ראה תשפ״ג

00:06 Good evening, and welcome to tonight's shiur. Today is Sunday of Parsha 3A. This shiur is sponsored kindly by Mr. and Mrs. Pinchas Rabin of Edgeware for a yeshkos for Michael Rabin, Shmuel Menachem Mendel, Ben Chanah Rachel for a Fuish Lemo. Sorry, Chaim Shmuel Mendel, Ben Chaim, Ra- Ben Chanah Rachel for a Fuish Lemo, and also to celebrate the publishing of, uh, the Panorama of Halakha, which is available from Amazon. There you have it. So it's, uh, available to order online. That's, uh, the way things work nowadays. Right. So let's start our shiur. Someone asked me just this past week, he often does tzitzits for people, and so is he-- when, when he's making tzitzits or replacing... There's, uh, there's, there's tzitzits there already, and he wants to take them out to put in new threads. Is that okay to tear the old threads, or does he have to un-untie them? Which is obviously much more tedious, um, take time, time-consuming. So we have a famous Gemara in Shabbos, Machloket Rabbi Shmuel. Are you allowed to take tzitzits from one garment to another? Matirim et tzitzit mi'beged la'beged. So here it talks ab-about this, the beginning of this Sefer. But then, so he says-- Let's, let's read through this Sefer carefully. You're not allowed to remove tzitzits from a garment unless you intend to use them for another garment. Because you mevatel bechinan, the mitzvah of this beged. This garment has got tzitzits, and now you're taking it away. You're depriving it of its mitzvah. I

02:07 feel-- And so, so this is so interesting because you're not going to be using the garment as such, and still there's a sensitivity to the kedusha of the mitzvah in this garment. Okay. Ava lim ein hu mevatel mitzvot. But if you're not annulling the mitzvah because you intend to make this garment into another garment, which it won't have four corners, so it won't have a mitzvah, or you want to sell it to a Goy, then you are allowed to remove the tzitzits because in its future life, so to speak, the beged will not be a bar chiuva. It doesn't-- It's not gonna be subject to the mitzvah of tzitzits. Therefore, ein hu mevatel shum mitzvah mimenu beatorat tzitzit. You won't be annulling a mitzvah by remov-removing the tzitzits. And that's the reason why you're allowed to remove tzitzits from the tallit. When a person is buried, they're buried in a tallit, and there is a point, dafka, not a kosher tallit, so they will be removing the tzitzits or the-- disqualifying the tzitzits. That refers to the Gemara, to the Shechanah yom. Okay. So now, again, to remove tzitzits because you want to decommission this garment, not to be used for the mitzvah at all, that's, that's legitimate. V'kos shekein, how much more so if you are matir tzitzit mimenu. If you are undoing these threads in order to put in tzitzit acheirim yotzer yafim. You want to put in nicer, nicer threads, so then you're allowed to remove these. Oishe mipnei or. Another thing

03:47 which is interesting to know. There's, there, there are rules about how many f-heads of the tzitzit snap before it becomes passul. Now, let's say it's still kosher because only one head has snapped. Is there a hidur to replace the tzitzits? So here we see, oishe mipnei she nifzak echad meharoshim. If one of the heads is snapped, hu rotze la'atel b'tzitzit acheirim shleimim. Yes, b'di'eved, if one of the heads is snapped, it's still kosher. But that's a b'di'eved, not a lechatchilah. So he wants to upgrade, he wants to undo these tzitzits to put in whole tzitzits. Ava pishya tzitzit hareishonim sh'eilim. Even though they are still kosher. Mikomam koma rashai lehatirot. You are allowed to undo these tzitzits, these threads. Velehatil tzitzit acheirim tachteih. So to undo tzitzits in order to make an upgrade, that's okay. Or if there's not gonna be a mitzvah. But to un-un-undo tzitzits and leave the garment without tzitzits, that seems to be prob-problematic. All right. So now he wants to change the tzitzits. Is he allowed to undo the tzitzits in order to replace them? Definitely yes. What about tearing them, tearing these threads? Now, here we have lashon of, uh, the Rabbeinu Yerucham tzitzits in the Siddur, but shorter, lots of chidushim. So repeats the halakha. You're allowed to remove tzitzits. Well, it's not actually the same thing. It says here, you're allowed to remove tzitzits from this garment in order to put them into another garment. Then you're allowed to also remove tzitzits in order to put a

05:31 different, different threads. Tzitzit chadashot. You want to put new threads instead. That's okay. But then this is where we, uh, come up, uh, chidush over here. Ach lo yifse keno. You should not snap the tzitzits. El lo yatirenu. You'd have to unra-un-untie them rather than snap them. Shelo yifsel tzitzit sh'eido b'yodaim yishum bizimmitzvah. One should not disqualify valid tzitzits because it's a disgrace to the mitzvah. This is so interesting. That tzitzit is a mitzvah. It's got a certain kedushah to it. So although it's not kedushah like tefillin or mezuzahs, that's got Hashem's name, but tzitzit has got a certain degree of kedushah. Uh, we want to discuss this. Are you allowed to use tzitzit to do a, a mundane thing? Let's say, to hang a key from it. So you're not allowed to. While it's still a tzitzit, you're not allowed to use it, not allowed to misuse it because it's got a certain kedushah. And so now to... You've got these thread. Now, you want to replace them. And still, since they've been used for tzitzit till now, they've got a certain sensitivity, a certain kedushah element, mitzvah element, a certain respect. Therefore, it would be disgraceful to, to snap them. There's a famous story with the Chasam Sofer that he had a yeshiva in Pressburg. Today, Bratislava. And the bachurim who were c- who came to register at the yeshiva, two bachurim, both fairly t- fairly well talented, and one of them... And it was they came just after Sukkot. And one of

07:24 them, the Chasam Sofer accepted into his yeshiva, and the other one, he refused to accept him. And afterwards, he kind of-- whoever asked him, don't know exactly how the story came out, but he said he saw the boys as they were approaching. Well, it was just after Sukkot, and there was lots of schach on the floor. And one of them trampled straight over the schach. The other one walked around or whatever, was sensitive. So the one who trod on the schach, he felt that he's not, he's not a Yirei Shamayim. Unfortunately, the Has-- his, his, uh, concerns were proven at a later date where this fellow, uh, went, you know, away from the derech of, uh, you know, from a Yiddishkeit. So what I'm bringing-- I'm coming back to this point, the idea of bizui mitzvah, a sensitivity. This has been used for a mitzvah. As much as we'll appreciate a mitzvah, we'll appreciate that we-- misusing it or mistreating it is out of order. Now, the source of this chumra of not to snap tzitzit is on this Sefer. It's called Olas Tamid. Where he writes here, "You are now to replace the tzitzit. "Am nam yadir hachshavim vehachrichois k'shelo yichales hatzitzis sheyehi yeureuin libed echaim." It's true you want to replace them, but those threads are still eligible. They could be used for another. Now, you don't intend to reuse them, but they could be used again. And therefore, they still have got a certain, uh, de-deserve a certain degree of, of respect,

09:13 and therefore one should not be snapping them. Now, this, this is, as the Alter Rebbe brings this, this is the Olas Tamid. Now, then we look here in the Mishnah Brurah. Mishnah Brurah is more lenient. V'nira li, he says, "Not only may you undo the tzitzit, but if it's an effort to untr-untry-untie them, mutar l'natkom. You are allowed to snap them, and it's not a problem of bal tashchis because you're not doing it in a, in a damaging way." And he brings a proof. Sorry, sorry. This is what you have over here is from the Chayei Adam. And the Chayei Adam is bringing a proof from the story of Bava ben Buta, who advises Ki-King Herod to dis-demolish the Beis Hamikdash in order to build a more, a more, uh, beautiful one. So even though dis-demolishing Beis Hamikdash is an issur de'oraisa, but because he wants to make more beautiful, that's okay. So he's say-taking this view that you are allowed to, um, snap the tzitzit. Now, that is the Chayei Adam. Now, here, the Mishnah Brurah brings down this. The Yes min ha'chonim who say you should only untie them, but not to snap them. And he brings here a, a w-word of wisdom. "Don't pour the water of your cistern when others might need them." As if to say the threads may be reused, and therefore, don't, don't, don't ruin the thread because they could still be reused. Which is actually today becomes, uh, you know, a bit of a, a weak argument

10:55 because nowadays very few people will take old tzitzit and reu-- old tzitzit threads and reuse them. Then Chayei Adam writes, "V'mokach shekosher b'eino." It's an effort to untie them, then you are allowed to snap them. And that's the Chayei Adam, which we saw over here. So this is what we're seeing here, that the Alter Rebbe takes the Olas Tamid's view, that you're not allowed to snap them. And he doesn't even say because they might be reused. He just says it's dis-disrespectful. And, um, Chayei Adam, who was a contemporary of the Alter Rebbe, takes a more lenient view. And the Mishnah Brurah takes-- He says, "If it's not too much-- If it, if it's a, if it's a big effort," so then you ca-- are allowed to snap them. Of course, we practice like the Alter Rebbe, and therefore we wouldn't be allowed to snap them. Someone's asking, "We have a tallis, pastoral tallis we are dying for a nifti. Why is that mutar?" Right. So let's come back. We did not discuss it. It, it says over here that you're allowed to undo tzitzit for tallis shlimeshim, and re-refers us to Siman, uh, Shin Nun Alef Yod He. But we did not discuss the details. I didn't look it up either. Um, right. Now then, I'm, I'm seeing here in the Piskei Teshuvas. This was for me, a, a chiddush. He writes that generally, one should try to avoid taking out tzitzit from a tallit katan or tallit, so long as it's still valid. And

12:31 he says that there are those, even if you wanted to put in nicer ones, also reluctant to do so, because some gedolei hadorot were quite, quite c-concerned about taking out even kasher-- taking out, um, like a bit worn out tzitzit to put in fresh ones. And even if you want to reuse them. He says, nowadays, it's, uh... So he says, better to buy the whole-- a whole new set than to take, take out tzitzit from an old one. Okay. A component, this is the, the Piskei Teshuvas. He, he gives a few references for this. But certainly, th-this is to the, to the extreme that even to undo from a garment which has still got, got, um, usable, not to undo. But, uh, not to snap the tzitzit, that's the Alter Rebbe's, uh, psak, and so that's, that remains. Yeah. Let's move on. Very interesting. Another thing which caught me by surprise. I have a friend of mine is in, in France, Balabos, and, uh, talmid chacham. And now in the holidays, so the-- he's a Sephardi. So... And from Tunisia, lives in Paris. And, uh, during the holidays, so the rabbi's gone on the holidays, and he's left my friend to be-- to hold fort. It turns out that this week, there's going to be a, uh, Shabbos of a chosun. There's may have been a-- okay, this past, this past Shabbos. Yeah, it has been a Friday, a Thursday. That they-- There was a chosun the pa-the past week, and Shabbos would be a

14:14 kiddush in shul celebrating the chosun. And so now, what he's seen in the past, that there are those who will make a Sheva Berachos at the kiddush. No, usually at the kiddush in shul, people have mezyonos. And here they're doing Sheva Berachos at the kiddush in shul without having a minyan who are what-- who washed netilat yadayim. So he asked me, "Is there any just-- is any, um, justification for that, or is it totally misguided?" So it was something totally new to me, because I was, uh, the-- under the impression you need to have a minyan, um, you know, who are, who are benching or rov minyan. But what you have in front of you is actually a teshuvah from the Rav Yosef. So I did a bit of, uh, research and he brings, he brings here several, several, um, poskim who do allow... He brings one. He brings Rabbi Meir Arik. Meir Arik was one of the most prominent poskim in pre-war, uh, Poland. He quotes the Alter Rebbe extensively. So in his Sefer called Minchas Pitim. So he, um, he says, if you've, you've got three who, who washed and the others are eating meat or fish, whatever it may be, then you could also say berachos, um, you can do it, um, Sheva Berachos. I'm in the middle of giving a shiur. I can't talk. Then he brings here another source. He brings, um, he brought there was Rabbi Meir Arik, but then there was also another source, uh, Rabbi Shlomo Kluger,

16:13 you know, Erlekh Lechor Shlomo. If three have eaten, then he goes even further. Even if the others didn't eat at all, you can do berachos, um, do be-Sheva Berachos. So that is the position of Rabbi Arik and Rabbi Shlomo Kluger, who I heard in, in the name of the Rebbe Rashab that he told Rabbi David Ha'Rodcher that you can rely on Rabbi Shlomo Kluger. So he was in, I think he was in Broad, but also in his generation, he was like one of the most prominent, um, poskim. So they've, they're taking a very li-li-lenient view here. The-- Some Sefardic poskim actually disagree with this, and they say, "No, you need to have at least seven who've washed, and the three others should also have eaten something, um, so they can join, so they have a seudah, et cetera." So what I'm seeing here is, are there grounds to allow Sheva Berachos with only three who've washed? There are very reliable grounds. And so although Rav Yosef himself is not happy with that, and he follows the, the mechumrah. And also I saw the Nitei Gavriel, who was obviously Ashkenazi, also say not to rely on that. But, uh, if he's just the stand-in rabbi for that week, he doesn't need to make a whole, um, mechumrah about it. And that's what they're doing. Um, it's tolerable. Let's move on. So now, I wanted to revisit something which I discussed last week, and I didn't give it pr-proper attention, and I think I came-- I reached

17:59 the wrong conclusion. I spent time during this past week to look at it more carefully. And the story is the following. That you have a shul where there is a, a mohel who often has a bris, but he has other duties also. Therefore, often he has to rush. He can't wait till the end of davening. So we're not talking about a Bris in the shul. We're talking about he has a Bris elsewhere. And those who will remember my father, alav ha-shalom, very often, he would have a Bris somewhere around London, whatever, and there was a simcha in shul, and con-- we, we didn't say Tachnan. Actually, someone told me, um, Friday night that in Eretz Israel, it's, you know, you've got people who are full-time mohelim. If you think about the population there, there in Eretz Israel, Baruch Hashem, you've got mohelim who are mohelim at a hospital, and they can have two, three, four Brises in a day. And their local shul would mean that they never say Tachnan because they've got Bris every day. And he told me that Rav Olandor, Rav Yanky Olandor, alav ha-shalom, didn't, didn't, uh, recognize this. He said, if it's a simcha, you know, somehow related to the community, but you are paid for it. Your, your job. You got a job. You're paid. You're not, you're not doing it as a, how you say, as a privilege. You're doing it, this is your papanost. Therefore, he-- for whatever reason, he dismissed this. He did not allow the

19:33 waiver of Tachnan for a, a professional mohel who has mohel-- Brises every, you know, every, every day. But let's come back. In the smaller, in the smaller, uh, setting where a mohel, Bris, uh, it's, you know, it's a simcha, but he unfortunately, he can't stay. So now he's at the beginning of davening, and then he, he rushes off. The way the question was put to me was, he was there for Tachnan, but then for Asher Bocho, he's gone already. Do you say Lamnotzech Yancho? Do you say According to what we learned in the beginning of this siman of Kuflamed Aluf. There's a very strong emphasis not to interrupt between Shemoneh Esreh and Tachnan. Ah, if so, there's a certain linkage here. That Behuran should also be linked right after Shemoneh Esreh. And then he throws in another thing. Min ha-Ashkenaz is after Shemoneh Esreh, after Hazos HaShatz. First, Behuran, and then the Fil Sahapaim at the Therefore, says the Taz, "Ki v'en de lo sheyeich le'omrei b'moimoi." Since it's no longer possible to say Tachanun in its approp-appropriate slot, which is right after Shemoneh Esreh, you shouldn't say it afterwards. So now we've got a new approach. So according to the first approach of Chol Al Avodah Simcha. So now coming back to our question, yeah, the Mohel was there for Tachanun, not just for Shemoneh Esreh. He was there for Tachanun. So Chol Al Avodah Simcha. So therefore, you shouldn't say Lamnatzeach. According to the second reason, he says, "Why don't you say Tachanun

25:56 later when you come home?" Because it's nidcham mim komoi. It's, they, they, they, it's lost its slot. Well, then the Lamnatzeach hasn't lost its slot. It's, it's, it's at, in its right place. It's not, not been nidcham. So all right. So we've got, again, to summarize so far, we have two reasons why not to say Tachanun after the Chasan has left. Is it-- Or, or, or you've left the house of the Chasan. Is it because Chol Al Avodah Simcha, or is it because nidcham mim kom? And that makes the difference whether, in our case, whether Tachanun should be said, um, uh, uh, whether Lamnatzeach should be said after the Chasan, after the, and the Mohel has left. Okay. Let's now... Now let's read the Alter Rebbe. I see someone's put something in the chat, but let's finish off this point. The Alter Rebbe now brings in, in kuf lamed daled, he goes through this. We have, even after we've left the Chasan's house or the Abba's house and come home, you don't need to say Tachanun. Why? Because it's the slot for Tachanun is right after Shemoneh Esreh. Okay. So he, he, he drops the first reason of the Taz of Chol Al Avodah Simcha. The Alter Rebbe only brings the second reason of nidcham mim kom. And then he goes further, and that's what about Vehu Rachum. Again, because it is placed, Medinis Elu, before Tachanun. Therefore, even though it's required to say Vehu Rachum, as discussed in kuf lamed daled, but because it

27:46 was nidcham mim kom. I still don't know. I mean, I was trying to explore why is it that we say, um, Vehu Rachum after Tachanun. That seems to be because of that emphasis in the Gemara of Rav Matzyah about not making an interruption between Tachanun and Shemoneh Esreh. So we don't even want to put Vehu Rachum in between. But does that make a difference for Halakha? That I haven't, haven't managed to work out. But then the Alter Rebbe adds in brackets. I mean, perhaps we've discussed it a few times, the Alter Rebbe's brackets. Suddenly, there's a famous thing, the Alter Rebbe added a Chiddush here, and he wanted to later come back to review it. Very often, the brackets are clarifying, rationalizing. And so now the Alter Rebbe is rationalizing. So we've got-- Remember, the Taz came up with two Chiddush ideas. One is Chol Al Avodah Simcha. He didn't bring a proof for that. Then he says, "Nidcham mim kom." And he didn't have proof, give a proof for that either. Wh-why do these reasons justify the waiver of Tachanun? He didn't say. And so here, the Alter Rebbe gives a explanation. Since there, there is a chiyuv to say Vehu Rachum, but the chiyuv is only on the level of Minchah. At its appropriate slot, it's been, been exempted. Since it's got its slot and it was exempted from its slot, it's therefore an exempt. So he's clearly saying the second reason, and he's apologizing, "Why am I allowing you to, to waive

29:45 it? Because it's on the level of Minhag, and its Minhag is in, in this slot, therefore..." Okay. So this is how you see from the Alter Rebbe. According to the Alter Rebbe, I would say that you should say Lamnotzeach when, in its right place and Trilat Dow in its right place, um, once the Mohel has left. Now, Mishnah Berurah, on the other hand, he brings, he brings that once the... Oh, he brings the first part of the Taz. After the Abba, the Bar Simcha's left, um, you should say Vehu Rachum when you go home. Yes, Mishnah Berurah brings both sides. And then he says the other reason, Chol Al Avodah Simcha. So the Mishnah Berurah does buy the-- He carries over the word of Chol Al Avodah Simcha. So according to Mishnah Berurah, the other bits of Tachanun, you would, you, you wouldn't, would be, would be waived. It's, it's, it's ironic that according to the Mishnah Berurah, most times when you don't say Tachanun, you still say Lamnotzeach. So in, whichever way you turn, according to Mishnah Berurah, Lamnotzeach is not one parcel with Tachanun. According to the Alter Rebbe, the word of Chol Al Avodah Simcha doesn't apply. Instead, you have the word of nidcham mim kom chiyuv. And therefore, Lamnotzeach is mim kom chiyuv would apply. Now- Some, uh, Rabbi Lou mentioned to me, I have two other questions in advance. Someone asked the Rebbe about-- There's a couple of answers of the Rebbe about, let's say, if you didn't say Tachnun

31:24 during Shemoneh Esreh, and, uh, wh- somehow the, the, the Tachnun Shemoneh Esreh and the Tachnun during, um, afterwards are connected with one another. Um, uh, I don't remember exactly. I didn't look it up today. I just saw it just now in this mes-message. I remember the Rebbe's letters about this. I think there is-- this is a, a different question. Um, I seem to remember one of the things was, if you, if you are in a Shul where you're not gonna say Tachnun, do you-- because of the minim of the Shul, do you bang, um, Beslach Lono? Do you bang your, at your, on your chest? And the Rebbe says that they are connected. All right, let's leave that for another time. Right. Um, let's move on. Uh, let's see what's in the chat. Someone's asking. All right. So this is, um, Rabbi Lou who sent the message. I'm sure you know this letter from the Rebbe that's saying omitting all the tefillahs. It depends on whether Tachnun was said, regardless if someone left. Um, that, that detail I don't remember from the Rebbe's letter. We'll look it up later. And I don't mind saying I was wrong. I've, uh, I've been wrong before. That's okay. Right. Let's move on. So here, a Shliach somewhere in the, this country is, uh, is, uh, officiating, um, Saudi Kidushin for a wedding, and the student, the choson, is, was adopted at a very, very young age. And so, he would like to see on the ketubah, uh, his

33:16 fa- his adoptive father's name. And he has an older brother who was also adopted. And there, the Rosh Yeshiva, who was the Mesader Kidushin, not a Chabadnik, not that it makes such a difference. So he, he, uh, put the adoptive father's name. So here's-- this is the question. What, what do you write in a ketubah of an adopted child? The father's name, the biological father or the adoptive father? So what I have on the screen is from the Nite Gavriel. He writes, a boy or girl who are adopted, if we don't know the father's name, or if we do know, if we do know, but they don't want to publicize this, so what do you write? So he says, one way of writing, Poeni ben Poeni. That's, in other words, the real biological name. DeMikri Poeni ben Poeni. And so you first write, um, Shebe Hason Reuven. So you write, Reuven de-- Oh, he writes, Reuven de Mikri Reuven ben Yaakov. So you'll, you'll add, his name is Reuven. Again, you Reuven de Mikri Reuven ben Yaakov. So that's, so that's gonna be clear. Anyone who reads that document and with a little bit of, uh, Halakhic, uh, background will see that this is not a biological father. Otherwise, you wouldn't write Reuven, who's called Reuven ben Yaakov. Or alternatively, Reuven ben Yaakov Shagidloy. You'll write, ben Yaakov Shagidloy, that this is the one who had, who brought him up. So by that word, Shagidloy, again, you've clarified, you've made it, made it, made it,

35:11 made it, made it clear that this is not his biological child. And that's, that is important in the ketubah, that it should not be, um, covering up im-im-important details of, of, of, of lineage, etc. So, so, so, uh, Moshe Feinstein is more inclined that you should write the, the biological father because after all, this is his official Yichus, official, again, lineage. So he wants to put in both names, as far as I remember. But this is at least you'd have to make some change. But the Evered, if it had been, uh, done just the adoptive father, the Evered would be kosher, apparently. But the Chad Chilon would make an indication that it's not the biological father. And then there's a reading of the ketubah. So when you read the ketubah, sometimes you have, uh, items in the ketubah which the, uh, people are not so keen should become public knowledge. So then the one who reads the ketubah, he kind of coughs a little bit, has a bit of and then he kind of, uh, glosses over those, uh, sticky parts and goes on to the next piece. Right. Let's move on. And what is in the chat? What was on Yosef's ketubah? Okay. Let's move on. So someone asked me about using a, uh, a flask to put, uh, hot water in a flask on Shabbos. Is it not a problem of Hatmono? Hatmono would be when you take hot food and you're, you'll insulate it. So you can insulate before Shabbos. Also, before

37:03 Shabbos, you're allowed to insulate in a drabah she'eino moishiv hevel. If it's moishiv hevel, it wouldn't be allowed even from before Shabbos. Just since we're talking about this, what is Shmoisiv Hevel? If the heat is being intensified. So a simple example would be, which people may not realize, if you've got a kettle, and it's covered with a tea cozy, with a cloth all around, but not on the bottom, but on the bottom, it's sitting on a blech. So you've got a continuous input of heat, and it's insulated. That's called Hatmona b'davar m'osef hevel. That is not allowed even before Shabbos. So to wrap a pot with a blanket totally, and to put it on a blech, that wouldn't be allowed even before Shabbos. If it's only partially covered before Shabbos, and it's put before Shabbos, it says, in Hatmona b'mixas, then one can be more lenient. But totally wrapping a, um, a pot or a kettle to sit on a blech, that's not allowed even before Shabbos. On Shabbos, we aren't allowed to take stuff and insulate them. If it was done before Shabbos, that would be okay. So now, here's the question. Putting stuff in a flask, is that-- putting hot water in a flask, is that called a problem of Hatmona? So basically, the answer is it's not a problem because the flask is a kli sheini, and generally, the din of Hatmon is only in a kli rishon, where the, the keli in which the food was heated, but not in a

38:55 kli sheini. Now, in the notes here, and they're from the Piskei Shovos, something which I wasn't aware of, that it looks like in times bygone, the thermos flasks were also insulated with, with the padding or such, etc. And that, therefore, it had more of a resemblance to the, the, the classic form of, of, of a Hatmona. Whereas nowadays, the, the kudst of the thermos flask is just basically through vacuum. And, um, therefore, it does not resemble Hatmona, as that's actually inside the thermos flask. There's a, a gap of air. Therefore, it's not a problem of Hatmona. It looks like from, um, what I'm seeing here, there were those poskim who were concerned about Hatmona in a thermos flask. What he's saying is that's possibly back in the day when the thermos flask were, uh, using pa-- with, made with padding. Now-nowadays, it doesn't apply. Just remember that when I went to Russia, um, just around, almost forty years ago. So we, Friday night, thirty-eight years ago, and we ate with, uh, Getsha. And they served, um, a soup from a flask, and they-- it was very hard. It was not, you know, usually here, a, a thermos flask doesn't heat the heat so in-- so, so efficiently. I'm just wondering whether they had there in Russia, perhaps they had also with padding, not just the vacuum, and therefore it was, uh, that much more efficient. Okay, let's move on. So someone's asking a question, do the two loaves of Lechem Mishneh have to touch one

40:52 another? Or is it o-okay to take one, keep one in a bag and have them touch one another that way? So what I have seen is there's a discussion. What happens is that Erev Pesach Shechol BaShabbos, and you have a Challah, and for Lechem Mishneh, you wanna take a matzah. I, I, I can't see any, uh, anyone doing that. You wanna keep your matzah away from your chametz, uh, k'matach ha-m'keshes. But this is the question. Could you take a matzah and use it as Lechem Mishneh on Erev Pesach morning together with this Challah? Albeit kept it wrapped in a plastic bag. So they say that is okay. I mean, there's a couple of questions there. Since the Lechem, the second loaf, you're not allowed to eat 'cause Erev Pesach, you can't eat matzahs. Therefore, does that, does it, does it count? That's a separate discussion. We're talking here as far as, uh, being in a plastic bag, it's not such a problem. It's not a problem. It's, they're talking about a frozen Challah. Even a frozen Challah, they say, "Oh, you can leave it to defrost." So the Challah in a bag, you know, it's potentially could take it out of the bag, not a problem. What is interesting, though, that on Pesach night, we have a matzahs, and our minhag, and many, many have this minhag, is that the matzahs are, the three matzahs are separated by a cloth or by a shelf, and we're not concerned that the Lechem Mishneh, because they have

42:25 to have a Lechem Mishneh also. We're not concerned that they're not touching. So it-- we seem to be okay with that. There are those who don't like this minhag of having the, the matzah separated. They have the three matzahs together. But, uh, certainly large elements of the, um, Katlalia Sor have the matzahs separated, so it looks like for Lechem Mishneh, nizgeh far lech, if necessary. Want to leave it in a bag, it's still valid. Okay, let's move on. I was in Italy this past week, and one, uh, one of the people who it's, has mesirus nefesh, well, he gets paid for his mesirus nefesh, but you get, hear his mesirus, it's, it's not, not easy to spend two months in, uh, Calabria, uh, schlepping and, uh, living on Uh, where you, you don't have the regular comforts there. So anyway, this is his, his, um, cottage, whatever, livi- um, villa. And asked whether he needs to put up a mezuzah here. So I measured. So here we've got... So for those who are just listening rather than seeing the video, so this has got like a mushroom shape. At the top of the entrance is like a very wide dome. And then in the m- the, on, on the floor level, you have a, an entry, a pa- a pathway, which let's say is one meter wide, and the full arch is, uh, the full mushroom is three meters wide. But where you walk through is only one meter wide, and then, then it's got

44:07 a raised banister on either side. Now, I measured that banister, and it's, it was, I think, about seventy-five centimeters. So it's less than, it's less than ten tefach. So here was a question, is there a requirement to put a mezuzah here, a-and if yes, where? So my, my, um, take on this is, we have discussed this perhaps in the past, that the, the areas on either side of this archway where you can't walk through, they are not entrance. They are window. They are there for light. They are there for ventilation. They are not there as a passage to walk through, and therefore, they are not part of the doorway. So the doorway is the only way you can walk through. So therefore, and this doorway does not have door posts of ten tefach. So although the doorway overall is more than ten tefach, the door posts are less than ten tefach. So my impression is there's no chiyuv mezuzah at all because you don't have door f- you don't have door posts of ten tefach, which would be the min- the minimum. I know you, you can-- I looked around, I didn't find a, a clear psak this way or actually, um, there is a book in English called Mezuzah, about three hundred pages from, um, I forgot his name now, a friend of mine in Los Angeles. And he, he brings this to the case, and he quotes Rav Moshe Feiner, who I believe, I believe is a rabbi in Beit Shemesh, who takes

45:49 the view that there's no chiyuv mezuzah here, and I'm, well, inclined to go that way. So let's just see what's, what the two ways of arguing this. Is the doorway ten tefach high? The answer is yes. Is the door frame ten tefach high? And the answer is no. So that's the two ways of looking at it. But meanwhile, I felt that you don't have to put a mezuzah. Right. Let's now, let's go further. And this is our, the last thing. It's a little bit early, but that's okay. Tonight is the yurt site of HaRav HaGaon HaMakubal, Reb Levi Yitzchok Schneur's son, the father of our Rebbe. And I have a personal connection there because my, uh, Zayda happened to be in Almata perhaps a year ago, perhaps before Reb Levi Yitzchok arrived. When Reb Levi Yitzchok arrived, he was frail, and he needed to have a carer of sorts. And my Zayda was employed as the carer. As, uh, Rebbetzin Chana, the Rebbe's mother, writes it in her mem- memoirs. And, uh, his, his sons, my father and my uncles, aleihem ha-shalom, they took turns in helping out with, uh, with Reb Levi Yitzchok. And, uh, my father had often tell stories about that, that little. It was just a couple of months. I believe he arrived just after Pesach, and he passed away, uh, 29th of Iyar. So, um, years later, after Rebbetzin Chana came to America, she would-- she kept her correspondence with my Zayda, and she lamented the fact that no one's

47:31 given a name after her husband. The Rebbe didn't have children, and, uh, and so she, my Zayda persuaded the next-door neighbor. My Zayda lived in Rishon LeZion, and the next-door neighbor called Reb Shaya Brook. So Reb Shaya, he persuaded Reb Shaya, the next einekel, the next grandchild, should be named Levi Yitzchok. So there's a, a f- famous letter of the Rebbe thanking the, uh, a, someone Brook for giving the name for his father. That's Reb Levi Yitzchok Brook, who lived in Crown Heights while he was in Crown Heights. Um, so the Rebbe appreciated very much that the name was given, and I'm, I wouldn't be so surprised if the reason why I was given the name of Levi Yitzchok was also, m-maybe years later, for the same, for the same reason. So putting back the lid on the flask on Shabbos is okay. Yes, the answer is yes. Now, what we have here is a word of the Rebbe's father, Reb Levi Yitzchok, and this was discussed in a fabrengen. Taf shin lamed hei, Parashat Matot-Massei. We, we, we learned this recently in the weekly sichos. And the Rebbe, once the, the Kuntz Lev Yitzchok was printed, so he made a point of every Shabbos. Whenever there was a fabrengen, he would take some of the points discussed in the Kuntz Lev Yitzchok, and, um, that was part of the fabrengen. Right. So now, here we have in Parashat Matot, "Nekom," Hashem says to Moshe, "Nekom nikmat Bnei Yisrael me-eis HaMidyan." It's time that we

49:20 should, that you should take re- the revenge of the, from the Midianites. When Moshe repeats this to the Yidden, he says, "Well, we're going to have to, we're gonna get soldiers together. We're going to wage war on Midian." "Lo seis nikmas Hashem b'Midyan," to take Hashem's revenge, mete out revenge for all Hashem's part. So here we have an interesting thing. Hashem says it's the Yidden's revenge, and Moshe says it's Hashem's revenge. So now here, the Rebbe Levi picks up on this, and he says, he refers to the Zohar, and he says, this is part of a whole long discussion about the keruvim and the orin. And he says, we see that Moshe was presenting it in a way of the, of the covet of Hashem more than his own. That's what we see by Mechannis Midian. So Moshe had Hashem had said, "Nikmas Bnei Yisroel." And Moshe said, "Nikmas Hashem, Nikmas Havai." Then he goes on to another, um, another parallel where we see this. Now, look at the bottom of the screen where you have from Parshas Boi, and it's talking about the Korban Pesach. And it says in the Pasuk, "Ve'lakum Adam," they should take it from the blood, and they should put on the "Shtei hamezuzos ve'al hamashkevet," on the two doorposts and on the lintel. First on the doorpost, then on the lintel. That's how Hashem said to Moshe. And then Moshe, when he speaks to the Bnei Yisroel, he adds something. He says, first of all, he adds, "U'lakachta magudas

51:02 eizo," you should use of the bundle of hyssop. This, um, putting the blood on the doorpost should be done by means of this, um, hyssop, uh, bundle. And then he says, "To dip it in the dam hashebe saf," it can be a pole or the doorstep, whatever. "Ve'higatem el hamashkevet ve'al shtei hamezuzos." And he should cause that to touch, that brush to touch with the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts. So again, the main point which you have, there are lots of little changes here, which is another discussion. Meanwhile, the main thing which we are focusing on is Hashem has said the doorposts and then the lintel, and Moshe had said the lintel and then the doorposts. So here, Rabbeinu Bechai is, is, is, um, bringing this. He then goes into a different shot. Goes into in, in more in, in ma- in pure Kabbalah. But the, the follow on here is the... In other words, connection to the previous thing is that Hashem is speaking on be- on, on, in kind of, um, celebrating Yidden, and the Yidden are celebrating Hashem. That's similar to the very famous word of the Bardichever about hag haMatzot and hag haPesach. That the Ribono Shel Olam in Torah calls it hag haMatzot because it celebrate the fact that the Yidden went out from Mitzrayim with the dough on their shoulders and didn't worry about they're not having proper provisions, and they relied on Hashem. And the Yidden called, called the same festival, we call it

52:36 hag haPesach. Why? Because we celebrate the fact that Hashem caused the leaping over of the houses and left the Yidden, uh, intact whil-while smiting the firstborns. So each one is celebrating the other one. Now, you have also a famous thing in the Gemara. Gemara, Gemara Brochos talks about Hashem's tefillin and our tefillin. Tefillin is the, you know, of, of, of beauty, of glory. Tefillin is called pe'er. Like, possibly the English word PR comes from pe'er, yeah, of, uh, promotion. So we promote Hashem, and Hashem promotes us. Therefore, in our tefillin, it says, "Hashem, Isr- Shema Yisrael, Hashem Elokeinu, Hashem echad." And that's, in other words, how we're glorifying Hashem. In Hashem's tefillin, it says, what's in Hashem's tefillin? "Hamicham cho Yisroel goy echad be'aretz." Hashem is talking about the, the, uh, celebrating Yidden. So let's come back to this word over here then. So we've got the mashkevet and the shtei hamezuzot. The higher and the lower. So Hashem, the mezuzahs are lower and, and the mashkevet is higher. So then that's the significance of Hashem saying to Moshe, "Put on the doorposts and then on the lintel." In other words, he's talking to us, us, us people down here. First, I'm, I'll appreciate first that what you're doing on the doorposts, on the, on the lower, the tachtan, and then also you'll do on the elyon. And Moshe Rabbeinu told the Yidden the other way around, "Put on, first put on the, um, on the, first put on the lintel." In other words, first

54:08 think of the higher, and then also you'll put on the lower, on, on the doorposts. So it's the same idea of each one, each, uh, each one, uh, celebrating the other one. I just want to finish off with a story which I heard from Rabbi Hecht, alav hashalom. He had a couple, or he did or the story's told, that a couple came to the Rav and they were arguing. And the, the woman was saying, "It says that a man should be mechabed his wife, yoser megufeh more than himself." And he was saying, "I heard that it's isha kasheira oser et zon ba'alah. That a, a worthy woman does the wishes of her husband." So the rabbi says, "You're both right, but you're both, you, you're both saying the other one's pasuk. Each-- The husband should have the motto that, that mechabed ereah yoser megufeh. The wife should have the motto, isha kasheira oser et zon ba'alah. Then it will be wonderful." So if each one, each party is trying to, to, um, celebrate the other one's ma'alas, that's the way how it will bring, uh, shalom and shalom. All right. I wish you all good night, and, uh, we should meet in good health kol tov.