דברים תשפ״ג

00:05 Good evening to you all. Welcome to the shiur for tonight, Sunday of Parshas Devarim. And before we start the shiur, the Rebbe encouraged, "Siyum HaMishpat Tipade Veshaveh Hamitzdakah." It's a time where we're thinking, we're thinking about Yerushalayim and the rebuilding through Moshiach Tzidkeinu. And so, the Rebbe encouraged Siyum, the Yerushalayim, Beis Hamikdash. The Mishpat Tipade, through increase in Mishpat and learning Torah, particularly Halakha, Tipade will be redeemed, Veshaveh, and the captives thereof, Mitzdakah will be redeemed through Tzdakah. And therefore, the Rebbe encouraged to en- learn extra during this time and to a-add in Tzdakah. So I'm gonna start off the shiur by putting a bit of extra Tzdakah. And if you can, on screen, off screen, but just to, uh, Hasafa and Tzdakah, and then we'll go and start our shiur. Okay. So starting off... Well, that's just an advertisement. And now, one of our listeners asked me for some clarity about the Inyon of Payos. What are the areas, what's the area of the Payos, et cetera. So we have here, this is from Shulchan Aruch. You can see on the top left. Let's read that carefully. Shiur Hape'ah. What is the amount which is, uh, meant to be left as unshorn? B'koneges sar she'al pedachto, from parallel to the hair on the forehead or above the forehead. V'ad lemata min ha'ozen, to just lower than the ear. Makom shel lechi hatachton yotzim misparet sham, where the lower jaw starts, uh, coming separate from there. V'chol rechav makom ze, all this area, this whole

02:03 width, lo tigah be'yad, should be left untouched. Now, as I'm sure everyone has the same feeling, if you put your, your finger just parallel to your, your ear hole, you'll feel that there's a bone there, and that's where your jaw separates from, I guess, the more, uh, rigid part of the sk- the, uh, skull. And so that's the, that's the bottom, that's the bottom line of the Payot. That, the, just where the jaw separates. That's where he talks about here. Lechi hatachton is separating from. The top is from parallel to the hairline. So he's, really, he's just drawn a, shall we say, a, a vertical or a diagonal line, and that's the Payot. Now, where would you find the Dinim of Payos in Rambam? So this is interesting. The Rambam has it in the Dinim of Avodah Zarah. And he ex- he explains that the monks, the, whatever they would be called, the, the clergy, m- you know, of Avodah Zarah would have a idea of having a round line from the forehead down to the, to the line of the ear. There's no hair immediately above your ear. And they would want to make, have a straight line. It should be all the way around, um, a straight line. What it, what, uh, uh, what i- i- interferes with this line is the corner here, which is sticking out. So the priests of, of Avodah Zarah would make a point of cutting off that, that piece so that there should be a straight line

03:45 from the hairline of the forehead down to the hairline above the ear and going to the, to the back. So this is how the Rambam sees it, and he, as, the, also in Moreh Nevuchim, he does, he does go through n- a numerous mitzvahs to say how they are, they are in place to negate practices of Avodah Zarah. Others disagree to say that, "What? The Torah is dictated by what Avodah Zarah, what, you know, what, what the goyim were doing?" But that's, that's the, that's the view of the Rambam, and y- that's where it is in Hilchas, in Hilchas Avodah Zarah. Fine. So that explains. So what we're seeing, let's see, on the upper... These drawings which you have on the, uh, on the screen, these are from the Sefer Nittei Gavriel. He's got a volume about Oppshir. And so this is, uh, actually at the back of the volume, he's got some diagrams to explain the, the shiur of Payos. So can you see here? There's one idea that it goes down till in front of the ear, and there's another idea that it goes b- to the middle of the ear where you, where, you know, where, um, where, as I said before, above the ear there is, uh, immediately above the ear, there no hair. So that's basically more a diagonal. That, that strip, that ag- diagonal, that di- triangular area would be the area of the Payos. There is something from the Arizal which seems to be a little bit more

05:11 expansive. Now, the Payos go up, go-- become, I think, more square-ish. We'll see that in a moment here. So this is what we have on the left of the screen. We have a quote from Likutey Torah of the Arizal, not to be confused with Likutey Torah from the Alter Rebbe. So he talks about the, this is, um, Parshas Kedoshim, I believe. Talks about the Pa- aas Haroish Lehead She'ochon. So first of all, about the aas haroish, the Payot of the head. So my fa- my Rebbe, as in the Arizal, would relieve the width of the tznoim of the temples, Shehu chol sar sheyesh min ha'ozen ad shlish hametzach. The, uh, hair from the ear until a third of the forehead. Shehu chelek sheyesh be roish mishtenei tsidodei ha-moya- ha'moach, which is on the head on both sides of the brain. From Masukim time. So way I understand this, although it's not very clear, the way I understand this, and perhaps I've seen this somewhere, that you've got the front and the two sides. So this is a three-thirds of your, the front of your head. And so you've got the, the forehead in between, and you've got either side. Those are-- that's the shlish hametzach. And then th- that area would be, would be designated as payos. So he seems to be saying that if you take the ear, imagine the ear was be- would go up higher. The way I understand it, it's not the way it's drawn on these pictures. I understand it's

06:54 more like a square, that you have the hairline being parallel, being, you know, like how you say, a la- a lateral line, and then you'd make a vertical line as if the ear had gone up, and therefore you create a kind of square over there. And that would be... So a- again, so the basic halacha according to the Rambam would be just a triangle, and the Arizal adds a bit more, more, more like, more like squarish. That's the way I understand the, what the Arizal's saying. Now, two little stories. One is that, that... Well, here's a question. Is it imperative that when you have a haircut that the payos should be a little bit longer than the rest of the hair? Now, the Polish Hasidim, and also Chabad Hasidim of old, would, would have a haircut with a zero or a very short haircut. I'm-- I'd just like to tell you that actually when I was in Russia, um, you saw is the-- it was very common, lahavdil, the goyim also to have very short haircuts. If you think about it, it's cheaper, um, because, you know. So Hasidim would have very sh- would, would have short haircuts, and so therefore of course the payos are longer. The Polish minhag is to have longer payos. Now, you have the loshon of the Bes-- of the Shechinach. Lo tiga beyad. It shouldn't be touched at all. That could be the basis of the minhag of not touching the payos at all, leaving them grow. Then you've

08:30 got the Hungarian minhag more to have payos up until as long as the, uh, chin. That's all right. Um, but then what happens if you're not having a zero haircut? You're having a, uh, a number four or something. So is it important for the payos to be a little bit longer? So I didn't see that by the Rebbe it was visibly any longer. It loo- it looked like, uh, all the same. So I haven't seen it that there's, uh, any he... I, I, I can relate to it. And personally, I do make a point of having my payos a little bit longer when I have a haircut, but I didn't see it by the Rebbe. What I heard, t- two, two little stories. One is about Reb Mottel Kazrlina. Reb Mottel Kazrlina, so a very Hasidic shiur. His father was known as Chaim Zalman. So his code name in Russia was Chazak, Chaim Zalman Kazrlina, so became Chazak. So, uh, he was an active member of, of the Hasidim and the, and, uh, as with many Hasidim, he was arrested and taken and, and, uh, and sent to, uh, Siberia or wherever it was. Baruch Hashem, he came back alive, and he-- I, I remem- I remember seeing him in, in Nachlaot Chabad about 40 years ago. But whilst he was taken away, so Mottel is left, a young boy, six years old, whatever, with his mother, and he needed a haircut. So she was very frightened of the, being seen as being, uh, obviously

10:12 of, uh, keeping Yiddishkeit. So she let the barber give him a regular, uh, clo- a very close cut, uh, uh, haircut, like a zero, like, uh, like as I said, was common in Russia. Reb Ben Zion Shemtov happened to be in the same town, and he sees his friend's son. He says, he knows Chazak is in, is, been, uh, in jai- in jail. He sees his little boy, and he's got no payos. He was very, very upset that he's, he's, he's been given a haircut like a goy. So Reb Ben Zion called over the boy, and he got ahold of a, a, like a, a las- a, a, a razor. Like, uh, in Russia, they called it britva. And he, he made a, around the payos, he cut... Like, you know, you have zero and you have triple zero. So he made around the payos, he cut it so, so short that the payos were visible. And in that way, he ensured that this boy would re- had payos. Years later, Mottel remembered this, and it gave him, uh... There was times where there was a lot of pressure on the, uh, to remove their beards. A bochurim in Russia was a very big nesoin, and he was under great pressure to remove his beard from, from Lubavitcher because they said it was just, just, it was jeopardizing the safety of everyone. And he resisted that to a, a great degree, and his inspiration was this story with Reb Mendel when he was a little

11:39 boy. With Reb Ben Zion, sorry. So that's one story. The other story is, which I heard, I don't remember now from whom, but there was a, a bochur in Montreal, Lubavitch Yeshiva. It's probably 60 years ago, perhaps more. And he was niskari. He was not from Chabad home. He was from a Mitelsher home. And he had succe- joined the yeshiva. He was happy. But he... So then the bochurim, some bochurim- Try to give him the pressure that he has to have a zero haircut. To be a chassidishe bocher, you have to have a zero haircut. He was not inclined that way, and so he didn't, uh, he, he resisted this pressure, and he said, "I'll be by the Rebbe. I'll go into Yechiva. We'll never go into Yeshiva. He'll ask the Rebbe if it really, is that imperative to be a chassidishe bocher to have to have a zero haircut." So he went in and he asked the Rebbe, and the Rebbe said, "From the Rebbe, the Mishmer, haba dos nisht gehort." Now, this, that you have to have a zero haircut, he doesn't have a, a mesorah, that it has to be this way. "But dos yo. Az dos un dos zol zayn dizelbezach." That the length of hair right a- above the forehead and the length of hair at the back of the neck, above the neck, just should be the same length. Uh, not, not to leave a longer, uh, you know, a fringe, a, a chupe. That, the Rebbe said, "That,

13:07 that, that is im- that's important." That was important for the Rebbe. So those are two little stories about payos. Let's move on. Right. So someone's asking the following. He's finished the Shabbos meal, and he's got now a soup, and he's got chicken pieces in the, in the, in the, uh, soup, and he wants to separate them, to put the chicken in one container and put the soup in another container. One has to go in the fridge, one has to go in the freezer, whatever it may be. Um, so they, for some Gashmius diker reason, he ha- he would prefer to separate them. So does that come under the isur of boere? It's actually, it's just interesting. Yesterday, we were learning a Maimon between Mincha and, and, and Ma'ariv, Shalshedes time, and Rav Naftali Lowenthal was teaching the Maimon. We were talking about boere is only bad from good or good from bad. What about good from good? So the, so in the Maimon, it looks like good from good is not a problem of boere. But generally, the Psak Halacha is followed, that sorting out good from good is also comes into boere. So in other words, to, if you've got now, I don't know, let's say you've got potatoes and meat and they're mixed up, and you want to put the potatoes here and the, and the meat there. Not for now. If it's for immediate use, that's okay. But if you want to sort them out and put this in the fridge in

14:38 the meat container and this in the me- in the fridge in the potato container, that wouldn't be allowed, um, under, under the rules of boere. So s- the word for sorting in modern Hebrew is miyun. So sorting would also come under the isur of boere, sorting for delayed use, not for immediate use. So here's the question. You want to put the remains of the soup or the cholent or the pa- put it into the, into the fridge, and you want to separate the different elements of it. So are you allowed to or not? That's really the question. So now let's, let's read from the Sefer Tahara, sorry, Shabbos Kehalacha from Rav Forchheim. So his second volume is mostly about boere. So he says like this. You've got solid pieces in a liquid. If these are large pieces which are very noticeable in the mixture, for let's say, an egg in water, or a piece of meat, or a piece of chicken, or pota- a big, a baked potato in a m- soup, or you have fish balls in juice, in whatever, fish juice, or if you have a bag of rice, and that's inside the cholent, but they are, they, they, they, the rice is kept separate because it's in this bag. So that's not called taaroves. That's not called a jumbled state. And because it's, there's no jumble here, there's no confused state, therefore, to take them out would not be an isur of boere. And so even though you have no, no need

16:15 for them now, it's for later. So therefore, if you ask the question, can I take, pick out a chunk of chicken, one mass of chicken, from a soup, and to put the chicken in one pot, one container, and put the soup in the other container, the answer is yes. Uh, you are allowed to. If it's a little bit more confused, though. Now, let's say more, it gets into more, more details. Let's say it was pota- um, a soup, and there's vegetables and chicken. And if it's, if the vegetables and the chicken are mixed up with one another, then to separate them, that would not be okay, because they are in a fused, confused state, and therefore to separate them would have been under isur of boere. Um, similarly, once you're talking about, let's say, a cholent, which is thicker and bigger pieces, this is, this is where it becomes more, uh, complex. If there is a confused state, then, if they're mixed up, and they are kind of one's encroaching from the other, then to start separating them would be subject to the rules of boere, and therefore you could only use, do so for immediate use to take the one which you desire for immediate use, but you wouldn't be allowed to separate them for delayed use. Let's move on to the next question, a totally different field. And here's a story about someone who is called on, called upon to testify, but not in a bet din, but in some kind of tribunal.

17:53 Let's say, it could be, uh, in a school about a teacher, could be. And they have information. Of course, testifying is also, could be, you know, if you testified in a negative for someone, so you're in their bad books. And all, most of us like to be friendly or be, perceive that we are friendly with everyone. So it's not, not so keen to testify. So there is in the Torah, it says, "If you don't testify, then you're bearing a sin." Now, does that mitzvah or say, is that only if it's in a beis din or even in another forum where your testimony will make the difference for the defendant or for the, for the plaintiff? Doesn't matter. So what we have here is, on the screen, is from the in Choshen Mishpat. That's the beginning, near the beginning of the laws of Edus. And this piece is from the Ketzos HaChoshen. Ketzos HaChoshen is like a commentary on the Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat, very popular in the yeshivas, but this is a fairly simple piece. Now, he, he writes the following comment. "Sometimes dayanim will say..." Let's say, very often the case where you've got two litigants, and the only people who can testify, who know anything about it are, are people who are r- relatives, et cetera. And so they're disqualified to be witnesses. But it, nevertheless, the p- two parties, the two litigants, either of them could say, "Although you are halacha, invalid to be a witness, I'll accept your witness in any

19:47 case." So in other words, the one who's, stands to lose from this can say, "You know what? I want to sort this out, and I will accept your witness, even though in halacha your witness is not valid in our case. But I'm, I'm, I'm happy to accept you as, as a valid witness." So says the Ketzos the following. Sometimes it says, "When the baalei dinim, when the litigants, will accept a karev, a rela- relative, or someone who is otherwise possibly aids. And then the dayanim will sometimes turn to the witnesses and say something about . If you don't say, if you withhold witness, then you are bearing a sin of withho- well, withholding witness." And they say, "Since the litigants have accepted their, their testimony, so therefore they are considered aidim. And hence, if they withhold witness, then they are guilty of, you know, of, of, of ." To which the Ketzos says that's inaccurate. Because since l'halacha, they do not qualify as aid. And it says, he quotes here, "Shalmi. If someone will say, 'All right. I know I need to have two witnesses, but I will accept your witness as if you were two people,' does that mean he has now chiyuv to come and testify?" So he says, so Shalmi says, "No." So although he's artificially given the status of aidim, of kosher aidis, but he's not con... It's, it's, it's artificial. He's not re- a real aid, and therefore, the Tal- Gemara says he's not, he's not liable of lo yageid

21:34 venosav. So the basic point of the Ketzos here is that witnesses who are not valid are only artificially valid, um, by consent rather than objectively. They are not considered aidis of lo yageid venosav. So by the same token, if you are called into a tribunal of, to testify in a tribunal, that's not a beis din. Therefore, you don't really have the, the, uh, the s- the... How do you say? Th- this idea that if you don't te- tell, sa- say witness, you are, are violating lo yageid venosav. That's not true. Not true. Nevertheless, mi hu. However, he concludes. True, as in the avereh of withholding witness, he is not liable, not punishable. There still is a mitzvah to testify. There, there was obviously a court case. Uh, there's a tribunal because someone is standing to lose something which they're entitled to, or they perceive they're entitled to. And if your witness is going to either give them what they are entitled to or save them from being, uh, taken advantage of when, when they shouldn't be taken advantage of. So you are, by your testifying, it's hashavas aveida. You're returning a lost object to them. And therefore, there is a mitzvah, not under the title of lo yageid venosav, you know, but under just generally, if it's the idea that the person stands to lose without you, your coming forward, then you have a mitzvah to come forward. Let's move on. Let's move on. Okay. May children play, play with Play-Doh or plasticine on Shabbos?

23:45 Of course, the question is also for adults, but, um, the likelihood is the more that children might be tempted. So actually, it's just came up with what we were learning yesterday in Shulchan Aruch. Learning Siman Shin Yud Daled. It's a bit, uh, unexpected to be there. Shin Yud Daled is more talking about building with calim, but it comes up there about using a wax to fill in a hole. So it says one of the things about not using wax to fill a hole would be because of a m'mare'ach, of smoothing a surface. Therefore, he says, "One who spreads, who s- who smooths wax or, uh, fat, uh, to smooth, and smooths the surface," and therefore, they... It, it, it comes under the heading of m'mare'ach, of smoothing a surface. One of the lamed heh tet lamed hehs. And then he adds, "Included in this is playing with dough or clay or plastiline." Well, that's become f- the, that's the Hebrew version of plasticine. Uh, plastiline. Right. So then, what he's saying here is that, that making something out of a flexible, um, you know, material like, like plasticine or like clay would c- would come under m'mare'ach, on smoothing a surface. Okay. And then he says, he, um, if they would make shape with, with, it, it comes under another isur of mochek, et cetera, or kosip. But meanwhile, that's, that's the, uh, that's the standard psak. That making something out of, out of, uh, clay, et cetera, it would mean, it us- usually means

25:30 smoothing the surface, and therefore it comes under the din of memachak. Let's move on. Could blu- very good question. Could Blu Tack be used to fill a hole? Absolutely not. You wouldn't be allowed to put on Blu Tack on a hole, uh, on Shabbos because you're kind of, you're fixing up the building. Uh, you can do better ways, but, yeah, even, even that's not allowed on Shabbos, yeah. Right. Another totally unrelated thing is about names. Let's see. Do you mind? Two windows. Okay. Oh, because you're not tired of making noises. No, it's not. It's not very important. That's a good one. Okay. So Rabbi Yehuda HaChasid lives about 700 years ago, a bit more, and we have from him, we've gone through this several times, we have various new, uh, things which he advises and to keep away from, and they're known as Sevorot of Yehuda HaChasid. So what's very well known when it comes to shidduchim, not to have a mother-in-law and daughter-in-law sharing the same name, not to have a father-in-law and a son-in-law sharing the same name. Yehuda HaChasid goes one step further. That, that's also from Yehuda HaChasid, by the way. But then he says another thing. If you've got two men who share the same name, they should not make a shidduch of their children together. So you've got Yosef Yitzchak and Yosef Yitzchak should not make a shidduch of their predictably Mosheki and Mendel. Some say that this is only applicable to mechutanim for the male, uh, mechutanim. That

27:31 doesn't apply to mechutanos. Um, now, here we have a letter of the Rebbe. Now, this is in, uh, this is in the volume, um, Heichal Menachem, v- Volume Six. And it's the end of a letter, and there was-- It looks like there was an elder sister who's also, you know, um, waiting for to get married and there was-- I, my impression was, is the Rebbe had a certain, uh, apprehension about this shidduch. So he writes, "If the older sister has already co- gotten her shidduch, or she is mochel, at least she's mochel wholeheartedly, she forgives you to go ahead. Then in addition, then it should be one of the mothers should add a name. Because I read, I read in your letter that the name of the mother of the girl and the name of your mother is the same name." So here the Rebbe has kind of invoked this word of Rabbi Yehuda HaChasid. That two mothers of, mother of a chasid and mother, uh, uh, and mother of a kala, if their names are identical, that's an issue. Now, b'klal, in this whole area of names ma- of matching names, if one is called, let's say, Arye Leib, and the other one is called, uh, uh, Arye Ze'ev. So we don't, we don't make a worry, we don't worry about that because they're not identical. If one's called Chaya, the other one's called Chaya Mushka, we're not worried about that. Because they, they, because if one's got two names or they've both got

29:13 t- a second name and they're not identical, that's okay. When Reb Moshe Lander, alav ha-shalom, made the shidduch with the, his son, with the daughter of Reb Moshe Katznielbogen, he was concerned about this and he asked the Rebbe. And the Rebbe told him not to worry because here Moshe Lander has another name. It may... His name was Moshe Yehuda Leib. But he wanted to have the Rebbe's, uh, you know, okay. But meanwhile, we're seeing here that the Rebbe, in this letter, does seem to be concerned about the two mothers having the identical name. And that seems to, so although this sefer here, Ziv HaShemes, mentions that some say that with mechutanis- mechutanotis, it's not a problem. The Rebbe does raise it as an issue. But as I say... All right, so let's read a further note in that volume of Heichal Menach- of Shulchan Menachem. That that's not necessarily a, a proof to be makmir indiscriminately. It could be here was a special case. There were other details involved, and possibly because of this, there's apprehension to delay the, uh, the shidduch transpiring. And that's why perhaps the Rebbe was invoking this, this, this inyun. I actually, you know, it's, this is something which can be researched. In Chassidische circles, there's so many people who have the same name because they give names of Rebbes and Rebbetzins. My mother was named after the Rebbetzin of the Rebbe, Rebbe Maharash, et cetera. And then she, you know, it's, it's not so far-fetched that you have two,

30:54 two mechutonim, mechutanotis who later have the same name. And did the Rebbe ever- Not okay. Now, we always used to ask the Rebbe, "Has come for a shidduch?" So, you know, Baruch Hashem, there were thousands of shidduchim happening in, in, in Anash. Did the Rebbe ever... I ne- I don't know. Did the Rebbe ever say not to do a shidduch because the mechutanim or the mechutanis- mechutanistas have the same name? I don't know that, that information, but I'm sure it can be, um, you know, with a bit more re- you know, research can be found out. One other thing is, I just saw, and we'll perhaps come back to that later, there is a svara, there is an opinion, that the savuos of Yehuda Hosid was only for his descendants, and even amongst his descendants, that it's only for a particular amount of years or generations. And there was once a meeting, perhaps in Austria, going back about 400 years ago, and this was discussed. And the Maharsha, and Maharsha was, his name is Shmuel Adels. His name is Shmuel Adels. That Adels is his mother-in-law. She supported him. So he was known as Shmuel Adels. But he stood up and he says, "In the savuos of Yehudah Hosid, it says not to give the name Yehudah or Shmuel. I happen to be a descendant, direct descendant from Rabbi Yehudah Hosid. My name is Shmuel, my father's name is Yehudah. I rest my case that it was not appli- it was not to be applied,

32:34 um, you know, indefinitely." So there is room to say that the savuos of Yehudah Hosid, or at least some of them, were not made for, for indefinitely. And so there's, there's, there's room to be mekabel. And that's why I'm, I'm intrigued to know whether this is actually, uh, something which... I, I once actually sp- asked Rabbi Hiller about this, and he dismissed it. I didn't ask him on what grounds he dismissed it. But possibly he was aware that in Ana- in Anash families, it's, it's, people do make shidduchim, even though there are the same names in, in, uh, amongst the mechutanim and mechutanistas. So, t- I'm, I'm putting it out there, and perhaps we'll get some feedback from some of our listeners now or later. Let's move on. So one of, uh, a young, a talmid chacham, a friend of mine, he lives in, uh, somewhere in the, in the States, and they're doing a, a launch of a, a, how you say, a drive to raise money for a communal Sefer Torah. And they write that whoever participates in writing this, uh, this, in, in, in the costs, is fulfilling the mitzvah of You're doing the mitzvah of writing a Sefer Torah. Now, so he has a problem with the advertisement because the, to fulfill the mitzvah of writing a Sefer Torah, you have to do the whole Sefer Torah yourself. If you bring in other partners, so then you haven't done the mitzvah of . You're not, you're not- So he felt that

34:12 this, this, uh, advertisement was misgu- mis- uh, misleading. So I shared with him, there's a fascinating sikha of the Rebbe, and if you can see, it's in volume chaf daled. And the Rebbe talks about this mitzvah, and he talks about the fact that it's not, that, that it's not common for people to write their own Sefer Torah. It's very much a minority. And why doesn't everyone, uh, people sometimes when they, when they're older or whatever, but why do, do, why doesn't everyone write their own Sefer Torah? So there is a famous, um, um, uh, approach of the Rosh who says that the mitzvah of writing a Sefer Torah is in order to learn. And therefore, the Rosh says that nowadays it's Gemaras, Chumashim, Seforim, which he, of course, he didn't say Shulchan Aruch because it was before the Shulchan Aruch. But he says Chum- Seforim, which are learned, that's how you'll fulfill the mitzvah of, of Fine. So taking that step, or that one step further, what, uh, in which way do we use a Sefer Torah for learning? We don't use a Sefer Torah for learning Chumash. We don't use it even for our siddur, most of us. So when do we use a Sefer Torah for learning? Aliyot Torah. We have Krias HaTorah. That's when we learn from the Sefer Torah. The Rebbe makes the parallel to the minhag in Europe, where there was, uh, it was difficult to get an hasteret for everyone, so there would be a communal hasteret. I, the

35:55 hasteret, has to be yours. So the understanding is that there's a community buying a hasteret, and each time each one picks up the hasteret, for that minute, for that, those 30 seconds, the hasteret is his. It says, "Mikah, the mitzvah of" The minute, that, for that minute, it's his. So the Rebbe is using a similar idea for the Sefer Torah. There's a mitzvah of writing a Sefer Torah in order for you to learn. Well, when you are learning, as in when you have your aliyah in the Sefer Torah, at that moment, you own the Sefer Torah. It's a commun- It's not a private Sefer Torah. This is a communal Sefer Torah. So this communal Sefer Torah, so the purchase of this and the commissioning, et cetera, is so that whoever, whether he's from this community or from another community, it doesn't matter. But it, it's, it's bought for the purpose that whoever has an aliyah, they are going to be actually fulfilling the mitzvah of owning a Sefer Torah for those moments that they have the aliyah. All right. So now, so is, if they write that by, by, uh, contributing To the communal cemetery project, you are fulfilling the mitzvah of, of perhaps not directly, but indirectly. The fact that you have, uh, provided that the community has a cemetery, okay. So then you have in- in- in- enabled that whoever is going to read that to have an Aliyah in that cemetery is fulfilling the mitzvah of . That's, that's the approach of

37:34 the Rebbe. So therefore, therefore I felt, uh, that the, the, the, uh, advertisement was not totally wrong. Right. Now, we have a couple of questions coming on the chat. Um, right. So, Rabbi Singer is, uh, mentioning that sometimes people add an extra name. That's, that's become me- me- quite common no- now in Chabad. A lot of... I know, how you say, this is four or five people who their name is Mendel and they're struggling to find shidduchim for their daughters, and so they've added... This one's added the name Meir, this is Ch- Chaim, this is, uh, Tzemach, et cetera. So you've got now a lot of the Babka Eden who have an extra name added. But that's usually because of the worry of a son-in-law, and they worried they've got, you know, several daughters, and they want to be able to get sons-in-law, uh, who might be called Mendel. So they add another name to their, uh, to themselves. That's true. But here we're talking about mehutanim having the same name. That I haven't heard, um, certainly that, uh, many people have added so that they should be able to have, be mehutanim with someone who has s- identical name. Right. So, uh, Ari is, is, is saying, "Surely that only applies with the person who has the Aliyah shared in the cost." Well, so the Rebbe, no, the Rebbe d- actually says, um, somewhere around, somewhere on the, on the sheet here, um, that, that the, the community are buying a cemetery. They are

39:06 commissioning a cemetery, and this should be for, for the community. And, and al- al menas, and the idea is that when a person has the Aliyah, like when you build a shul. So you build a shul also to accommodate a person who didn't pay for the, towards the shul. If they don't, they, they're not a, um, paid-up member, they come and they use the shul, or they use the es- they would come use the ezrat. Possibly, they would also be allowed to use the ezrat if we don't... Okay. Yeah, they could. It's, it's, it's possible, yeah. Just could. Right. Let's move on. Right. Right. So someone's asking, "Is it appropriate if, if m- if women, um, join in with saying, 'Shalom Aleichem' and 'Eshet Chayil' are misguided?" So, the, um, Sh- Shalom Aleichem, it says, "M'voroi m'beis haknesset," when you're coming from shul. So if the women have also been at shul and they're coming home, all right, so then they will also say, um, Shalom Aleichem. It makes sense. Um, so the ones who are at home, or they're saying Shalom Aleichem to the malachim which came with the menfolk. Could be. Could be. Um, bi klal, in, in Hasidisha circles, we'd be more careful about women joining in, in, uh, the singing of zemiros, et cetera. It wouldn't, it wouldn't be done. In, uh, in, uh, Frum circles, well, in Haketisha circles, it would be not seen so wrong if the, uh, the, uh, girls would join in when the singing. Okay. But

40:50 that's, that's, uh, hachshavah. Eshet Chayil. Would it be appropriate for a woman to be singing Eshet Chayil? So on a deeper level, Eshet Chayil is referring to the Shekhinah. But, um, k'halacha, the Eshet Chayil would be, uh, to, to, to, to saying the virtue of, uh, this, uh, a man about his wife. So it wouldn't be so appropriate for her to be singing her own praises. So I, I, I did look around. I didn't see anywhere, anywhere this is being addressed, whether it's appropriate or not. So let's leave it at, um, I... I'm more inclined to say it doesn't make sense, but, um, I, I'm, I don't mind being wrong. What I did find something in this sefer called Kitzur Shulchan, and he says, "When you go out of shul, go straight home," Bashalom. "Don't delay, and don't chat Divrei Betailim, and make Kiddush as quick, as soon as you can." And he says, this is an interesting thing, he says, "You should make Kiddush wearing the cloak, the clothing which you wore when you came home from shul." Still wearing the shul mantle. So there are, he says, some, um, some have a minhag that they come home wearing a, their coat, a special Shabbos coat, I guess, which they call, call the shul mantle, shul coat, and they would wear that until after they made Kiddush. So, um, I believe in Polish ci- circles this is observed. Um, I never saw this minhag, neither by my father, or Shalome, by my shul, or

42:23 Shalome. So, you know, it, it's, there are communities who have this minhag to insist on wearing their clothing from shul till after Kiddush. And perhaps if they wore a tallit, perhaps they'd wear the tallit also. I don't know. The only time we wear a, a tallit, well, Motzaei Yom Kippur, there is an inyan, definitely, of wearing your tallit and your kippah when you make Havdalah. That's, that's something which is in our minhag. Yeah. Right. What is, uh, I think, again, um, emphasizes w- the famous braisa about the malachim coming home with a person, and if they see everything is nice and bright and everything is, uh, in, in its place, so the good malach says, "Yehay ratzon should be the next week the same." So, uh, that, that's, uh, that's a point which sh- should be emphasized, that the home should be ready. Everything should be in place and neat. So that when you, when you, when the husband comes home, then you get the berachah from the ma- the malach gives the berachah, it should be the same for the coming week. Someone's put here a quest, a point. Should a single woman who says, has not been to shul say or sing Ashamnu? So there's nothing, uh, it, it, it seems to be more to say no, but if you, if you, uh, there's no harm. There's not a berachah, uh, which should be said in vain. So if you, if you feel that you want to sing Ashamnu on your own, you

43:43 can do so, but it's, uh, see it as not, uh, as a obligatory. It's just, it's, it sets the mood for your, for your Shabbos evening fine. Okay, let's move on. Right. So someone asked the question, is it okay where, for the kallah, for the bride to give the g- groom, to give the chassan a ring? H- is that very wrong? Is it... So the way I understand is that the ring, I'm talking about in, from a Goyshe perspective, the ring is an expression of a commitment. And when the man puts a ring on the wife's finger, even an engagement ring, it's like similar to the concept of kiddushin, that you are consecrated to me to the exclusion of anyone else. And certainly the wedding ring, that she's married to him and not to have a relationship with another man. So in the, you know, not from circles or not Jewish circles, navdil, it's common for the, a woman to give a man also a ring. So that is also to say that's his, his commitment, that he's not gonna have relations, uh, in a wrong way with a, with another woman. So that's, that seems to work. Now, in Torah, that's, that doesn't exist in original Halakha, because as we know, the Torah allows a man to have more than one wife, therefore, that commitment doesn't have a, a strong... Of course, we have now since Rabbi Gershom, last 1200 years approximately, that we, uh, the Ashkenazim for sure don't have, or that a

45:28 man shouldn't have more than one wife. But in order to say that as a Halakha, that a woman would put a ring on the husband's finger, and as a result, he is bound, that doesn't have a, a, a background in Halakha. In, in, uh, the letters of the Friediker Rebbe, you can see it's volume Ches. So he was asked by, I think, Rabbi Hecht in Chicago, uh, or Shusterman, one of the Rabbeinu Bachye, Rabbeinu Bachye rabbonim in Chicago, and where he asked what should he do when the kallah wishes to put a ring on the chassan's finger. So he says, in your meetings before, you should explain to them that this is better to do not during the chuppah. You'll do it afterwards in the yichud room. Uh, you'll have a moment where you'll break your fast, and that moment, that's where you give your, um, your, your, uh, you'll give the groom, you'll give him the ring. Omishi yikavel yikavel. Hopefully... So, uh, I think he's saying it's not something to make a massive fight about, but that's something which you recommend, that this, the, the woman giving the mahaman a ring can be done at a later point. It shouldn't be done as part of the ceremony of the, uh, the Seder HaChuppah. Let's move on. So someone asks me the following. Bit of an interesting question. When we do a mitzvah, we have to do so with the intention to do the mitzvah. So we have a mitzvah to remember Yetzias Mitzrayim,

46:53 the Exodus from Mitzrayim. How do we do so this, how do we do this mitzvah? So we say Shema, and the third part of Shema, "Ani Hashem Elokeicha asher otzar es chamecha me'eretz Mitzrayim, le'hiyas lachem elokeim, Ani Hashem Elokeicha." So we mention about Yetzias Mitzrayim in the last pa- last pasuk, last verse or the last, uh, paragraph of the Shema. What happens if when you said the Shema, including this last paragraph, your, your mind was not thinking about Yetzias Mitzrayim? You said the words, whether you've, uh, thought about the translation of the words, but you didn't, you weren't thinking, "I'm doing so in order to fulfill the mitzvah." So this is the question. Ha'ama yoetzah? If, uh, a minute later or 10 minutes later, whatever, I realize, oops, I was daydreaming when I said the Shema, the last part of the Shema, do I now have to repeat that passage in order for, to fulfill the mitzvah of z'chiras Yetzias Mitzrayim? That is the question. So I c- I was introduced to a, a sefer called Toras HaMitzvos. It's very much a contemporary sefer, but he's exploring, v- very, very beautiful how he explores the underlying principles, which will be, uh, common to many mitzvahs. So there's a whole... Actually, the first one is all about, about the kavanas HaMitzvos. So let's read what he has over here. "If you did a mitzvah, and you didn't have specifically in mind to do this for the mitzvah, but from the context, it's understood you did so

48:30 out of duty. So some say that you are yoetzah regardless." So his source is the Chayei Adam. Says when you-- It says if you're reading Shema because you're studying, you're, you're reading Chumash, and you said the Shema, or it says if you are blowing shofar just, uh, for making musical notes. So then you didn't have in mind to do the mitzvah. What happens if you are reading Shema? So that, that's how it says in Gemara. So they've illustrated he's done so for a totally unrelated purpose. What happens if it's closer? He, he, he read the Shema as part of Seder HaTefilah. He ate matzah, part of the Seder. Blew shofar, but he didn't have in mind, "I'm doing this, the same mitzvah." He did it because that's part, it's on the schedule. So he understands the Chayei Adam misunderstanding from this. So since he did so because this is on the agenda for today, and the agenda there as we ca- is to fulfill the mitzvahs. So even though it wasn't a direct specific kavana to do the mitzvah at that moment, the being in the context of doing it out of duty is, uh, i- is enough to be yoetz to the mitzvah. So that's, that's how, that's the generally put. And therefore, he goes in, in a later chapter, he talks specifically about the, about Shema, that you'd-- It would be imperative that you understand, you're, you're conscious of the words which you're saying. But still, he's, he's, he, he takes the view

50:10 that so long as it was within the context of davening, so even if have a specifically kavana, I'm doing so the same mitzvot is z'chiras yetziat Mitzrayim, you'd also be yoetzet. You wouldn't have to repeat. Um, I'm happy to do to, you know, to Melamdu because I'm sure it's a very common, uh, experience of people not fully concentrating, and that, that should be okay. Now, the last point which I have on the list, or second last point, is about the berakhah on crackers. I think we've discussed this before, but it's come up again recently. Now, you buy these crackers, and they have a nice hechsher, a good hechsher, uh, either Haredis, whatever, and it says on it, "Berakhah she'al merei min hamitzvot." And then someone tells you, "But according to the Alter Rebbe, it's hamotzi." So I'd like to just address that because I'm, I, I'm, uh, perhaps it's my, my, my disposition. Instead of saying everything, we're different. There are things which we agree, you know. Now, there are-- there's a concept in Gemara called pas haba bekisnin. And there are three translations of pas haba bekisnin. One says it's bread which is nibbled. That's defined as a bread which is made with flavoring, whether with sugar or with, uh, with egg, whatever it may be. A flavored bread. That's a snack. It's that kind of, kind of snack bread. The second one is a pas haba bekisnin which is pouch. It's a filled bread. So like a strudel or something like that. It's

51:46 baked with a filling, and it's a sweet filling. So it's not kind of thing which people will have for their main meal. Therefore, some sense. Then we have an opinion of Rab Hai Gaon. Rab Hai Gaon says that what does it mean, pas haba bekisnin, ka ach indaki. It's thin crackers. So he, he says that thin crackers are mezonot. This Rab Hai Gaon, these three opinions are brought in the Shulchan Aruch. I think it's Siman Kuf, Samech Het. And the Alter Rebbe in Shulchan Aruch also brings it. The mystery is that in Hilchot Birchas HaNehenin in Perek Bet where he talks about the definition of mezonot. So he brings two opinions of pas haba bekisnin, and he misses out the opinion of Rab Hai Gaon. He misses out this opinion that crackers are, by default, are, are, uh, mezonot. So Shulchan Aruch and all other poskim say this, that crackers are mezonot. So why does the Alter Rebbe leave it out? Obviously, he didn't agree to Rab Hai Gaon. I disagree with that because Rab Hai Gaon, being who he is, one of the gaonim, and it's brought in, in, in Bes Yosef, Rab Shulchan Aruch, just to dismiss, we don't pasken like Rab Hai Gaon, very, very difficult to say. So the way I understand is the following. That the-- not that we don't pasken like Rab Hai Gaon. It's just that there's something very significant changed, and that is that Ashkenazim, for the last four hundred years, let's say, have been making wafers,

53:24 thin wafers, thin, thin crackers for matzah for Pesach. Before, the matzah used to be thicker, used to be softer, and then it became standard that Ashkenazim have got these, these hard, these, uh, hard, thin wafers or crackers used for mitzvah matzah and used for hamotzi over Pesach. And as many of you know, that the Sephardim will, on the whole year, on regular machine matzah, whatever, they will make berei min hamitzvot. It'll come Pesach, it'll become hamotzi. Now, that's an interesting approach, and it's a bit of a difficult one because how can you say that this is a bread that people are not perviasu, not using it for a meal? There's, uh, there's a, a week and more, eight days a year where this is your bread. Therefore, the Alter Rebbe could not bring down Rab Hai Gaon in the siddur, which the Shulchan Aruch was more, you know, re-- uh, how do you say? Registering the opinions and the positions which are written in poskim. The siddur was much more, uh, practical. So he says, "Well, I can't bring that to say that our thin cracker is mezonot because that's the kind of..." Okay. So now, therefore, so a machine matzah is going to be hamotzi because it's on Pesach, let's say it's a bread. All right. So now, where I do have a problem is like a, a tea matzah. So a, a machine matzah is, let's say, uh, five-inch square. A tea matzah is three-inch square. So how do I draw the line

55:08 when is it called a, a, a cracker and when is it... I don't know. That's a difficult one. But when it's something, let's say breadsticks, pretzels. Pretzels are also made of flour and water. Why are pretzels mezonot? Because no one is perv-- no one has pretzels for lunch. It's not n-not normal, and this is the position of Rab Hai Gaon. That something which you're not perviasu, and because it's a thin kind of thing. So then it's a thin kind of bread, a thin cracker type of thing. It's a me-- it's, it's, it's, uh, it's-- therefore, it's a snack food, and therefore, it's mezonot. And therefore, with these crackers which are made with a bit of sesame oil or whatever it may be, some other ingredients. If it's just a plain tea matzah, I, I, I'm, I, I would agree with the Rabbonim who have their reservations. But when it comes to if it's flavored with something else, and it's clearly the kind of thing which people- Uh, don't have it, have it for a meal. It's just had, has as a snack, then I would rely on Rav Higgon, even though the Alter Rebbe doesn't bring it in the Seder, as I think that's the, the reason why he didn't, because of the regular masses. One last thing, and that is feedback about the, um, story of the Zeder who wanted to be s- who was, who was asked when he could be Sandek a second time. So after I spoke about this, I think

56:32 two weeks ago, so someone sent me a, a four-page Tsura from Rav Oberlander in, in Monsey. And he goes through carefully through the Night of Yehuda and the Chasam Sofer, which we discussed then. He also brings the story, which I mentioned, of Rav Chonyo Marozo, how the Rebbe Rashab was Sandek by one of his sons, and with the second, the next son, he gave the Sandek first to the son to the pre-previous Rebbe, who was... And then Rebbe Rashab asked him, "Well, you know, what happened here?" And the Rebbe Rashab, and he said, "Because he didn't want to give Sandek to the same person twice." The Rebbe told him that that is only applicable when the covert is for the Sandek. But if it's the covert for the child that so-and-so is a Sandek, then the, you know, giving Sandek first twice isn't a problem. Now, that's, that's a well-known story, which I, the details are, I mean, updated last, uh, last time. I found the whole story, in fact, very interesting. The Rebbe Rashab is kind of asking, "Why didn't you give me Sandek first?" It's very strange. I think it was, he was actually wanted to Vavor, not so much, "Why didn't you give me Sandek first this time?" The Rebbe Rashab knew his, he, uh, you know, his, that his years are numbered. And he was saying in the future, when, "Even though you've given my son this time to be Sandek, there's not a reason to give him, not to give

58:10 him Sandek next time," which indeed that's what happened. The next boy was born after the Rebbe Rashab had passed away, and the Rebbe Rashab had kind of, with his conversation, clarified, so you can give it to him more than once. Now, um, so possibly, possibly in this case, because it's a Zeder, uh, the case which, uh, Oberlander was talking about is actually the father was unwell, and therefore he wasn't able to be there, and it was a bit, a bit of a, an emotional situation. And therefore, he, he's trying to accommodate that the Zeder should be able to be there. And is it a covert for the child that the Zeder was his Sandek? I think that would be legitimate. So he, uh, he, he finds a way of being Matthew. So I just wanted to share that with you, although I had taken the position that the Zeder should decline to be a Sandek, uh, s- s- a second time. But, um, then he also quotes, which I didn't, I'm sorry I didn't look this up. He quotes from a, an answer of the Rebbe that someone asked this question about being a Sandek a second time. And the Rebbe had said, as Mizrachaver, if you are, are being honored, you sh- you should accept it. He quotes it from a, a, a journal called Vehoir Einei Veseira Secha. And that is a, where the Yeshiva in Morristown had taken all the Haoris, which had responses from the Rebbe. Haori Morristown Yeshiva gives out

59:40 Haoris to Mimim. And over the years, there have been many answers of the Rebbe in relation to Haoris, which have been written in their, in their regular kovets. And so they put them together in this volume, Vehoir Einei Veseira Secha. So it's something which I sh- should have looked at, but I didn't. So there is an answer. The Rebbe, if someone gives you, gives you the covert of being a Sandek a second time, you should accept it. I don't know what the circumstances are. It could be that this was a Rov. And it was mentioned last week, Chasam Sofer, a, a Rov, like a King Godel can do Keteris a second time. So to a Rov, it could also be a, a, a, a Sandek a second time. So it could be that was the question. I don't know whether the Rebbe was ready just to dismiss a Minik, which is written in the Ramoh and written in, you know, it goes back to, again, to Sefer Hasidim. So just to say that it's not a, not a problem, I find that difficult to believe. More likely there was something about it, and the Rebbe saw the need or saw the justification that the person should be allowed to be, uh, a Sandek a second time. Just, uh, in case you haven't seen, this Sefer, uh, of the 10 Shiurim put together, uh, in English, and it's 100 questions, is available on Amazon. And someone told me he just got his delivered just this evening.

1:00:55 So enjoy, and thank you all for joining us, and I wish you a good evening, and, uh, everyone should be well, and we should be Zecher. As I said, "Ve'asta'ata b'tziyan b'mishpat tipodeh, shavei ha'bet zochor, v'yesh bi zecher t'si v'tichzel eineinu v'shuchal etziim arachmim, u'et moshiach t'keinu, u'malcheinu v'leischeinu, v'nai." Good night. Yeshekoach.