וארא תשפ״ד

00:07 A good Avodah. Welcome to tonight's shiur, Motzei Shabbos Parshas Vaera. So let's go straight to our first question. So last Sh- last Shabbos, in one shul somewhere in Europe, they have a big Shabbos kettle, an urn, which is plumbed into the, what, the mains. And during the week, w-the way it works is whenever you take out a cup of water, so the balance, the, uh... Well, then, then there's a, a cup of water will come in to the, to the g- to the tank, and the thermostat will decide when to reheat the, uh, system, et cetera. So happens that this past Shabbos, after about ten people have had cups of coffee, someone noticed that the, the inflow pipe had not been switched off. What that means effectively that about two liters of water in this large tank, which let's say got twenty liters, were cooked on Shabbos. And therefore, they're asking the question-- Obviously, they're asking the question after Shabbos because yours truly doesn't answer the phone on Shabbos. Um, question was, are they allowed to have the rest of the water, being that within that water, there's a mixture of water which was cooked on Shabbos? And so there is a, a well-known halakha, um, Ma'ase Shabbos. If food was cooked on Shabbos or something was created on Shabbos in a violation of Shabbos, this is the difference if it was done b'meizid or b'shogeg. If it was done b'meizid, it doesn't-- done knowingly, willfully, that there's a violation of Shabbos, then for the

02:03 violator, it's also l'olam, forever. And for others, it's mutar after Shabbos. If the violation was b'shogeg, then it's, um, if the violation was b'shogeg, then it's mutar from Motzei Shabbos. But on Shabbos itself, no one's allowed to have benefit from it. Hence the question, this water in the urn, the-- which was heated on Shabbos, which was boiled on Shabbos, is sh-should be a problem of Ma'ase Shabbos, and therefore, shouldn't be allowed to have that water mixed in with the rest of the water. The whole hot water tank should be forbidden. So at first, I was concerned about this, then thought about listening-- thinking about carefully. There are-- There is sh-- meizid we know. The meizid is of, uh, a knowing violation. Shogeg means a violation without knowing the information, whether... Typically, it says in Gemara, you forgot that it's Shabbos today or forgot that this is not allowed on Shabbos. There's a level less than that, and that is known in halakha as mis'aseik. That the person is preoccupied in a totally different activity and didn't realize that there is a consequence, that something is-- a melacha is being done. So, for example, if I would lean-- If there's a r-room which is pl-pitch black, and then I le- I leaned against the wall and inadvertently switched on the light. Am I allowed to have benefit from that light? We're talking about on Shabbos. So this is I did not switch on the light knowingly. This was mis'aseik. And the-- What we're seeing over-- Now,

03:43 there would not be, in the times of the Beis Hamikdash, you would not have to bring a korban for such a thing. It's not called a shogeg. It's, it's less than that. So what's the story? Is Ma'ase Shabbos of a mis'aseik activity is the, uh, consequence also a mutar. So now I can see here on, in the Sh- Piskei Teshuvas in Siman Shen Yud Ches Tes Vav. So he gives a couple of examples. Um, someone, um, added water, thought the water was, um, boiled already, something. Someone poured of, on, water on seeds. He thought that they are not connected. Someone leaned against the wall and didn't realize that there's a switch. Opened a door of a fridge and didn't know that there's light going on. Went outside into the street and didn't know that he has something in his, in his pocket. Um, you didn't know that the aidrub is torn. All of these is, is not that you, uh, for-- don't know, um, that it's, it's Shabbos. It's that you don't-- didn't realize that you're doing something. You're carrying something in your pocket, and you didn't realize you're carrying. So there's a discussion in Poskim whether that's considered on the same level as shogeg, and therefore, if you're not allowed to have benefit, or it's less than shogeg, and you are allowed to have benefit from it. So let's say you came home from... You wa-walked through the street, and you realize afterwards you've got a, a stick of chewing gum in your pocket.

05:09 You didn't realize earlier. Are you allowed to now eat the chewing gum in the, in the second location? So according to this, uh, this is the machloket over here, and he takes the view that the, uh, that since it's a machloket about a derabanan, the whole thing of Ma'ase Shabbos being also as a derabanan, you're allowed to take the benefit of the doubt, and, uh, therefore, it's the, uh, product of a mis'aseik activity is mutar. Consequently, in this case of this, uh, the hot water. There's cold water which was boiled on Shabbos. By a mis'aseik, that water is permitted on Shabbos, and certainly the mixture of all the rest of the water is permitted on Shabbos. Okay. Let's go on to another point. Came up and someone asked this question: What is the story if someone gave in their tefillin to be checked? By a sefer, and he finds that there's a word missing, letter missing, which means that it was never kosher. So does that mean the person never put on tefillin all their life? Now, I remember Rabbi Vogel, zal zayn gezunt, telling, um, that he, as perhaps as a bocher, was involved in a case where someone, the Rebbe, gave a, uh, an answer to check the tefillin, and it was late afternoon. The person had checked, got his-- got the answer that the tefillin were passul. And it was like quite ex-- um, somehow, uh, a big surprise. And he tells Rabbi Kadukov in like, you realize like a mo-amazing that

06:51 the Rebbe saw that this person's tefillin, uh, weren't okay and needed to be... And Rabbi Kadukov, instead of excitement, said, "Do you realize it's now half an hour till sunset? Go quickly and get, get him a pair of tefillin, and he should be able to put on tefillin today." Um, so here we have, um, on the top of the screen, we have here a quote from a sefer called... It's a small sefer on Birchas HaNe'enin, and at the back is, it's called Sefer-- Sefer-- It's from Rav Yom Tov of Netter, Brunshpigel. So he's got a Likut on the Alter Rebbe's Sefer Birchas HaNe'enin called Likutey Maharit. At the back, he's got Likutey Mechutzim, and here he's quoting the Buchachover, oy d'kosav. Also, the Buchachover, Rav Yeshayahu HaLevi, at the back of the Shut Michaber, he writes, "If tefillin were passul, were found to be passul, missing a letter." Yesh loima. Well, we have something in the Gemara. If a Kohen is standing on the Mizbeach, and he's just brought a Korban, and then someone, uh, informs him g- that he is a Chalal, that his mother was a Gerushah, Chalutzah, et cetera, which means he is passul. That means the Korban is passul. And the Halacha is now that the Korban remains until his, uh, his non... Until his Chalal status ha- becomes known, everything until then is kosher, and the Korbanot are valid. As it says, a passuk: "Borech Hashem chelo ofo ya'al yadav tirtze." That even chelo, which unders- understood here as Chalal,

08:29 even that which he did as a Chalal, but Borech ofo ya'al yadav tirtze, Hashem accepts this. So he wants... The Buchachover wants to say, just like the Kohen's Avodah, until he's discovered to be a Chalal, until that point, anything which he did is kosher. The Korbanot are valid. So he wants to do something similar with the tefillin. Until they're found to be passul, they were valid. Consequently, he says there's no need to say Borche She'ikrei Machus u'Leolam Va'ed on all the hundreds of brachot which the person has said, you know, throughout the years on his passul tefillin. That's what he says. Now, on my margin in that, my, my, my copy of the Likutey Maharit, I'd written actually, you look up in the Gemara Kidushin there, you see that's only talking about, uh, if his disqualification was because of a Chalal. But let's say if he turns out, it says in Gemara quite clear, if he turns out that he, he's a Baal Mum, he didn't realize that this was a, um, mum, but he had a blemish which invalidates him. So then even if it's discovered after the fact, after he's brought the Korban, the Korban will be passul. What's interesting is... So in other words, you don't have an a-amnesty automatically for all newly discovered Sulam. It's only the Din of Chalalot because it's not himself. It's like beyond himself. It's got to do with his p-parents, et cetera. Um, now, in Rambam last week, in Pirkei Sefer Haazayah, Pelek Zayin, Se Halakhic

10:03 Beis. So we have the Din that if a person had mur- killed someone, we call it manslaughter in English. He killed someone in error. And then the Torah has instituted the idea of Arei Miklat, cities of refuge, where he is, is, uh, banished to stay in the city of refuge until such time that if the Kohen Gadol, Ad Mos HaKohen HaGadol, until the Kohen Gadol of his time pass, passes away. At that time, he's able to go home to his, to his hometown. Now, what happens if the person became banished to the b- to the Arei Miklat, to the cities of refuge, and there was no Kohen in office at the time for whatever reason? So then he has no, no chance of coming, of, of, of, of being relieved, of going home from the Arei Miklat because there's no Kohen Gadol under whom, whose, whose, uh, tenure he became, um, he was banished. So then the Rambam says further, "Nimtza nigmar dino." If the accused was... The verdict was passed that he has to be exiled. Then, "Ve nimtza HaKohen HaGadol ben gerushah ben chalutzah." And then it turns out that the current Kohen Gadol is invalid because his mother was a Gerushah, et cetera. Batla kehunah. So then he's not a Kohen Gadol, and never was a Kohen Gadol. And therefore, ke'ilu, the status of this, uh, manslaughterer is going to be ke'ilu nigmar dino be'lei Kohen Gadol, as if his verdict had been passed when there's no Kohen Gadol at all. "Ve'ein

11:46 yotzim misham lo'olam." Therefore, he remains, uh, e-exiled in Arei Miklat until the end of his life. So what we're seeing here is there is no, even in the case of Ben, Ben Gerushah, Ben Chalutzah, where the Korban would be kosher, but the Kohen himself is not kosher in the past. And similarly, I, you know, despite the Uh, and efforts of the Bachot Charov to say that Tefillin L'mafreia are kosher. The Pash says that's not the case. Um, although the mistake was only found now, the impression is that it's the Psul is, uh, until now also, it's retroactively also. Okay. Let's move on to the next point. And that is, I was looking over a book, uh, in English, Halacha book, and it came up about peeling-- about, uh, eating a peach on Shabbos. And it talks about taking out the, the stone from the peach. There, the more the focus is on Boire, that is, that it is okay. You can see here, this is from the Shulchan. If I see a Fleiman, you're opening a plum, and you throw out the, um, pit. And then if it's, if it's not for immediate use, there's a problem of Boire. If it's for immediate use, then it's okay. But he seems to be saying it's okay to pick up the stone out of the plum, out of the peach. And in my recollection, there's something about someone who was so careful that he would not touch the... and it's brought, brought La Halacha. And when he

13:29 ate dates, he would spit them out with his tongue not to have to touch them with his fingers. Now, here you can have... This is in Al Trevo Shakhnor, Hasidim Shin Ches, Sif, um, Samar Zayin. Talking about peels, which are inedible to animals. So then you'd, um, eat the food, and you'd spit out the waste, uh, with your tongue, be-behind your shoulder. Now, I know it's not the popular manner today. Don't pick them out with your fingers, and don't, don't, don't eject them onto the table in front of you. And then you'll say, "Oh, there'll be a pile of, of pits, and it's gonna be dis-- repulsive." And therefore, you'll be allowed to take it away because of the Din of Graf Sharei, that you are allowed to dispose of something which is objectionable, um, in spite of being Muktze. And the reason is, you know, it's in Graf Sharei Lecha Dchila. You're not allowed to Lecha Dchila, create a, a res-- a repulsive presence. And then that would override the Din of Muktze. But meanwhile, without going to the whole, the discussion, meanwhile, we're seeing here that he wasn't taking the pit with his hand. Rather, he had to spit them out with his tongue. So how do you reconcile those two? That was what was bothering me. And the answer is fairly simple. And before I go into the answer, now, here's a simple question. When you peel a banana, so the peel is, the peel is not Muktze, yeah? Even though the

14:56 peel of a banana is inedible, the proof to that is that even monkeys, when they eat bananas, they take off the peel. But so long as the peel is attached to the banana, it's not Muktze. Once you've separated it, then it becomes Muktze. Fine. So now, the same thing, the stone i-in a, in a peach. So long as it's attached to the peach, it's not... well, no different to peel. Like you're allowed to peel a fruit, even if the fruit is... even though the peel is inedible. You should be allowed to remove the pit also. It's not a, it's not a question of Boire. It's not small things which are mixed in. So it's like peeling. So why should there be a nee-a need for Zoirik Vilshoinov splitting that with your tongue? And the answer is, Rabbeinu addresses this, and he says the following: We're talking about there, with the dates, it's, it was the style of eating and having the whole fruit in your mouth with the pit. And then you would... once you've kind of separated in your mouth, the, the pits from the, and the, and the flesh of the fruit, then you wouldn't be allowed to take the pit out with your mouth. So let's say, I don't know, if you, if you eat cherries that way. So a cherry, you, you put the whole... Let's say even you, you've cut the cherry before for it to be Boire, whatever. But if you put the cherry in your mouth, uh, and

16:11 now you've separated the ch- the flesh, and now you've just got a, a pit in your mouth, the cherry stone, then you wouldn't be allowed to take it out with your fingers. There, you'd have to eject it somehow, uh, into a, a container or something. But, but that would be Muktze because you've already separated. But before eating, as you wanted to eat the peach or something, that, that state, you would be allowed to separate the stone from the fruit. I see someone's put something on the, on the chat. Thank you. Rabbeinu adds here, here about a previous discussion about someone whose Tefillin were found to be Pasul L'mafreia. Yeah, so just to explain. Sometimes the Tefillin are Pasul because of the faded letter. Cracked letter. That could be that it was once kosher, and then due to time where, et cetera, it, it, it became Pasul. There's a... Worse than that would be that you find it was never kosher. And that's... So the Rebbe's advice to this person was to, uh, to g- find another person who's not wearing Tefillin r-regularly, and to persuade them and encourage them to wear Tefillin daily. That would be a Tikkun for the having missed out on Tefillin. Thank you, Rabbeinu. Let's move on to the next question. So here, um, friend, a fellow I... a young man I've gotten to know from another country, and he got married to a Giyores. And, um, they're living in, uh, Tsareel. And her father, who's a devout Catholic, came for

17:49 a visit. So the young lady made some s- a special loaf of bread and offered her father to have some of the homemade bread. And he said a whole, a whole blessing. Holding the bread, some, some, uh, prayer, or some Catholic prayer. And now they're asking, forgot to say, "Well, um, are they allowed to have the rest of the bread?" So I asked, "What is the content of this prayer?" So he said something's got to do with, um, the flesh of Yosker, something like that. Some-something to do with Yosker. So I wasn't sure. He, he didn't tell me exactly the prayer was. It's like I wasn't sure about it. But then it occurred to me that really the, this bread does not belong to the father, or father-in-law. This belongs to the young couple. So, generally, we have a principle of ein od ha'adam oyser davar shelo eine shelo. You cannot, uh, impose an issur on something which doesn't belong to you. That's not so straightforward because we know that if a boy touches my wine, he does make it oyser. Ein od ha'adam oyser davar shelo eine shelo, it's not his. So it's not so poshut. So there actually, here's there's a difference whether it's a maaseh or it's not a maaseh. If it's a deed, an action, or not an action. So let's read here, you have Mishneh Torah in, um, Mirideya kuf mem heh, Sifcheth. So we're gonna read it inside. Baalei chayim einam nesarim, a living animal will not become condemned

19:27 as, uh, being dedicated to Abed Azar. Not only, um, by mere saying, rafil yishtachaveh libhei mashaloi. If a man prostrates himself, bows down in worship to his own animal, lo nesarah. The animal does not become oyser. Why? Because this is a klal. Baalei chayim einam, a living animal does not become oyser. Now, in relation to Korbanot, this would be disqualified for a Korban. That's called muktzeh laAvodah Zarah. Not, not like muktzeh in Shabbos, muktzeh laAvodah Zarah. But as far as Yerida, whether he's allowed to have, have, uh, benefit from it. So an animal which has been worshiped is mutar behannah. Then it says, also bema'aseh, if an action was done, sheshochato laAvodah Zarah bechavim, uh, the animal was slaughtered as an act of worship for, uh, uh, maAvodah Zarah. Afilu siman echad, even if it's only one of the two pipes, the windpipe or the food pipe, nesarah. And the point, point here, here is, afilu ein shelo. And the explanation here is that there's a difference between maaseh and less than maaseh. Um, if it's a maaseh, then even though it's not yours, you had no-- It was not your business to touch it, but you could bring an issur on something which isn't yours. So you can damage something through a maaseh. But merely a dibor would not impose an issur on some-someone else's property. And so, therefore, this Catholic father who blessed his bread, uh, would not make the... Not his bread, it's his daughter's and her, uh, her husband's bread. It

21:19 would not make it oyser. The question would be, what would be in his own home if he would make this invocation? Would it make the bread dedicated to Avodah Zarah, et cetera? Obviously, that would be-- have to look up more carefully what exactly is being said there in that, um... There's an issur ve'zecharan. Here it's his coming. A, a, a goy should be behaving respectfully to their non-Jewish parent. That's actually something which is encouraged in Halakha. Um, so yeah. Someone's asking, if your, your tefillin turn out to be posul, are you entitled to a money back? The answer is yes, definitely. And if you buy a chicken, uh, which turns out to be treif, um, from, in other words, from a kosher butcher, if you open it up, it turns out to be treif, you are entitled to a refund, yes. Uh, even if they were not expected to know, it's still, you're still entitled to a refund. In other words, an entitlement to a refund is not because they tricked you. The fact that they've sold you something which is invalid is your entitlement to a refund. Yeah. Where it becomes more complicated where let's say there's something which is po-posul. The maaseh, the Sofer says, "Don't use it." But there is a shitah which says it is kosher. Let's say mezuzah with a letter which it's mechlokes, yeah. So the so-- You, you go back to the, to the Sofer and you say, "You s- you sold me a mezuzah, it's not valid."

22:59 Well, he says, "What about according to this shitah, it is valid." That can be a little bit more kind of complicated, the chosh ha'mishpat, whether he-he's, um, obliged to give you a refund. Okay. Let's move on. Um, someone asked me about whether women should be saying, uh, the-- repeating the words of, uh, Shema to make up two hundred and forty-eight words. So on the bottom of the screen, you have here from the Alter Rebbe's Siddur, the end of Eichas Tefillin, where he says that Kriyas Shema has got rech mem hei teves, has got two hundred and forty-five words. Ve'chas ru gimel teves la'asli minyan rech mem ches teves, and there's short, three words short to make up the number of two hundred and forty-eight. Acheinu yagin shehashliach tzibbur chozeh ve'omei Hashem aleichem emes. In order to make up from two forty-five to two forty-eight, it's customary for the chazan to re-- say-- to repeat the words Hashem aleichem emes. This is well known. But then the Alter Rebbe adds the following: Yochid hamispallel le'atzmo, if you're davening on your own, yarzeh teves, teves ani Hashem aleichem. So you say, "Ani Hashem aleichem, ani Hashem aleichem emes." That's the Alter Rebbe's chidush. Maybe other poskim, but most poskim don't, don't take this, this, this view. Um, okay. Now, there is the idea of making up the number of two hundred and forty-eight words. The question is, what's the significance of two hundred and forty-eight? Well, that's corresponding to the number of organs in the human body.

24:42 The question is, that's only in a male body. The way it's described in the Mishneh in Ahars, talks about-- goes into quite a lot of detail where how many organs there are in the hand, et cetera, et cetera. An organ means it's bone and flesh and sinew. So, you know, here in a male body is two hundred and forty-eight. In a female body is two opinions there, whether it's two hundred and fifty-one or two hundred fifty-two. So therefore, the question is ask-- being asked, does a woman who doesn't have Ramach Evarim, has a different number, should she be saying, uh, these extra three words? A woman doesn't have to say Shema. But if she says Shema, should be she saying the extra three words? So you can see here, um, on the screen you have from She'or Metzyon and Ba'al Ha, which is on the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, siman yud ches. He quotes from the Minchas Elazar. Mentioned last week, I think we were talking about Minchas Elazar. So the Monkat Che rov, he discusses this question. Someone asked him whether a woman should be saying the extra three words. And he says, "Listen, this whole thing is based upon Kabbalah. It's based upon the Soi High. And therefore, I take the liberty of learning, uh, learning Pshat, and therefore coming to a conclusion based upon Kabbalah." And he explains that the inion of Ramach Evorim is not the focus on the person's Ramach Evorim, but it's talking about Evorim of the Shechinah Kevyochol. Um,

26:15 doesn't go in too much detail there, but this is in-- You have in, in, in Chazal, in, in Kabbalah, you have this idea of Ramach Evorim shel ma'alah, um, and perhaps the idea of Ramach Mitzvahs is related to that. Anyway, he says the Ramach Evorim means Evorim shel ma'alah, not on the person himself. And consequently, there's no difference between a man and a woman being, uh, connecting through their Shema to the Ramach Evorim shel ma'alah. Now, he says a woman saying Shema should also endeavor to say those extra three words that make up the Ramach tefils, the two hundred and forty-eight words. Let's move on. So now, someone asks a question, should an oval Rachmana Litzlan, if he is in middle of davening, and he's behind the minyan, does he-- and it's time for Kadesh, does he interrupt his davening to say Kadesh? Now, there is a letter of the Rebbe to Rabbi Dubov, alav ha-shalom. By the way, mazal tov to his einikel and ur-einkel who ha-carries his name, Yitzchak Dubov, Ben Rabba Nisan David, who became a chosson, I guess, Erev Shabbos. Then Shabbos, chasna shel tzemach l'chachas. But Rabbi Yitzchak Dubov was the, uh, mashgiach in the yeshiva in Manchester. And, uh, he wrote to the Rebbe, asked the question: There's a letter of the Friediker Rebbe very much encouraging the importance of saying the Kadesh before Chaydu. This letter is printed in Sefer HaMamorim tof shin tes. So it was probably published in a kuntres around that time. Rabbi Dubov davened

28:06 longer than the minyan, so it looks like he would start davening Shacharis ahead of the minyan, and therefore-- and there was no one else saying the Kadesh. So he was asking, should he interrupt in middle of Sukkat Zimrah to say the Kadesh before Chaydu? And there, the Rebbe is a little bit appre-apprehensive. He says, "It's not your personal achiyut." And, um, the Rebbe does not encourage him to say the Kadesh in middle of Sukkat Zimrah because he shouldn't be mafsik, and it's not his duty. It's not his personal duty. The duty that the Kadesh should be said, but it's not his personal duty. So actually, from that letter itself, you see that the Rebbe is, is saying, "It's not your personal... If it was your personal duty, then you would be allowed to be mafsik." Now, these, all these halachas about being, being mafsik in middle of Sukkat Zimrah and in Psh... And in Birchas Krisah are not literally written in the Gemara. We do-- Everyone, every kid has learned a little bit of, by Mishnayis, uh, Broches, knows mafsik be-pnei ha'ir, mafsik be-pnei hakavod. About interrupting your Shema to greet a person out of respect or out of awe. And then the Poskim, later Poskim say, "Well, if you are allowed to interrupt your Shema in order to be-pnei ha'ir, be-pnei hakavod of a human being, how much more so be-pnei hakavod of Hashem?" That's why we are interrupting in the middle of Birchas Krisah to say Amen Shen Meirav, et cetera. Here's the

29:32 question about Kadesh. So now, this you can see here, this is from Piskei Teshuvas again. This is from Siman samech vav, where he says, "A yosom, an orphan, should not be saying Kadesh in Birchas Krisah, even though there's no one else to say that, that Kadesh." However, he says, "If he is zachir and they-- he won't have a later minyan, then hameikil bevin haprokim yesh laam ir yesh ma'ach." So if, if he does have achiyut, and then to say Kadesh between vin haprokim, let's say between Yetz HaMeir and HaMas Olam, et cetera, then there is room to be meikel. So they say that he-- since he does have achiyut, then you could kind of connect it to this idea of like be-pnei ha'ir, be-pnei hakavod to be allowed to be mafsik to say Kadesh. Not everyone agrees, but there is room to be meikel. Um, someone's asking why by Krisah shel Amito we don't say the extra three words. Actually, that's not, not correct. Uh, there is a letter of the Rebbe that in Krisah shel Amito you should say the extra three words. In-- There's, there's, there's a kind of a, there's a Yom Yom which is a little bit unclear. There's somewhere in the Yom Yom it says that Krisah shel Amito you should say the word Emes. But there's a letter of the Rebbe which says, "Although I wrote there to say the word Emes, that's not to say you should-- But you still should say the extra three words." And they--

31:05 This is based upon the Magen Avrohom, where there's similar language. There's somewhere around there, you know, the dinim of Krisah shel Amito. The reason why do you say the whole Shema again at night? I mean, if you really daven ma'ariv b'zmanui, so you're very goyt to be Krisah. So why are you saying Krisah again, the whole Krisah? Some people, Tacha, only say Hiluv HaSharech, only the first Parshah. And those who say the whole Shema, it's that the saying of the Shema should be a protection for the Ramach Havorim. And therefore, in Kriyat Shema Shealamita also, you should be saying, "Ani Hashem Elokeicha" and "Ani Hashem Elokeicha Emes." Um, in some of the Chabad Siddurim, I'm sure that is included. Some of the older ones don't have that, that, uh, clarity. Yeah. Now, going back to our earlier discussion, you can ask the question, um, should a woman be saying, um, the extra three words in Kriyat Shema Shealamita? Yeah. According to the word of the Munkatcher, you can argue that she doesn't need to because, uh, that's got to do with Ramach Havorim of the person. Okay. Let's move on. Right. So now, about-- We're now, uh, just on Rosh Chodesh Shevat. Just about a month ago, someone came over to me, a Shliach, and he is a recent... You know, recently moved on Shlichut in his area, so he does not have a Shabbos Minyan. So he was in, in our shul on the morning of Rosh Chodesh Teves, and he says, "It's now

32:37 a month since I came back from the Henat HaShlichim, the first time I'm at Kriyat HaTorah. Do I say Birkat HaGomel today?" I felt a lot, quite uncomfortable about it. Uh, a month later, he's saying Birkat HaGomel. You know, in Halakhah, we say it within three days, or this after that. Is, is it totally open, or is there, is there a time limit? So Bashkafa Rishona, there's no time limit, but it felt a little bit strange. And then s- I don't remember the other event. Another person came with the same question during the past month about, uh, saying Birkat HaGomel long after the event. Perhaps there was a medical, uh, thing, procedure. Now, this is from the Aruch HaShulchan. It was already written that we should-- one should not delay more than three days. If there is a delay, it's okay. If there's been a long interval, the whole experience has been forgotten. He should no, no longer say the Berakhah. He's forfeited that Berakhah. Then he throws in the... I'm not sure where he gets that from. I'm just... As I'm reading this now, I'm thinking about you have the idea, it's mentioned in Hilchot Tefillah, if a person has traveled, traveled particularly by sea, he is patum in a tefillah for three days. Nowadays, we don't follow that. But it's... Why a person for three days after the journey is still in upheaval? So possibly that's theχεזק of the three days for Birkat HaGomel, because up till three days, the person is still,

34:27 still kind of connected to the event. After that, it, it's, it's, uh, it be- it becomes forgotten. At any rate, what you can see here, uh, whether it's five days or more, but if it's a whole month. Now, I will hope so. I was, uh... I, I had a journey a month ago. You see here, Baruch HaShulchan says, "Not soon." It's, it's, uh, Mistav. So someone is saying that jet lag lasts till five days. I'm sure that's not what the Aruch HaShulchan meant, but okay. Some people, uh, take longer to recover. Fine. Okay, let's move on to the next point, and that is, um, when we say Shema in Rabbeinu Tam's, why should we-- why do we say the third Parshah of Shema? We'd say, "Shema, Ba'alei HaShem, O Yah," those are the Parshas which are in the, in the Tefillin. Also, "Vayidab, Ba'alei HaShem, Ki V'yacha." So we write, recite the four passages which are, are in the scrolls in the Tefillin, but why are we saying Parshah six, which is not there? Now, uh, you can see here, here I've got a quote from a Sefer called Hitklim Inhagim, from Rabbeinu Gorari in Chulon. Uh, this is volume, uh, Hei, the fifth volume. He is the, the... But the earliest who a- addresses this is Maram Shik. Maram Shik was a Talmud of the Chasam Sofer, lived in Hungary, and a Talmud of his noticed that he's saying also, "Vayomer," and he asks him. Now, it's... So he... So it's quite a long

36:19 piece in the Maram Shik. He says the following: "Kol Hachore..." It says in the Gemara, "Kol Hachore Kri Shema B'lo Tef- B'lo Tefillin Ki Ilu Heid Sheker B'atzmi." One who puts on Te-- Uh, who, one who reads... Again. Yeah, one who reads this Shema without Tefillin, it's as if he's given false witness, B'atzmi. Now, before ex- um, explaining the expert word B'atzmi, what, what's that got to do with us over here? If we take the view that the Halakha is like Rabbeinu Tam, not like Rashi. So then when he said Shema in Davening before putting on Rabbeinu Tam's, he wasn't wearing Tefillin. So he was made a, he made a Edos Sheker B'atzmi. To rec- to rectify that, to rectify that, so he says, says Shema again in the Rabbeinu Tam's in case he had read the Shema without, without Tefillin. That's the, that's the, the thinking here. Now, what does it mean, Ki Ilu Heid Edos Sheker B'atzmi? So Rashi learns that Be'atzmo is actually referring to Hashem. And the usage of the word Be'atzmo is like sometimes you have what you use deliberately, You don't want to speak in a dis- in, in a disparaging way towards Hashem. Therefore, you say, on himself, but really it means Hashem. That he had been... He had-- It was like a, a lack of, um, Kabbalas Ol Malchus Shamyim or something like that. He's saying Shema without the tefillin, he's lacking in his submission to Hashem. Rabbeinu Yonah, who has a commentary on the Rif in

38:10 the back of Gemara Berachot, he says, is on himself. He's, he's, he's said something wrong about himself. Okay. According to-- So the Maram Shik is saying that according to Rashi, means that your Shema, which is said without tefillin, is as if you're lacking in proper Kabbalas Ol Malchus Shamyim. Okay. Point one, number one. Point number two is that tzitzit is also got to do with Ol Malchus Shamyim. And this, he refers to the Gemara in Berachot. Um, do I have the n- the page over here? Um, I'm sorry, I don't have the, the Amid. But it says in the Gemara, why do you say-- Yeah, we say the third parasha of Shema in order to have the inyun of, of, um, Yetziat Mitzrayim. But there are many parashas in the Torah which talk about Yetziat Mitzrayim. So why was, why was davka this parasha selected to, uh, to me- to mention Yetziat Mitzrayim? So he says-- It says there about-- It has five things, five, five inyonim, five topics which are brought up in, in the parasha of Vayomer. And it says, First three are explicit, and one of them is Ol Mitzvot. An acceptance of all mitzvot. You'll see the tzitzit, and you'll remember all the mitzvot of Hashem. So without going to the rest of the five, the-- one of the reasons why Vayomer was the selected parasha to invoke the concept of the remembrance of Yetziat Mitzrayim, because it has in it the Kabbalat Ol Mitzvot. So according to Rashi, who says

40:15 that the reason, the problem of a person reading Shema without tefillin is because of a, a, uh, shortcoming in Kabbalat Ol Malchus Shamyim, Kabbalat Ol Mitzvot. So, right. So therefore, to repair that one, we should say the Parashat Tzitzit also in, in, uh, in Rabbeinu Tam. Okay. So that was-- Actually, if you wanna look it up, it's q-- In, in, in the If you came in Hogim, it's also about five pages or more. Just... This is Bekidso, what he explains. Okay. So now you have something, uh, a question about, about whipped cream. This, uh, gonna take a little longer than just two minutes. Here's the question like this. There's a concept called Tibbul Levemaska. That if you have a food dipped in a liquid, then you need to wash Netilat Yadayim before eating it. And that's why we wash Netilat Yadayim, Urchat, before dipping the karpas in the salt water on Pesach night, because Tibbul Levemaska requires, uh, Netilat Yadayim. We do-- We don't say a beracha, but, uh, we do make a point of washing. The Mishne Berura is more makeel. The Alter Rebe is more machmir about this, and Chassidim are generally machmir about this. So let's say if you are having a coffee, and you want to dip your biscuits, uh, into the coffee. So, uh, a Chassidish Yid will only do so if he's washing Netilat Yadayim. Sitting by a Fabregin, picking up a pickle with your fingers. Again, it's Tibbul Levemaska. So that's why, that's why they give, um, they

42:05 give, uh, toothpicks, yeah. So you shouldn't have to pick them up with your fingers. It's a question, halacha. So now someone asks me the question. They have for breakfast, this is someone in America. They have for breakfast, they have waffles. They give-- And the waffles are also, uh, nimshach with, uh, with, with, um, whip- whipped cream. And you can see on the picture, it comes in a, uh, how do you say, a pressurized tube, and you release the nozzle, and gas, it comes out. And it's important to read the details. It's got first ingredient, ingredients is grade A cream, sucrose, corn syrup, non-fat dry milk solids, monoglycerides, natural and artificial flavor salt, propellant, nitrous oxide gas. So now this stuff which comes out of this tube, comes like a frothy, uh, substance. Is that called liquid? And therefore, having the, the, the waffles dipped in-- Well, they are, they are, um, covered with this stuff. Is that called Tibbul Levemaska? So let's say that's clear that if milk is made into butter- That's now a solid. And if you put butter on a, on a cracker, you do not have to wash until sedaim al tibule be mashke because it's a solid. So when, when, when milk, milk became a solid, it's, it does not have a tibule be mashke. What is interesting is, what about yogurt? Dipping, let's say, crackers, breadsticks, something, which are mazanus. You dip them into yogurt. Is that, is that, uh, tibule be mashke? And that's actually quite, uh, clear

43:57 in the bio hetave that yogurt is considered a liquid and subject to... And therefore, you'd need to do, um, until sedaim, then be mashke. Um, right. So it's very interesting that we have, um... Well, this is in Siman Kuf Nun Ches. So let's just look first of all in the... You've got seven liquids, which are the, um, tibule be mashke. One of them is milk. It talks about then whey, meicholov, is also considered like milk. That means after you make cheese, there remains, um, some kind of solids which float to the top, and that's called, um, meicholov. And then he says cholov chametz, sour milk. Which we call yogurt. Soref until sedaim. And he refers to a Sefer called Mateh Yosef, and he refers to Yad Aram. I, I looked up the Mateh Yosef. I did not look up the Yad Aram. Okay, but you see that yogurt is considered a liquid. If you dip something into, into yogurt, it would be called tibule be mashke. Incidentally, we're learning now Gemara Pesachim, and we're now just towards the end of the Masechta. But when it come, it came up about charoses, et cetera. And it says there, this kol she tibule be mashke, gonyerek be kutach. If you dip a vegetable in kutach or in vinegar, needs until sedaim. Now, kutach comes up much earlier also in the Agur minimedina in the fourth Perek, if I'm not mistaken. And it talks there, kutach habavli. Um, uh, and there you get the impression that kutach is

45:44 a mixture of bread and of, uh, of liquid. So it's interesting that the Ra- the Rashbam here says that kutach, it is called a mashke. Um, that doesn't seem to be the impression from the piece which we're gonna read from the Alter Rebbe. Okay. So now, let's now read the Alter Rebbe carefully here in Siman Kuf Nun Ches, Sif Ches. He's talking there about, uh, about honey. And honey, we mean here bee's honey. That, that is one of the sheva mashkin. The kol zeh bemerkachas she hadvash nikar bifnei atzmo be toiche. If you have a k- some kind of pudding or something where you've got a, a presence of honey as a separate, a, a, a visible presence there inside or gaba on top. Aval im ein noi oimed bifnei atzmo klal, v'lo ta'aroves oichel. But if there's no honey on its own, it's just mixed with other food. K'gon she nimcha ha'oichel ham'rukoch l'gamri. So you've got here a food, let's say a bread, which has been broken down. V'nas a guf echad ma meshinim hadvash. It's now become totally blended, become inseparable with the honey. Be'inyan she'ein bemerkachas zoi dvash toifer hamnas lahatfiyach nikar bifnei atzmo v'lo ta'aroves oichel hanimoyach. That was a long sentence. Be'inyan, that n- looking at this mixture, um, there's, there's no presence of honey which is moist without a mixture of the other substance. Let's say the bread which is mixed into it, a cake or something. Um, so then if that's the case, that the, the... Any

47:47 honey, it's got with it mixed in the other stuff. Uh, so then, nisbatel hadvash m'toiras mashki l'gamri. That honey is no longer called honey. It's called a new substance. V'nas oichel becomes a food. Af al pi shetoifer hamnas lahatfiyach. Even though it still has the m- it's wet to the point that if you touch it, and then you touch another thing, that would also become wet. It's transferable moisture. Sometimes if something is moist, you touch it, and you touch something else, you haven't transferred the moisture. But here it is m'toifer hamnas lahatfiyach. But because it's so well blended with the other ingredients, so then, then, ma she'ana, v'lo achil, v'lo achil. It's no longer considered honey. Dahainu, sheh... Now then, he adds another point. Sh- and it becomes, becomes, sheh nas a guf echad, oichel omed l'achil, v'lo ol l'achil. Now, this is where I'm a little bit hesitant. Let's come back to those ingredients. You've got here grade A cream, which on its own would be a mashke. Then you throw in sucrose, corn syrup, uh, um, dry milk solids. I don't know what glycerides look like. Um, and I would s- uh, you would say even the propellant is after all that, and after it comes out with the propellant, is that called a liquid? And so here, the Alter Rebbe seems to be saying it's, it's not being liquid is dependent on the mixture of other ingredients. But then there's a very n- very, another very important feature. Then he says, dahainu

49:34 sheha'merkachas ove ksas. It becomes that this mixture becomes thick somewhat. She'ein derech b'nei Adam legom oh, v'livlo ya'av vas achas. It's not the kind of thing which you would gulp down and swallow. V'lihipach v'loshon klal. When you drink, you do not need your tongue to help you manipulate the food to help you swallow. And that is called she's derech shesiya. That's called drinking. And probably a smoothie would also be considered a drink. But here, because it's become thicker, al darko lehov cho meat beloshen. It's something which is the style is that you, you somehow manipulate with your tongue. Um, ad shetagia lebeis hablio, to enable the food to get to your, um, where you swallow. Shezoi hi der hachilo. So drinking means that you can pour it down. You don't need your tongue to help you drink. You do need your tongue to help you eat. And that's the difference. So that's why I'm saying, even if you're gonna tell me that those ingredients are minimal, the, the, uh, sucrose, et cetera, they're just flavors. Even if you tell me that, but once it's got that propellant in, it becomes quite a thick mixture, if I could remember correctly. And as a result, that's not called a mashke anymore. It's called an oichel. It's called a marchel. Once it's called a marchel, the one that's called a food, there's no problem of, uh, of it being tipule, tipuleve mashke. Um, it goes a bit further. It talks about plums and cherries, which are mixed with,

51:23 with honey, and they become thick pieces. I'm not sure exactly of, uh, of that, that, that application. But this is, this is the Alter Rebbe's psak. Now, what I find quite remarkable, about thirty years ago, I put this question to Reb Sholom Friedmans of Zaingazunt. I asked him, um, what is the defining factor whether it's called a liquid or a, a solid. And he said this idea of hipuch beloshen, of swishing with-- You need to swish with your tongue. And having searched today, it looks like the earliest source, because I'm looking around in the Otzar Chochmah, I see several contemporary sources, and they say this definition, but they all trace it to the Alter Rebbe, which I find very remarkable that the Alter Rebbe has introduced a, a, a, how do you say, a, a what is a benchmark to dif-differentiate what's the difference between a food and a drink, comes up with this new idea, hipuch beloshen, which I, I did look up in the Mata Yosef, which is the Alter Rebbe in the notes here refers to this Mata Yosef. The Mata Yosef was a contemporary of the Pri Chadash, um, so a hundred years before the Alter Rebbe or something, but he doesn't use that language. The Alter Rebbe also refers to Mogan Avrohom in Sima Reshes, who is also struggling with the book, how do you define what's a liquid and what's a solid. But this term of hipuch beloshen is the Alter Rebbe's own creation, as far as I can

52:51 see. But this is, this is the definition. A food is something which you'd need to have your tongue to help you to swallow. And if you can pour it straight down your throat, that would be called a liquid. Um, so that's, uh, in short. Uh, when I was in, in Lud in last year, I was there. So I spoke to Rav Roma Lashvili, um, who's one of the, uh, very, uh, he's got great expertise in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch. We see in the introduction of the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, it's mentioned that the Alter Rebbe, um, sta-started writing a new, a revised edition of Hilchos Nirtzil Siodaim, et cetera. And he acknowledged that what we have over here is evident there are some very spectacular Chidushim in the, in Hilchos Nirtzil Siodaim, and, and this is probably one of those, where the Alter Rebbe comes up with this, uh, this definition. So I feel this is, uh, yes, a clear answer that, that the, the cream being so thick is no longer called a, a, uh, liquid, and therefore there's no din of tipuleve mashke. Um, one last question which may or may not be on your list. May have been added later. So one of our listeners followed on from... We had a previous discussion about covering the shaliach during, um, during, uh, putting on the tefillin out of tznius. And I saw just now that it's also in written in the Shaar HaKavones, you cover there because of tznius. But then why

54:31 do many of us take off the plastic or carton cover before making the bracha? And to the point that you take it off, and then after you put on your shaliach, before you put on your shalosh, the, the minhag of the Rebbe would put the cover back. And why do you need to take the cover off? I'm going to confess that for many years, my tefillin shaliach cover was so tight, it was very awkward to remove it. So for years, I did not remove it. But, uh, some stage, I got a different cover, which is, uh, able, able to remove. And yes, what's the reason for this? I was taught to take it off. And then when it was so stuck, I didn't, I wasn't taking it off. I'm questioning whether it was necessary. But now I can see here. Now, the, the background to this is that it says in the Gemara that if the tefillin are covered with another material, if you'd coat the tefillin with the zahav, with gold or with another material, that could be a disqualifying factor if you cover the tefillin with something else. So if the cover were to remain indefinitely stuck, kind of, not stuck, but if it's covering the whole time, that kind of is con- relating to see if, like covering the bias with an invalid material. And consequently, um, this, this, this is the reason for the minhag that the tefillin, when you make the bracha, they are just, it's just the tefillin. Afterwards,

56:00 you put on the cover To protect. And looking up here in the , there are many who objected to wearing the cover altogether. As we know, the Friediker Rebbe didn't wear the cover. Our Rebbe did. But that's, that seems to be the reason for removing it, that the cart- carton does not become part and parcel of the tefillin. We have now a couple of minutes left. I'm just gonna share with you that in volume three of Sefer Nesiv HaMisteshlichus, I wrote there a chapter about, about Amirah LeNochri. And someone recently saw an article quoting what I'd written, apparently. If someone had parked on the red route in Me'asef Shechaia. Across this, um, on, on, on Stamford Hill, there's a red route, which means that in the evening it's okay to park there. But if it's past eight o'clock in the morning, it's a very busy road. And if a car is parked there, the likelihood is there's soon gonna be a tow truck, and it's gonna pick up your car, and it's gonna cost you a fortune to redeem it from the car pound, et cetera. And now, so there's a story that, uh, someone came from overseas and borrowed his father's car, and he parked it on the red route and came-- it comes Shabbos, and then the car is over there. And then, then, you know, we realized that if it's left there, it's going to be, uh, a fortune to, to redeem it. So are you allowed to ask a goy? So

57:31 I had written that you are allowed to ask a goy to remove it, and my basis was on a halacha, that if you are in the street and you realize you've got your wallet with you... So there's a rule of . Chacham understood that a person cannot... You can't expect a person to walk away and leave his wallet over there. And so that he shouldn't do it himself, he's allowed to call a goy to take it to safety. So I was using the same principle, that he should be allowed to ask a goy to take the car to safety. Now, the problem is that it says in, if you-- Be-in Ashmoses, if you have a Hefsed Merube, you're allowed to ask a goy to save you from Hefsed Merube and do something to help you to save it from a significant loss. So if you're only allowed to ask a goy Be-in Ashmoses. So now you have aheter even middle of Shabbos to ask a goy. So I'm struggling. I was struggling with, with how to reconcile this. Yeah. Since you have aheter only Be-in Ashmoses. Here you have aheter even on Shabbos. Is either Hefsed Merube allowing you to ask a goy to do it Isu Mehatoid. That's my question. Now, very interesting. There is in Mishneh Berurah. He has a very long entry, um, somewhere, Shin Lamed Beis, Shin Lamed He, Shin Lamed Dalet, somewhere, somewhere around there, from his son. He had a son who passed away in his... When he was

58:55 at twenty-three years old. And Mishneh Berurah brings a whole long thing about un-understanding with a-- in the case of a fire and in the case of, um, the, the wallet. What's the difference? Why in the case of the fire, there's lots of restrictions, and it came-- and it can only salvage so much. And the case of the wallet, you are allowed to ask a goy to save it. Um, and one of the explanations is, in the case of the fire, you're not doing anything. You, you-- It's, it's happening by itself. And so you're told, just stand by. In the case of the wallet, you're expecting the person to drop the wallet and walk away. That's too much to ask. Therefore, they say there you're allowed to ask and call a goy. So if that's the, if that's the distinction, so then in the case of the car being parked, it's a-- LeChore, it's more comparable to the case of the fire than to the case of, uh, of the wallet. There's another explanation. In the case of the fire, if you'll be allowed to call a goy, and the goy will put out so much fire, and then he's not doing enough, so then you'll be tempted to help him do more, do more, do, do, do, to do more. To do more. That's why they put the brakes there. In the case of the wallet, you ask the goy to take the wallet. There's not gonna be any more melacha. So there's-- it's not

1:00:10 so clear. And I'm, I'm, I'm... I've been looking around. Is there any clear explanation and the parameters, this heter of the wallet that you are allowed to ask a goy, um, would that heter apply also to be allowed to take the car, um, to a safe place that it shouldn't get, uh, uh, towed away? Um, I might, you know, if I'm wrong, uh, my, my psak was wrong. Okay. So I'll have to admit the truth. Um, okay. That's what I have for tonight. I wish you a Gut Shabbos. Uh, about next Motzaei Shabbos. So we're going to have a Fabrengen. Uh, we have a, a guest, Rav Aharon Ginsburg from Boro Park, a very gishmake, um, mashpia. Um, so he's be- gonna be our guest for Shabbos and for Motzaei Shabbos. And the Fabrengen is called for eight clock. So as a policy, I don't like to have two shul activities at the same time. And consequently, um, want to give you advance notice that next week, the shiur online will be between seven and eight PM rather than the regular time. A Gut Shabbos, and we should hear besuras toivos from here and from Eretz Hakodesh. The, uh, the shivuyim and the soldiers should all return home safely. And Shalom Al Yisroel, we should have Simchas Olam Al Roishom, Moshiach Tzidkeinu nao mamash. A Gut Shabbos. Shalom. Gut Shabbos. Gut Shabbos.