inspirational picture to a, to a goy, but as far as Yissur Hanukkah, that's, that's okay." I'll just share with you one of the, the other questions which I got this past week. A Shliah c- a, got a call from, let's say the name is Yoav, Israeli fellow in his town, in another town nearby, and he says, "Rabbi, I was invited by the local church to say the opening p- opening prayer at their next service. And they asked me to say the passage of Shema Yisroel, because you are from the chosen people, therefore you're inviting you to, to open our service. But it's only six words. Can you s- recommend anything else for me to say?" That was the q- request which he asked the Shliah. So Shliah said, "What does he answer this fellow?" So, so I told him that really a Jew shouldn't be entering a church. But he d- actually, this fellow worked for the church. That wasn't really his question. That's, that's his job. He's like administrator at this church. But, um, if he's already speaking, then I told him, let him say about their me- if we have, we have a message of Sheva Mitzvot Bnei Noach. Tell them

41:38 Speaker 1 what the Sheva Mitzvot Bnei Noach are briefly. And, uh, and, you know, that, that's, that was my advice. Um, another question which came up this past week was a Shliah gets the following question. He's in a small town. There's no Jewish restaurant there. So if someone needs to have a kosher meal, he'll provide it. He does have a kosher kitchen. He does a little bit of catering that way. So a fellow, uh, contacted him, "Rabbi, could you provide me a meal? I'm going to a wedding. It's a non, non-kosher wedding. Could you provide a meal which would kind of be matching the rest of the, you know, the, the, uh, the rest of the catering?" Um, but actually, the wedding is of a Jew marrying a non-Jew. So the Shliah is asking, is it correct for him to provide a meal for someone who is going to such a wedding? Is it the right thing or the wrong thing? Difficult question. Um, it's not... I, I felt it's not gonna make any difference. The wedding's gonna... Well, you know, h- h- his... Whether this fellow attends or not, whether he's gonna eat his sandwiches or gonna have a catered meal, it's not gonna make any difference in the wedding, which is a tragedy. The wedding is a tragedy. He, he feels he has to be there. Oh, no, not that. That's a, that's a separate question. By providing him a meal, are we somehow condoning the wedding? I don't know. I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm

43:18 Speaker 1 not, not so sure whether that's considered condoning. It's... It is sad, obviously, um, but I don't think that providing the meal is in any way facilitating the wedding should take place. That was my feeling about it. Yeah. Um, one more crazy question. A supplier of Judaica in somewhere in the United States, he has, like, a website, and then he has a request, uh, for, for a customer. Jews for Jay, they ask, "Can we be, um..." Can he be their supplier of theirs? So, um, I felt we, we both agree that although stam goyim perhaps to s- provide them stuff may be not such a problem, but these are, these are our enemies. They are what we're trying to make to Yiddishkeit, and they are looking to ensnare Yidden away from Yiddishkeit, and, uh, if you take them as a customer, give them rotten service. Just give, give them, give them the runaround. You know, never pr- never having the goods in time, et cetera, et cetera. So, right. So he liked that one. Let's go, um, we have a couple more things left on our list, and that is someone asked me, "What is the background to the five double letters in the Hebrew language?" Not a question halacha, but what is the background to the fact that we've got five letters in the Hebrew alphabet which have doubles when they are at the end of the word? So we know there's a Gemara Megillah which talks about the Man Zepach, uh, and saying that

45:10 Speaker 1 they were reintroduced by... They were forgotten, and they were reintroduced by the, by the Nevi'im. There are lots of explanations in Kabbalah about this. I'm, I'm sure we've discussed this before, that it, why it's in this order. Mem nun is 90, sadek is 90, and pei kof is 100. So 90 is m- Melech and Moloch is again 90, and Yimloch is 100. So by this formation of Man Zepach, it's a remez to Melech, Moloch, and Yimloch, and there's lots and lots of stuff in, in, in, you know, in, in Drush and Remez, et cetera. For example, the famous thing that emes. The word emes, which means truth, is the first letter and the last letter, and the middle letter. It's only... Mem is only the middle letter if you have the seven double letters. Otherwise, mem is a bit more, um, out to one side than the, than the other. So what you have in front of you is the Sefer, an encyclopedia, Otzar Yisroel by, s- someone called Eisenstein. When I was about bar mitzvah, we had a teacher here in London called, it was, uh, Rabbeinu HaKohen Zalantz. And he was instrumental that the library would have a set of Otzar Yisroel. So it's a kind of encyc- encyclopedia. And so he addresses this, and he says, What is exactly the reasons for this? It's not so clear. Maybe it's that the final letters are to se- make separation between one word and the next. Why davka on these? What I could suggest

46:53 Speaker 1 to you is that the other letters, either most of the other letters have, are either, m- like, vertical spikes, like a zayin, vav, reish. They've just got one leg going down, or they have two legs, like an alef, a ches, hei. Um, w- the, the, um, th- these are, these are most of the letters. Then we've got a few letters which have got a wide base. These letters have got more, more of a curved base. And by opening them out, it's not going to distort the shape. You'll still recognize the letter. If you'd... Some of the other letters, if you'd, let's say, even a base, which is, they're so close to a kof, but the base has got a, a bulge sticking out on the back of the letter. That would be lost if it would, if it would be stretched down. And therefore, the, the i- ability... So, so I'm not talking about Kabbalah. I'm talking on the, on the, on the, on a pshat level. The ability to take a curved letter and straighten it, make it vertical, is actually quite limited. Um, samech is also curved, but if you'd open up the samech, it wouldn't be a samech anymore. It wouldn't be recognizable. So it's only these five letters which you do have the possibility of, of, uh, of making them longer and able to, uh, to designate, to, to show the difference between the final letters and regular letters. Right. So obviously our, our sofer is, uh, pointing out the confusion

48:34 Speaker 1 between the zayin and the long nun, and the reish and the kof. Yeah. And so this is as much as I'm gonna comment because I feel when it comes to sofers, it's such a specialized field. When people as- ask me questions about sofers, I tell them, "Go to the specialists." Okay. Um, two more things before we finish off for tonight, and that is, one, if you remember last week, I told you a story about, uh, my conversation, whether the Rebbe's farbrengen was Seder Shni or Seder Shlishis, and how that they, uh, that farbrengen that after Shabbos afternoon, the Rebbe told them it was in Bnei Brak. So one of our listeners, , sent me the following message. He mentioned about Seder Shlishis. Apparently, until Hofbeit Shvat, the Rebbe would make kiddush at the, at the farbrengen. But after that, not necessarily every week, but many times, he would say at the farbrengen, he would say, "Mizmor L'David and the Askinu of Seder Shlishis." And he would make the berakh bah pri hagafen, but lav davka would he have rovkos. In other words, what they're suggesting is that, that the Rebbe did not make kiddush when it was farbrengen. He's already made kiddush in his room before he comes down, and it been yotzer his Seder Shni in, in his room be- the time between twelve o'clock after davening until one thirty when he came down to farbrengen. And so by the farbrengen, they, he's saying that they saw that the Rebbe would say the Askinu,

50:11 Speaker 1 um, relevant to Seder Shlishis. Now, s-- V'nehecholo is, is a different story. That's a whole long thing, but that's askinu, I guess, uh, you know. He-- I, I asked him where did he know this from, this bocher, um, which I actually found this amazing because this, this-- his father is much younger than me. So this fellow did not see it himself, but it's amazing how you got these young fellows who are, uh, so knowledgeable about every detail of, of the Rebbe's Halachas, which is, I find, amazing and beautiful, actually. So, um, so he-- what he's saying that they would see that the Rebbe would say the askinu of Sod Shelosh Esros at the fabrengen, which would confirm what I'd said, it's Sod Shelosh Esros. Plus, the Rebbe many times, as I also remember, the Rebbe would refer to that this fabrengen is a time of raved derived, you know, which is the Rosh and Sheba Rosh, and a very special time, but that's the lesson of the Zohar in reference to the sign of Sod, Sod Shelosh Esros. And the Rebbe would very often say that the fabrengen is at a time of raved derived. Okay. Um, one last thing, and that is that over Shabbos... Someone, before we go to this, someone's pointing out that the... No. So it's not incorrect, yeah. Okay, leave it. So o-on Shabbos, I gave over a sikha from Chelek Yud Zayen about the beginning of Perek Gimel or Perek Ovess about praying for the peace of the, of

51:53 Speaker 1 the government. Um, Shlom HaEmes pal bashlom shel malchus, and it was bashlom haprot is very relevant to, to, uh, the forthcoming coronation. There's been discussion amongst shluchim about how-- whether it should be, how to celebrate, et cetera. But here, I wanna just share with you one note over here. The Rebbe is talking here about mispal bashlom shel malchus. And, and then he talks about moira, moira malchus. That if not for the fear of the malchus, so then there would be anarchy. When the Rebbe talks about Yishas Yisroel chaim beloi, doesn't mean necessarily anarchy in a violent sense. But the idea that one, a g-- a more powerful entity should feel able and is able to swallow up a smaller entity, that's what he means by chaim beloi. It doesn't mean necessarily, as I say, no, it doesn't mean murder or ste- or stealing, but that the more, the expression in English, dog eats dog, which is legitimate but immoral. And so that's, if, if not for moira shel malchus, that would be the prevailing, um, mindset. Here, the Rebbe says the following: By umos haolam, by their own volition, they do not have moira shel malchus. They do not have fear of malchus in the exalted sense. They have a fear of judgment of, of, um, law enforcement. That kind of, that kind of fear of law enforcement will not inhibit the idea of one swallowing up the other, that to have take the other one's existence and to kind of swallow it up into

53:44 Speaker 1 mine. And that, in that way, that the other person has no longer his own personal interest because I've a-- kind of swallowed him up. Because he needs to rely your-- on you for his parnasa. He's like the, the bigger interest s-swallows up the smaller interest, which is so, so, so common today. And why does that-- why is that not-- why, why will that not be stopped by... He says very simply, because there's no punishment for that, because it's not stealing. And so the fact that he's kind of swallowed up another person's independence is not something punishable. And here the Rebbe says, this is a very beautiful line. When-- Uh, through the Yishis Raeli, through us praying for Shlom HaShel Malchus, and, uh, th-that-- the Rebbe's discussion in the sikha, that in the, in the monarchy, in the malchus down here, will be sensed a, an, a feeling of the malchus of above, of Hashem. And the siki explains that in the before Hashem, the big one and the small one are all equal. Therefore, when you have that bit of Hashem, and you realize that you're no bigger than anyone else, in, before-- in Hashem's eyes, that will, that will stop you from swallowing up someone else and feeling entitled because I'm bigger to swallow him up. Because before Hashem, you're, you're just as, as, uh, minuscule. So the Rebbe is saying through Eden praying for Shlom HaShel Malchus, then that will bring about that there should be also in the physical malchus should be

55:27 Speaker 1 a, an, a sense of the aura of the Malchus of Heaven. The-- Our feeling of Malchus will have also an effect on the umos haolam, that they should also have moira shel malchus, a, a fear of malchus, not just a punishment, but fear of malchus in the way that it should actually, uh, inhibit, that they shouldn't feel entitled to swallow up someone else, uh, alive. So just Baruch Hashem, we just feel very grateful that we are in a country, Medinat Shel Chesed, and that, uh, that there is, well, uh, uh, we're grateful for the monarchy, th-looking after that the, uh, the weaker people or the s-- the minorities or the vulnerables should be protected and, uh, say that long live King Charles III. Good night.

56:23 Speaker 2 Thank you.

56:30 Speaker 3 Thank you.