כי תבוא תשפ״ג

00:03 Speaker 1 Good evening. Welcome to this evening's shiur. Sunday of Parshas Ki Savo. So we'll start off actually, I got a bit of feedback, people asking for a bit of Drush also. So yesterday's Parsha, and it came up in yesterday's Shekhinar shiur, talking about, you know, Malkis. So I mentioned something about Malkis being m-me... If it's Mal- Mal, um, Malkus Mardus, which is for a violation of a de-rabbonon, of it being thirteen malkis rather than the four thirty-nine. And I offered a s- theory, but I'd like to share what I did find. So we have in the Rashi, yes- yesterday's Rashi, that, uh, m'chikof, m'ch- m'ch... m'ch- m'chof hipilo hashofer v'chiko lafonof k'deydish oso. And on this, Rashi comments, "Lafonof k'deydish oso ula'acharo k'deshtayim," is given on the front of his body, is given a measure of, of lashes commensurate to his, uh, wrongdoing, and on his back is given double as much. M'chan omru, from here we learn, the Chasam Sofer, that malko noeseh shet lafon-- shte yodis m'l'acharov o shlish m'l'fonof. That when the person is given lashes, the thirteen lash and-- thirty-nine lashes are divided, thirteen on the front of the body and, um, twenty-six on the back. So this is... A- again, I mentioned yesterday is that there is a opinion in Rishonim that Malkis for the Rabbonon is thirteen malkis. So my search brought me back to actually a Prush over Bistrol Isilin, known famously for his Sefer called Trumat Hadeshen. So he writes... He has a commentary on Rashi, as you

02:16 Speaker 1 can see at the bottom here. P- viewer Maroy Isilin. Bistrol Isilin. So he says the impression from the Gemara is that really thirteen malkis would have been enough. But the Torah has penalized and gave him another, another double, another twice thirteen in addition. I heard from my, my Adoni Moiri Hakodesh Zecharia L'bracha, my L- holy Rebbe, I heard from him that the shiur of thirteen is because of the age of when a person is punishable. Because, uh, Eid is punishable in Beis Din Shel Ma'alah from the age of thirteen, and therefore that's why there's a number of thirteen malkis commensurate to the age. In Beis Din Shel Malo, they will punish only from the age of twenty. And it says in the Gemara in Bava Kamma that there's a story about they s- gave Eliyahu Hanavi as a mala- as a malach, they gave him sixty lashes, lashes of fire. Which, why it's the number of sixty? Because in Beis Din Shel Malo, punishment is from the age of twenty, and then twenty, then another tw- twice as much in addition, therefore it becomes sixty. M'kan yesh lilmod. And this he concludes that the Malkis Mardus, when it says in the Gemara, Rambam, et cetera, you learn about Malkis Mardus, it's also in the Al Cheit, which we say on Yom Kippur. And Malkis Mardus, that, th- those lashes are only thirteen malkis, and that corresponds to the number of words, he says, within the Oisios, meaning the words. In the passage of Uracham. Uracham

03:58 Speaker 1 has got thirteen words. That the malkis which Chacham instituted for a violation on their words, that for this they only have permission to, to punish for the actual violation, but not to give a penalty on top of it. And therefore, it's only the thirteen b-basic ones and not the extra, um, not the extra, um, t-twenty-six. Just want to throw in, since we... I m- I was... I did a little bit of searching, researching on this a bit more. I wanted to find a bit more of this shet ay, echad lafonof, shet yod esnaf, echad, um, shet yod, shlish l'fonof, shet yod zmachor. I didn't find any explanation in, in Drush, et cetera. What I did find is that with the number thirty-nine, as it's got to do with Hashem's name, Yud Hei Vav. Now, there's a way of spelling Hashem's name with Miller Alphin. And the full Hashem's name in Miller Alphin is for- uh, equals forty-two. Um, that's... Sorry, forty-six. Sorry. Shem Ma. And in, in the Eh Hashanus, it has there, when they strike the Eh Hashanus, it talks there about, um, the Lamed Tes, the, the Shem of Yud Hei Vav, which, you know, equals thirty-nine. And so you'd have the Vav. Vav Alef Vav is the thirteen. And then the higher ones are the Yud, which is twenty, and the Hei Alef, which is the six. Um, I forgot to introduce that this, this shiur is, I'm going back to the first slide. That this sh- this shiur is dedicated in,

05:48 Speaker 1 in merit for Refuah Shlaima for Chaim Shmuel Mendel ben Chana Rachel, and for the birthdays of Menachem Mendel, um, ben Pinchas Yaakov and Frida Basia, daughter of Reb Pinchas Yakov. Let's come back. So this, so this... Just, we just shared with you this word of the Truma Hadashan, that there is idea of malkis from Yisroel Rabbonim is thirteen malkis. I mentioned yesterday at the shir that the Alter Rebbe in a couple of places mentions this in letters. He, uh, he mentions in one place the Shem Rashi, and I was puzzled, where does Rashi talk about this? Now, I did find in the Encyclopedia Talmudis. So you have now volume Mem-Ches has the entry about Mal- Malkis Mardos, and there he gives a whole list of Rishonim, Gaonim, uh, who talk about... who say this Cheshbon of thirteen malkis. And he has a reference to Sefer Haparades Rashi. So in addition to Rashi's commentary on the Torah and on the, on the, on the Hashas, there are several Sforim from Rashi's Beis HaMidrash. One of the called is called Pardes. So apparently this is mentioned over there. I did not look it up over there. Fine. One last thing. I was intrigued. Who is Moiri HaKodesh of Rabbe Bistrol Isilin? So I'm gonna share with you the next slide, and that is... Where is it? This one. So here we have, there's a, a fascinating set of Sforim called Atlas Eitz Chaim, put together by someone called Reb Dvor Halperin. This was published, like, twenty, thirty

07:44 Speaker 1 years ago. And he's kind of mapped out the Jewish history, and he's taken prominent personalities in the Torah, um, tradition and shown who are their Tal-- who's their family of Talmidim, who are their, is their Tal-- uh, who are their Rebbes. So he has a whole page of the Truma Hades and Rabistrol Isilin. And here you can see the t- the upper spectrum is a list of his, uh, Talmidim. I see Rabistrol Breuner, Mara- Rabbi Moshe Mainz are the more famous ones. But coming back to what we're looking for, who are his Rebbes? So one is Mariel, um, Rabistrol Segal. Um, Rab... Yes, well, I think it was Segal, who is the father of Minag Hashkina, so to speak. Um, the other ones are not as... Mari Vile, w-who was also not as well-known as, as, um, Mariel. The other ones are even less well-known. But these are his... So who was his, uh, Moiri HaKodesh? I don't know, but it was l'chaya one of those. Let's move on. Right. So now, practical question. Someone's asking that they're trying to keep... They've been advised to keep of gluten. And so now we've got here Rakusen's matzah, which is gluten-free. And the question was about using this for Lechem Mishnah, for Shabbos, et cetera, for making hamotzi, making, uh, um, for benching. So here you have the list of ingredients: maize starch, followed by oats, followed by tapioca starch, followed by soya bran. So I don't know what the proportions are, but probably the oats are

09:46 Speaker 1 a minority. The maize starch is the first ingredient, then comes oats, and then tapioca, then so-soya. So it's a significant, uh, component, but not a majority pr-pr-probably. And so now there becomes a question for, well, what's the bracha Rishona and what's the bracha Achronit? It's made with palm oil rather than with water. That would l'chaya make it into Mezonos, because it's made with fruit juice. The thing is, if you kaveya suda, so then it becomes hamotzi. But then you've kaveya suda on a small amount, you're still in, in, in, uh, you're still in the safek area, because, uh, those who say if you kaveya suda even in a smaller amount, it becomes hamotzi. And therefore, you should have a kazais of something else. What I did advise the, the person, that if they are having the Suda together with, she was a woman, with her husband. Say, if he makes hamotzi and she has in mind to be yotzer, and he benches aloud and she has in mind to be yotzer, I felt that was safe. But well, I-I want to go through this carefully. What, what, why, what's the problem? And I think we've discussed perhaps more than once about chocolate brownies. Chocolate brownies will, let's say, be a large amount of sugar, um, compared to the flour. I was saying it's more than the flour. I don't remember the details, but it's, it's, it's very significant. Now, if you have just one kazais of chocolate brownie, do you say Al Hamichya? And what

11:24 Speaker 1 I'd said then is that, yes-

11:26 Speaker 2 Yeah

11:26 Speaker 1 ... that the su- the sugar becomes upgraded as if it becomes hamotzi. Sorry, as if it becomes mezonos. That is the case of the chocolate brownie. This case, though, is different, and I'm gonna share with you the text of the Alter Rebbe, where you'll see it's... that here it's different. Um, and perhaps let's discuss the, the logic first. Sugar and flour. Sugar is there to flavor the flour, to enhance the flour. Therefore, I can see a certain logic that the sugar becomes batel to the flour. And even becomes upgraded as if it were flour itself. Okay, okay, I can, I can live with that. When you talk here about starch and starch, flour and flour, so why should the oats dominate the maize? The maize is, is gonna be, uh... It's not gonna be... It's not the chametz shebe-dagan, yeah? So why should the oats dominate? No. They, they, they, they will be equal mechutanim. And this is... The, the, the background to this is that that which we learn that always grain becomes the dominant feature, so then that is, that is c- that's, that's in relation to honey. Duvshe ikar. You might have thought, duvshe ikar, kamah sh'belo, ki-mikra ikar. That's the law of the Gemara. You might have thought the honey is the main thing. No, no, no, the, the, the flour is the main thing. But flour and flour, different types of flour, that kind of dynamic doesn't necessarily, necessarily work. Now, let's read this very carefully. This is in perek

13:12 Speaker 1 ches of Birchas Hanoten. "V'chach kemach shel echad m'chamishas minim dagan." So you've got a grain, you've got a flour made from oats, wheat, whatever. "Eshen eidei v'kemach shel, shel minim kitniyos," which is now mixed with kitniyos flour, as in maize, tapioca. "V'yosomim lepass." And you know, you made, you made bread. Mamash our case. "Afa pisham havurach al ha-motzi." Assume it's made just with water, yeah? Here we have it, it becomes a more pra- co- uh, because it's made with palm oil. Assume it's made with water. So then the berachah is hamotzi. "Sheha-dagon ikar afilu hu mu'at." Because we have the general rule that the grain of chametz shebe-dagan dominates the combination, even though it's a minority, as discussed in perek gimel. "Ka-makorim, however, comes for the after berachah. Ein mevorach alav ba-acharon b'chasam ozoin." You cannot say benching for a kezayis. "Elo im ken yesh bekemach ha-dagon b'chadei chach- kezayis b'chadei achilas pras me'atariveh." It would have to be that the grain flour is, is as a, a kezayis, which, which means one-sixth. So long as the flour of grain is one-sixth, which might be the case in this, in this case of this matzah over here. We're not finished yet. So if the ratio is one to six or one to, one to five, whatever the, the detail is, so then it becomes... Then it dominates. And you make a ham- hamotzi-- a, a b'chasam ozo on the whole lot. On even a kezayis of the whole. "V'yesh oim," there's a second opinion that

15:03 Speaker 1 says no, no, no. My chocolate brownies, I've told you, Taka, the sugar becomes upgraded and becomes mezonos. But here, as far as kemach v'kemach, you're not going to be able to say, um, b'chasam ozo unless you ate the whole pras. If you ate six times a kezayis, and during that six ti- in there you are eating a kezayis of grain. So all right, then you'll make ha- b'chasam ozo. "V'yesh lochos l'divreihem lehachil b'sfeik berachos." So now we have this dilemma. Assuming that you're not going to eat four of those matzahs. You're gonna have one or two. So then it's unlikely that you'll have a kezayis of grain, of, of, of oat grain. And therefore, according to the first opinion, you should be saying b'chasam ozo. According to the second opinion, you shouldn't. So you're, you're in an isofic area. And he goes further, what would happen if the ratio is even less? There's even less flour to the, to the, to, to the, uh, other things. It's still hamotzi, but you wouldn't say b- You wouldn't... You'd never say b'chasam ozo because there's no way you can have a kezayis b'chadei achilas pras because the ratio is more than... It, it's, let's say one to seven, one to eight. There's no way you can have a kezayis within the timeframe of, of, of b'chadei achilas pras. "V'yesh mistapkim," and there are those who question this, and they say, "Efshar, efshar the grain should dominate. And therefore, lo chi limnoya sh'leilech b'pas zoi ki b'techas sudar."

16:54 Speaker 1 So it's interesting, just yesterday someone told me that a friend of his, his noyah he has every morning for breakfast, he has these crackers which have got a small proportion of grain, and he's making on them, he says a berachah, b'me mezonos, let's say. And at the end, he says boreh nefashot. Well, really what we're seeing here, yesh mistapkim, that is questionable. So again, if it's one to six or even more of grain, then we also have here a problem. Because according to the second opinion, the yesh oim, it's only if you have a whole pra... You have a kezayis of grain mamash. So therefore, that's... But if it's even... If it's a, um, a, um, a lesser proportion of, of flour, so then you're also in trouble area. And therefore, he says, "Keep... The, those crackers should be only be eaten during a meal." So bottom line, as I said, with this matzah, which we've, which we're looking at. So bottom line is, if you're gonna have, um, just one or two of those, berachah would be, I think would be mezonos, unless you cover sudar. The berachah acharonah, you are, you're in isofic area. And that's why I advise the, this lady that if she's eating with someone else- So then sh- the other person has regular hamotzi and does a regular bentching, and she will listen and have a yoisa from that person's bentching. Let's move on. So here someone raised the question: Does the tekiah have to be a straight sound,

18:43 Speaker 1 or could it be also going up and down? So on the screen you have from the Sefer Piskei Shofers that we have the general principle, "Kol ha-kolot she'alim baShofar," all sounds from the shofar are valid. However, the, the, then... And therefore all sounds, whether it goes up or down, it's all, all valid. It goes on and says, no, there are Gedolei Yisroel who were very particular about this, that the, the tekiah should be a straight sound, not going up and down. It brings in the notes here. You can see note sixteen, "Rash Olev Diskin, Rov in Shalem," and he would tell them to blow again, et cetera. So it's, it's not so straightforward. So really it is important that the tekiah should be a straight sound. I, I have my doubts whether that is... If you have a long tekiah, and in each ha- each part of it which is on a different note had enough length, whether that's still a problem. But okay. But, um, there's, but there is this, the chatchilah. Certainly one should try to make the tekiahs a straight sound, which is generally good balate tekiah do that. They don't go up and down the middle of a tekiah. Um, now, perhaps we've discussed this in the past, that the shevarim, which Chabad do, and that is tu, tu, ru, tu, ru, tu. In other words, each of the shevarim has got three notes. There's, uh, up and down, whatever, however you make it. So there's a, there's a, there's a,

20:26 Speaker 1 uh, explanation here. And I want to say it's not, it's not unique to Chabad, because I've seen also that this is also in, whether it's in Brisk or whatever, some other Litvishe shofarim also. So it was minhag Lita to do this type of shevarim. The advantage of this type of shevarim is that there is a whole discussion in Shulchan Aruch that you mustn't make your shevar-- the sh- each shevar too long, because then it's gonna be like a short tekiah. Now, a short tekiah can be even a couple of seconds already called a, a tekiah. So Devel, they do shevarim, tu, tu, tu. So arguably, these are short tekiahs. How sh- how sh- what's the shortest tekiah which we're worried about? So the shi- shortest tekiah would be the length of a teruah. She'ia tekiah, she'ia teruah. So how long is the shortest teruah? So according to, I think, Rabbi Yitzchak, um, even three trematim, three blasts, is already a teruah. So therefore, a tekiah which is longer than three blasts is already, or is three bla- as long as three blasts, is already at, is already at a, a short tekiah. On top of this, we have a very strange thing, and that is the Shulchan Aruch, which we're, we're learning Rambam every year. It's very clear in Rambam. The Rambam says, "She'ia tekiah, she'ia teruah" means that tekiah shel fonel and the tekiah shel acharov together should be the length of the teruah. So according to the Rambam, if the teruah is three

22:09 Speaker 1 trematim, she'ia tekiah is one and a half trematim. Therefore, it makes it all the more of a concern that you're doing shevarim, v'haveelt maach, tu, tu, tu. That's... They are long, longer than one and a half trematim, even possibly as long as three trematim. And therefore, you're getting into a trouble area that your, your shevarim are going to be like t- like, like tekiahs. Whereas in the Litvisher style of, of, of breaking it up and up and down, tu, tu, tu, tu, tu. You break... The fact that you're going up and down breaks it up into different, uh... It, it's not a valid tekiah because it's going up and down. Well, that becomes nimtzo kal kolose takanose. Therefore, it doesn't resemble a teruah. It doesn't remember, re-resemble a tekiah. Now, I got a, a question about the Lubavitch. There's a Lubavitch shul somewhere in England where they blow tekiahs like in Chabad, and the minhag Chabad is to have an extra blast after the, uh, sh-shevarim. Tu, tu, tu, tu, tu, tu, tu. However, an extra little bit or one and a half bits after the three shevarim. And so he's asking you, he's not a Chabadnik. He doesn't... He's Chabad Shule, is he yoisa. So the source of this extra sound at the end of the shevarim, it's written, the Alter Rebbe brings it in Shulchan Aruch, at the end of tekiah, at the end of the shevarim, the end of the teruah. And it goes back, it's mentioned in the Bach. It goes

23:52 Speaker 1 back earlier to Rav Avraham Kloizen, to Minhagim Rav Avraham Kloizen. It's an old minhag. Now, someone told me that he was a bal tekiah in a Polish shtiebel, and they took him to task because the Ma-Ma-Matiyah Ephraim says against it. So I actually took the Matiyah Ephraim, and actually he doesn't go against it. He actually mentions it, and he's okay with it. That's in, in, in Tzof Kuf Tzadik. If you'd give him the Matiyah Ephraim, he mentions this minhag of the, this extra sound. Reb Gimel Gadam and others struggle with this. Bach is also not so cle- so, so, uh, okay with it. But there is this old minhag, and as I say, the Matiyah Ephraim does bring it without, without, um, a problem with it. Um, so there is th-there, this, this minhag of having this extra. Now, the shaila is, why is that not a hefsek? Why is the extra sound not a hefsek between the shevarim and the subsequent tekiah? That is the question. And so my... What, what I've just said till the last two minutes is that the question is not on Chabad, but the question is going back for five hundred years at least till the Rav Avraham Kloizen, et cetera. Which we see on record that that's, this is a minhag Ashkenaz to do so in many, many kehillahs. And my suggestion is that when it says that if you add another coil between the shevarim and the tkiya, that's going to be an unwelcome interference and disruption.

25:24 Speaker 1 That's only when it's with a separate breath, or at least there's a little gap. But if the added sound is immediately after the required sound without any interruption at all, then it's not called a foreign sound which would, um, which would in-interrupt the sequence of shevarim tkiya. And that's, that's my suggestion to explain, but it's not a, uh, uh, not a recent innovation. It's something that's going back hundreds of years. Um, in the Ma'aseh Efrayim, in the notes, they have a reference to a Sefer Eshdos who challenges this practice. I had the chance to look this up last night. There's a Sefer Eshdos is a, let's say from a hundred years ago, a hundred, um, uh, a hundred and forty years ago. It was probably printed in, uh, Piotrkow. Uh, he has... He, he makes it a question. He has... It's a Sefer really about Lamed Tes Melachos, but at the beginning he has a whole, uh, siman that creates thirty, forty pages about tkiyas, and he discusses the Ma'aseh Efrayim, and he discusses this point. He asks the question, which is a, a fair question. He doesn't give an answer, but I say this is, uh, an old minhag going up hu- going back hundreds of years. And so, um, yesh alma lis mech. Let's move on. So here we have a... This is, uh, someone's asking that the only space in his property where he could put a sukkah is in this, uh, parking area, I guess. And there's this tree overhanging. I

27:05 Speaker 1 asked him what time was this photograph taken. So he says it was taken at five PM. So I told him to make a photograph at midday. 'Cause it, uh, midday, that's when the, uh, shemesh is going to be... When the sun is gonna be the highest point, and then you'd be able to establish whether how much of this area is going to be already under the shade of the, of a tree, and therefore invalidated for sukkah. So if there's going to be only a sparse presence of shade from the tree, then the sukkah would be valid. If it's going to be a l- a large presence of a dom- a m- m- a majority of that area, then that would, that would be a problem. So actually, he did send me a picture taken at midday. And that wasn't so, uh, I wasn't so excited. As you can see, the area as it is at midday. Now, the, the sun is not bereishit kol adam at midday, unless you are mamash in the, on the equator. But being several degrees north of the equator, so then the sun is going over the equator, and so the sun is really at an angle. So it's, uh, even this picture is not totally decisive. And what he did point out to me is that he understands that the f- the angle of the sun at midday, which I agree with him, is not mamash bereishit kol adam, and that this shade which you can see over here,

28:45 Speaker 1 um, towards the right, uh, of the onlooker, is actually a shade from the bushes from the side rather than from the tree on top. And if that's the case, then possibly at the back also. Um, that being the case, then the shade of the tree is actually a minority. And therefore, uh, it would be, uh, it's... The sukkah would be kosher. Of course, it's, uh, more mehudar to, uh, to get that tree trimmed, and but it's, it's, uh, subject to availability, uh, it's, uh, it's, uh, you have to get permission from the landlord. And if it's a neighbor's tree, it's, it's not so poshut. So that's really what it boils down to. So let's learn this Shulchan HaHalach in the Shulchan Aruch, where he says that he talks here about, this is in Torat HaCholel, talking about a tree over a sukkah and how, uh, if it's a small amount of shade, then it would be negligible. Then he says, I'm gonna just read Sif Dalet. "Am ha-lem seil ha-sukkah u'merubah me'oit." If the shade from the... If the shade of the schach is so plen- so plentiful, "Sha-filu im y'notel mimenu k'shiur tzel ha'aylin." If you would deduct the equivalent. So let's say it's, uh, how many square foot, foot. How mu- the amount of square footage of shade from the tree. If that amount would be deducted from the square footage of the schach, and still it would be, uh, as if that place under the tree was makom chamo, as if it

30:25 Speaker 1 was sunlight. And still there'd be enough, uh, there'll be more shade than sun from the schach, then it would be kosher. So let's say if the, if the tree covered a third of the sukkah, but two-thirds of the sukkah are fi- are covered with dense schach. So then the schach, then the sukkah would still be kosher, despite the fact there's a tree covering, as I say, even a third of the area, because there's so much more schach, a- and so it would be still be kosher. I'm not saying it's mehudar. Of course, I would recommend- To make the effort and, and cut that tree. But if that's, that's not, not possible, it would be Kosher. Let's move on. So here I got... I was in conversation with the Shliach in Australia, uh, this past week, and since COVID, they are struggling to get their minyan. And so on Monday, they didn't have a minyan, and the question is: could they, on Tuesday, if they do have a minyan, could they take out a Sifrei Torah and read the reading for Monday? So let's read this. And this is in Siman Kuf Mem-- Sorry, Kuf Lamed He. And on the margin of the Shulchan Aruch we have here a, a note called Ateres Zkenim. So he writes, "V'niro," that if Bitlu Yom Sheini, if on the Monday they missed the reading because of circumstances under beyond their control, then they can make up for it on Tuesday so as not to miss out Taqanos Ezra. And

32:07 Speaker 1 Taqanos Ezra, as discussed in Bava Kamma, is that they should, Shelo Yelechu Shlosha Yomim B'lo Torah. There shouldn't be a lapse of three days without Torah. So even though they missed Monday, but by doing on Tuesday, they will still be fulfilling Taqanos Ezra. Whereas if they missed on, on Thursday, so you got Tuesday, Wednesday, and your Thursday missed. So then they've missed... They've, they've, they've lapsed beyond the Taqanos Ezra, and therefore there is no Taqanah. There's no point in doing a Krias Sefer Torah on, on Friday morning. So this is a... I was very surprised. I wasn't aware of this Shitah. So here is a Shitah which says that you can make up if you missed your minyan on Monday morning. You can miss your Krias Sefer Torah, you could still make up for it on Tuesday morning. Um, having said that, the Mishnah Berurah on this part, in Kuf Lamed He, in Bi'ur Halacha, says that whole idea of if you missed the Krias Sefer Torah, you can make up for it next time, that's only on Shabbos. As you may know that if Miss-- Krias Sefer Torah was missed because they didn't have a Sefer Torah last week, um, so then the next Shabbos, they could do the last week's Kria plus this week. Uh, when, when we were recovering from COVID, this was, uh, a very widespread, uh, uh, discussion. But he says, says Mishnah Berurah, that's only to make up for a missed Shabbos. But a missed... If I missed Monday

33:36 Speaker 1 or Thursday, there's no Tashlumin on the following day. And he quotes Acharonim, lo Ateres Zkenim. So he disagrees with the Psak on, on the margin of the Shulchan Aruch. He disagrees. Who is he referring to, Acharonim? Well, one of the, uh, prominent Acharonim is the Elyah Rabbah. It's a commentary on the Levush. So there he says, uh, he brings Ateres Zkenim. And then he finishes off, "V'nimposkam halah lo yimash mah lehashlim ela bashachris d'Shabbes she'isbatel ceder legamri." If you missed on Shabbos, then you missed out totally. Therefore, there's a compensation, so to speak, a consolation that you'll make up next Shabbos. Ma she'en kezeh nichla bashabbes shachris. But if you missed on Monday, so don't, don't, don't worry too much because on Shabbos, you'll hear this. You'll, you'll hear the pa- the Parsha which you're worried about missing. It will be read on Shabbos morning, and therefore there's no call for compensation for, um, on, on Tuesday morning. So that seems to be the, uh, consensus of later Seforim. Also on the issue-- Other, other Sefarim also disagree with the Ateres Zkenim, and they say you cannot make up on Tuesday for having missed Kria on Monday. Let's move on. So now we have a story about... Just let me just close the window a second. Mind you. So here we have a question about a, when a door was, was, um, blocked. So then there's a quote in Se- it's safe in the Seporas B' Yehuda Hachasid, where he says you should not block

35:29 Speaker 1 a window or a door completely. Shelo yaziku hasheidim. There shouldn't be that the spirits shouldn't feel that you have violated their, their access. Ki darkon los es bo. That's where they had access. Elo yinkov bo neker. You should make a hole. You leave a... You, you ma-- In the blockage, in the blocked doorway or the window, you make a, a hole. Here we have another edition of the Seporas B' Yehuda Hachasid. This is with a commentary called Shivim Temorim, which, if I can remember correctly, was a Talmud of Semach Tsadeq. So he writes the same thing, but then he adds, "Elo yinkov neker katan bo." Make a small hole. Right. So now we... Here we have a letter of the Rebbe, of the Feder Rebbe to Reb Mordechai Avrom Yehoshua Groner. That's Rabbi Label Groner's father. Uh, this is nineteen forty-eight, Taf Shin Ches. Taf Shin Ches, sorry. And apparently, they'd done some repairs to their house, and they'd blocked a window. So he writes that the custom is to leave a hole, katefach v'chetzi. Katefach, uh, one and a half tefachim, uh, which is huge. Yes, it's about, uh, let's say, uh, twelve, uh, twelve centimeters, um, diameter. Yeah. A round hole of, of twelve centimeters. It's quite big. And then he says to put in this hole a metal pipe, and that pipe can be open on both sides. And later you can put lids on the pipe on either end, and then you can put on a, you can put a plaster

37:17 Speaker 1 over that. So this is, this is, uh, so th-th-this idea of having a pipe is mentioned in many, many places. I think also the Rebbe Rashab. But this is the only place I could have seen he mentions about it being one and a half tefachim, um, which I find very surprising. And also, when he talks about putting a pipe, it's quite a very, you know, quite a large pipe to put in. Uh, a metal pipe which is one and a half tefachim, uh, diameter. Meanwhile, with taking this... Now, um, when in seven seventy, the, there's a small shul upstairs, yeah? A small zal. And there's a cheder sheini. And around, around תשל"ו-תשלא, there was some significant, uh, uh, work done, and they put in booksh-bookshelves, boo- um, bookcases on the inside of the small room, of the cheder sheini. And they put up, uh, this... There's the window between the two rooms. A window like, um, about, let's say, okay, it's, uh, about four foot wide and three foot high, and that window was blocked. Now, when the Rebbe came in, he saw that they'd done this, and he commented to, to Chaim Boruch Halberstam, who was inspo-responsible for the works, that they should make a hole. And although that was really made in a way that was removable, because when it came Erev Yom Kippur, all of those bookcases were taken out, and the, the, the blockage, the, uh, of that window was taken away so that the bochurim could also be in the

38:59 Speaker 1 cheder sheini and be able to see the Rebbe for the bracha just before Kadidrit. But nevertheless, the Rebbe wanted it to be... And the Rebbe said to make a small hole, which is interesting. And one suggestion is that some poskim say that this need to make a, uh, a, a hole is only when you've demolished, a hole remains. Now there's no, no architrave, no, no door frame. You've taken away, mamash made it into a wall. But if you've still kept the original frame, then you'd, you, you wouldn't need to make a hole. So possibly the Rebbe was relying on that, that because it wasn't really a total blockage, uh, of that, of that, uh, window, therefore it's enough to have a small hole. But let's come back to the what's the cheshbon of... Here, the letter of the Rebbe, of the Rebbe, of one and a half tefachim. What's the reason for the size of one and a half tefachim? So what I want to suggest is, we have a halacha about oyal hatumah. And if there's a meise in one room and a kohen wants to go into the other room, and the two rooms are adjacent to one another, if there is a window between the two rooms, which is the size of a tefach altefach, so then that connects the two rooms, and therefore the kohen couldn't come into the other room because of the window which is tefach altefach. So what we're seeing here is that tefach altefach serves to connect

40:28 Speaker 1 two premises into become as into, as a one room. The later Rav Ashkenazi, uh, alav hashalom, he came up with this similar explanation about the mikveh, the Rebbe Rashab's style of building a mikveh, bayer al bayer. So in order to connect two mikvehs, the rainwater with the, with the, with the, uh, regular water, normally the requirement is what's called k'shrei peres hano'id. K'shrei peres hano'id may be like two fingers. Two inches is, is more than enough according to this. And the Rebbe Rashab said it should be a tefach by tefach square. So why is it such a large hole? So there is another shiur of k'motz l'remen, that some say therefore to connect it shouldn't be, uh, shouldn't... That the shuvin should become kosher, it has to k'motz l'remen. But why does it have to be square? So Rav Ashkenazi came up with this idea. Perhaps he got it from someone else, but he, he wrote about this, that you want that the lower mikveh and the upper mikveh should become like one entity. It's not as if it's to connect two, uh, two separate bodies that are just touching. It's like one, one, one, uh, chamber. And by having a tefach altefach square, uh, so then it's, it becomes like one chamber. Now, if you have something, the, a square which is one by one, so the diameter will be one point four. So one point four is, if you talk about a, a, a, a circle which is one and a half across,

42:01 Speaker 1 it's just that little bit bigger than one point four across. Um, so possibly the reason for the tefach, um, the o-one and a half tefach diam-di-di- I mean, uh, diameter circle is so that it should be a tefach altefach. That's just... I'm offering a theory. Uh, um, if someone has a better explanation, I'm happy to hear. Um, you could also demolish this and say, if it's important to be a tefach altefach, why did he say it should be a circle? And one and a half, why doesn't he say to make it a square which is one by one? So I don't know the answer to that. I'm just, um, um, giving this suggestion. If someone... As I say, I'm happy to hear, uh, other explanations. Let's move on. So here, this past week, I got a, a question from a shliach that he has a young man who had become a baal teshuva, is putting on tefillin every day, and he ha- he has, he has, uh, tattoos. He had tattoos on his upper arm, and there's no obligation to remove a tattoo. It's isur derabanan to make a tattoo, but to remove it is not an obligation. But he was, I guess, self-conscious, and he went through a procedure to remove the tattoo. So now his question is- Should he put the tefillin on top of the... After the procedure till it heals, he has this bandage over his arm. Does he put tefillin on the, on top of the bandage as in the

43:30 Speaker 1 picture, or should he put tefillin on the other arm, et cetera? So this is int-very interesting, um, discussion here. Now, there is a Rashba which is brought in Siman Chof Zayin about a person who's suffering. He gets... catches colds very easily. So he talks about putting his tefillin on top of a thin yarmulke. He has a kipa dark, and he puts the yarmulke on- and he puts the tefillin on top of the yarmulke, then the... It's, he can feel the tefillin. I remember exactly the words are, um, and that then he could make a bracha even. A thicker, uh, a thicker cap, which the feeling of the tefillin wouldn't come through, that you wouldn't, wouldn't be valid. So what's the story about this shaliach? Does, does the Hetter of the Rashba, who says you can be yotzet tefillin through a thin yarmulke, does that apply to the shaliach also? So now you all know that the Kohen Gadol, we've discussed this some weeks ago, it says there was a space between the tzitz and, um, uh, uh, between the, between the tzitz and the mitznefes. Between the turban, there was a space for the tefillin. So the Kohen Gadol wore tefillin shel rosh. He didn't wear tefillin shel yad. Why is that not okay? Why not? Because the tefillin would be serving as an interruption between the ski-skin and the garments. You can't wear tefillin shel yad. There's also here, there's a lotion, um, about a person wearing tefillin al bas unkali. You should not

45:06 Speaker 1 have to wear tefillin on your sleeve because it says, l'chalah ois. So there's some... So there seems to be some greater objection to wearing tefillin on the, uh, the arm, the hand tefillin on the sleeve t-in comparison to the shel rosh. Now let's read the Alter Rebbe a bit more carefully. He says if a person... The earlier sefarim he's been talking about the person who's got a problem with, uh, his, uh, catching cold and wearing a, a thin cap on his head under the tefillin. Then he talks about tefillin shel yad. He's got a wound there. He should still put on the tefillin there, um, because the space. But if, let's say, the, the, the wound is so large it covers the whole area of the tefillin, so then, okay, then it's patur. It's interesting, yeah. It's very, very interesting that a person mitztre'a, it's not saying he's sakonus nefashah, he's mitztre'a. He's mitztre'a is, is also going to be exempt of, of wearing the tefillin. Right. Then he says, "But if possible, put some bandages on the wound and put the tefillin on top of them, b'lo bracha." And then he says, "Rak sheyizoher l'chases ses ha tefillin shel yad shelo tehe nireh." It says, "L'chalah ois, um, l'chalah lo lacher b'ois." So let's read this carefully. Even if you'd say that the tefillin are valid if they are on a sleeve, but it has to be covered because it says in posuk, "L'chalah ois." And from this we learn that it mustn't be

46:39 Speaker 1 on the sleeve. All right. If there is a sleeve, but then it's going to be covered, then it's still considered l'chalah ois because you covered it. The other should not see. So now one of the meforshim here says, "Why did the Kohanim, why did the..." Oh, here. It's, uh, it's the Magen Avraham. "Why did the Kohanim not wear tefillin on their sleeves? If you say it's valid, so then they should have put the, the tefillin on their sleeves." The answer is, because if you wear tefillin on the sleeve, you're machov to cover it because of l'chalah ois. They can't cover it because they, if they cover it, that's an extra garment. They're only allowed to wear the four garments. Be... So th-that's why the Kohanim could not wear tefillin on the sleeve. But here, if a per- if a, if a regular person has to wear tefillin on a, on a thin sleeve, then he'd be obliged to cover it up. Well, that's all according to the Rashba, that, that it's still valid. Others would say that it's not valid. It has to be directly on the, on the skin. Therefore, what the advice which I said in, in conclusion is that this fellow should put on the tefillin on the bandage, but not say a bracha until he puts on the shel rosh. And he will say the bracha al mitzvas tefillin, and he'll have in mind for the shel yad also, if there's a chiyuv to put on, if he's become mekayem a

47:57 Speaker 1 mitzvah, so the bracha al mitzvas tefillin will cover the shel yad. Which, by the way, I think is an important point. Very of-often you're mitzvah him, you come to a person, the shomer, they're not ready to un-to unroll their sleeves. But, uh, shel yad, shel rosh, shel rosh they'll, they'll, they'll agree with, but not to do a shel yad. What bracha do you do then? The answer is the bracha would be al mitzvas tefillin. Person per- only wearing a shel rosh would be al mitzvas tefillin. In this case, we don't know whether he's mekayem the mitzvah of the shel yad. Shel rosh is mekayem. So make, make the bracha al, al mitzvas tefillin. Um, Rabbi Pinchas is commenting that a tefach plus s-hole in the floor of a mikveh could be quite dangerous. Yes, and that's why it's normally done. One way of doing it is, uh, many, many... done many mikvehs with Rav Gershon Grossbaum, and he does the hashacha under the stairs. So there's the manhole where there is the entry to the lower bar is under the stairs, and therefore you have the hashacha over there, and that's, that's safe. Usually, or, you know, even if otherwise it's done very, very much at the corner in a way that it should, should be safe from people, um, stepping into the hole. Let's move on. So here's someone, one of our listeners, listens to the recordings, and he was traveling and he's asking, he has to leave the house, um, before sunrise. And

49:27 Speaker 1 so he has the option of davening at the airport or davening at home before, before leaving, but it will be before sunrise. So unfortunately, many of, uh, many people have, during winter, they have to daven before sunrise. But he's pr- obviously normally con- con, um, conscientious about this. But here we have the She'elas Ya'avetz, Siman, uh, I think it's Siman Peh Tes. But he said, "VeSha'as Hakak that Kongoy Sh'tor L'hakim Los Zladerech." Whether, whether on foot or whether with a, a carriage or a, a boat, and they're not gonna wait for you. So then, um, so then he says, "Yochal Mispal Mishe'ol Amud Hashachar." He can daven Shemoneh Esreh from Alot Hashachar. Kodim says so. So if it's before tzarich, you can daven Shemoneh Esreh from b- b- before sunrise, and that's be preferable than davening, obviously davening, than davening in the airport. He asked me about davening in one of these prayer rooms, and I'm not really keen about those. Uh, you never know who you're, who you're gonna end, end up next to you praying to whoever. Uh, they could daven anywhere in the airport and find a q- quiet corner. But certainly davening at home would be more yeshivah dah and therefore preferable, even though it's going to be, um, earlier than you'd normally daven. We also discussed that he would daven until after Yishtabach without Talison's filin, and then between Yishtabach and Yoetzar, there he'd stop and put on his Talison's filin with a bracha. And he asked me, "What about

51:06 Speaker 1 saying the bracha, the psukim of Borchi Nafshi and Mayochor?" And I felt that wasn't really a problem, just like we, during a Seudat Mitzvah, we say, uh, She'amalz Mimamachim after Yishtabach before Yoetzar. So these are psukim, and I didn't think it was really such a concern. You'll have to be mafsik there, ledvar mitzvah. And therefore, to say those psukim, which are said normally with a tifa tzefilum, I felt was justified. Let's move on. Um, we did have a discussion some time ago about a father being sandek twice, or a grandfather being sandek twice. Whilst I was doing some research for about the mikveh story, so, um, about the tefach hatefach, which I mentioned just, uh, when we were talking about the hole in the wall. So, uh, I remember that this is in the Sefer from Rabbi Plotkin. There's a Sefer called Biruri Halochas. Rabbi Plotkin, as I said about him earlier, he was a very, uh, great Talmud Chacham. He's, at the back of his Sefer, he's got a Kuntres on Mikvaos. I read it. I was really amazed how he managed to put together such a, his, his, his wealth of references in communist Russia. How he had access to all of these dozens and dozens of Seforim and to know them. It's, I was really amazed with what, what he's put together. Meanwhile, he says, um, I, I saw he has, uh, quite a few comments about Sefas Emunah Chassid, and he talks about a father being a sandek twice. Where he

52:35 Speaker 1 says, so according to various reasons, uh, it's not such a p- issue. But according to, uh, nevertheless, he quotes from Chasam Sofer that it's, the minhag is that even for oneself, one wouldn't be sandek for, for two children, uh, for two sons. Um, yeah. One last thing is that last week, we spoke about the brick being used as a doorstopper, and the main focus of the discussion was about whether the brick is mukza, and whether you'd have to be miyachedet le'olam, or if it would be even miyucha just for the one Shabbos. What I did not address clearly was that the brick was obviously outside. People, a couple of people asked, "How can you take the brick from inside to the outside? It's, it's, uh, taking out from reshut ha'yerach," which, um, is absolutely right. And my understanding of the question was those bricks are on the side of the house, outside on, on the street. Um, and that was the question. All right, I'll stop with that. I wish you a good night, and, uh, thank you for joining us. And, uh, I wish you all a ksiva v'chasima tovah l'shana tovah u'mesuka.