משפטים תשפ״ד

00:12 Speaker 1 Welcome to Rog. Welcome to tonight's Shir. Tonight's Shir is dedicated by, uh, Pinchas Rabin and his family in memory of Rabbi Moshe Ben Mordechai, who passed away, uh, the fourth of Adar Alef, Tav Shin Lamed Gimel. And also as a merit for Refua Shlema for his brother, Rabbi Chaim Shmuel Mendel Ben Chana Rachel, Shol Av Harrefua Shlema. Today is-- we're already now into Adar. We should nichnas Adar marbim b'simcha. And those who remember, in Tav Shin Nun Beis, the Rebbe spoke about the idea of sixty. The, the, the two Adars, including, I guess, uh, r- the first day of Rosh Chodesh, which is, uh, which was Friday. So you have sixty days, and the Rebbe was seeking to idea-- to achieve the inyan of britul besishim. That seems to have been the, the thinking there. Unfortunately, we had the beginning-- There was the tragedy at the beginning of that month with the Parshas HaPai, and later there was of Zein Adar. The wish is a helping that we should have a britul besishim of all negative inyanim, and we should ha-- see, have ach tovah chesed, tamid kol hayomim, and the greatest tovah, geulah amitas haShalem, the Moshiach Tzidkeinu. So just we'll start off with a, a question really on the Parshah HaShavua. Uh, well, from a couple of weeks ago, one of the, uh, boy came over to me and asked me, when Moshe Rabbeinu, um, is, was told to split the Yam Suf, the Red Sea. So Hashem says, "Umatcha asher kisa bois

01:56 Speaker 1 hayyar,kach be yadecha holachta." Uh, sorry, when it comes to, to striking the rock to get water. So Hashem says to him, "Take with this stra- this staff with which you struck the, the river in Egypt." So he asks, But as far as he knows, it was Aaron who was-- who split the, uh, sea. And I think Rashi mentions in Chumash, the first three makkos were done by, uh, by Aaron rather than Moshe. And one of the reasons is because Moshe was protected by the water, by the ri-- by this, by the Ya'ir. Therefore, it wasn't appropriate for him to strike the Ya'ir. Therefore, Aaron did it. So back to the question. If that's the case, why does Hashem say to Aah- to Moshe, "Matkha shel kisa bois hayyar," take the staff at which you smote the river? And so I did a bit of homework and came up with a Gemara in Daf Tzadeg in Sanhedrin. Daf Tzadeg tes on the Beis, and it says the following: "Omar Rabbi Avahu, kol ha-ma'ase es chavero." One who forces, coerces, one has, um, in-influences, whichever word you want to use. "Kol ha-ma'ase es chavero," one who causes that his friend, "ma'alo le'dvar mitzvah," to perform a mitzvah. "Ma'alo lo hakosu ki illu asah." Then we have the idea that the gabah, who kind of gets people to give tzedakah, it's as if he himself has done the giving to tzedakah. "She'neemar," where do we see this? "She'amatkha shel kisa bois hayyar." And Hashem says to Moshe, "Take

03:43 Speaker 1 with the staff with which you struck the river." "V'chi Moshe hiko, va'lo Aharon hiko." It was done by Moshe-- No, sorry, it was done by Aaron, not by Moshe. "Ello lo malacho," this tells us, "kol ha-ma'ase es chavero le'dvar mitzvah." One who somehow coerces his fellow to perfor-perform a mitzvah, "ma'alo lo hakosu ki illu asah," then that's considered as if he himself did it. Which is I find also quite remarkable that after all we're talking about before Matan Torah. So, um, so the concept of shlucha sh'l Adam k'mosoi hasn't been introduced yet. So to say that Aaron is doing so as a shliach of Moshe, a shlucha sh'l Adam k'mosoi, that may not have been adequate. We have here a different idea that Aaron was doing so under the-- as a mission, as, uh, Moshe persuaded him to do it, and therefore it's attributed as if Moshe himself had split the-- had, had, um, had, um, smitten the sea, the, the river in Mitzrayim to make it turn to blood. Let's move on to a Halakha question. So there is a, a well-known, uh, r-Rabbi who is totally deaf. He, uh... And he is very active in helping other deaf people, uh, to Torah and to learn, and he communicates very well through sign language, context, but he's totally deaf. I'm not even sure whether he w-- manages to hear with, with a machine. I understand he doesn't even hear with a machine, with a hearing aid. He manages to com-communicate through sign language very

05:35 Speaker 1 well, and when he speaks, he also doesn't speak coherently. With difficulty, you can understand what he's saying perhaps, but he's not, he's not really, uh, comfortable. It's not comfortable to hear, to listen to him. And so the question is, can he, such a person, be ma-made up for a-- make up for a minyan? And Number two, number two, could he make a minyan for Chazaras Hashatz, which will go into s-slightly different halacha. And thirdly, to be called up to the Torah. So we're looking here at Siman Nun Hey. That's-- Why does it... Siman Nun Hey is where the dinim of Kaddish are discussed. The, uh, first Kaddish in the schedule of the day would be after Yishtabach, before Yotzer Or. And that's where we have a lot of discussion about what makes up a minyan, et cetera. So here we have this detail. "Cheiresh hamedaber ve'eino shome'a," one who's deaf, but he's, uh, can speak. "Or shome'a ve'eino medaber," or he can hear but he c- is mute. "Hej kefrichchim," they've got the status of regular people. "Umetzorfin l'chal davar shebekedushah afal pi she'ein oinin imo hem." They do constitute-- They can make up the minyan and even though they're not answering. Well, the deaf one is not answering because he couldn't hear. The mute one is, is not answering because he can't speak. And nevertheless, it makes up a minyan. "Va'afilu hem shnaim o yoser." Even if there's two or more in the minyan, you've got a minyan of ten men, and two of

07:16 Speaker 1 them are deaf mu-- are, are deaf or mute. "Kol sheha'rov hem frichchim," so long as the majority are regular, um, um, uh, intelligent people, "Sheyacholim la'anes omen." So then, "Ein anias hamiyut m'akeves." The minority's answering is not imperative. "Kol sheheim bnei mitzves," so long as they are over bar mitzvah, "Hafrish sh, sh, shor alayem." That is as far as it goes for Kaddish, et cetera. "Elash em mashlich tsibur hispalah kvar belachash." If, however, the chazan has already davened the quiet Shemoneh Esreh, and now he's repeating Shemoneh Esreh because there is a, um, uh, idea of Chazaras Hashatz. The whole thing is Sheine Boki. "Lo yamzi at v'lo sheinis." You cannot repeat the Shemoneh Esreh. "Eli en kein yesh tesha shomim v'onin omen." Then you need to have nine people who are listening and answering Amen. So these people who are either deaf or mute will make up a minyan for Kaddish, will not make up a minyan for Chazaras Hashatz in a, on a regular format. Okay. That's all when they have, they ca- When they, they, they have one of the two. They have either hearing or, or speaking. "Avol mi she'eino medaber. She'eino shome'a v'lo medaber." But if the person has neither ability, neither to s-hear nor to speak, "Arehu keshoitey v'koton." Then he's got the status like a, an imbecile or to a child. "V'zeh hu cheiresh sh'dibro b'chal chachamim b'chol nokhim." All over we have in Shas, "Cheiresh sheitey v'koton," a person who's a deaf mute is considered that he doesn't

09:14 Speaker 1 communicate normally and therefore is considered, uh, like a person who has no intelligence. Now, the, the irony here is that this person is in-intelligent person and communicates well, um, through artificial means, and that, that, that's really the question here. Does his communicating in artificial means, does, does... Or in, in, in unconventional means, does, does that change the halacha? I just want to, um, before going further, I wanna say that there is a halacha in Gemara that if you cause someone harm, you have to pay. There's a whole thing, you know. Uh, uh, you took damage in this limb, that, that organ. You have to pay, reimburse for the loss of limb, et cetera. Then the halacha of the Gemara is, "Cheishoi nosin zeh bekolot." If you assaulted someone and you caused them to lose their hearing, you have to pay the value of an entire person. It's not that they lost their ears. They lost their whole, the whole menschlichat. I saw on Tangada, my, my, my father, alav hashalom, once he, his, his, uh, his, his hearing deteriorated, he, he was not, he was, he was, he wa-he wasn't the same person at all. He couldn't, he couldn't communicate, couldn't hear very well. Um, and so tha-that's this, this idea that a person... Well, what we're seeing in halacha is if a person can't hear but can speak, he's still considered mitav to a minyan, et cetera. Okay. But just coming back to Aron HaNukida, what about artificial communication? Does that change the halacha?

10:54 Speaker 1 Does it mean that he is, uh, he's not a cheiresh? So what I'm seeing is, particularly, I mean, this what you have on the screen is from the Alter Rebbe Shulchan Aruch. You have the Sefer, which I use, um, a lot, is a Sefer on medical halacha. It's called Nishmas Avraham from Rav Avraham, Dr. Avraham Sofer, Avraham. And he goes to the whole Shulchan Aruch wherever there's a, any, you know, med-medical issue and relating to halacha. So at any rate, so he brings from Rav Moshe Feinstein and from Rav Ovadia Yosef and from Rav Waldenberg and from Rav Shlomo Zalman. And what I'm seeing, the general drift is that he would make up a minyan. And the reason being that does, does the artificial communication... Well, look, he does communicate, and therefore to say that he's out of touch is not true. He is in touch with people, and therefore the sevarah is a strong sevarah to say that he is mitzarah. Um, in addition, even if you want to be, uh, you know, dig in and say, "Oh, but he can't hear. It's only through a machine." All right. Um, the answer would be that their concept of a minyan is a din derabonon. This doesn't say... Although it's mesa smachta of a moser le'edo haros, but the concept of a minyan is basically a din derabonon. And therefore, in a din derabonon, one can afford to take the more lenient view and say that this person is mitzvah derech for a minyan. We

12:26 Speaker 1 saw clearly for chazara shas, he would not be able to make up the minyan. For aliyah letorah also would be a problem because he cannot say a bracha in a, in, in, in intelligible, in a, in a coherent way. So the shliach who asked me this question, he says, "Well, actually, I am the balkoynah, and what I'm going to do is I'll call him up and I'll say the bracha along with him." And this way, that's not a problem because really, uh, I mean, what the person says, uh, if he's wants to say the bracha gives him drehei. But meanwhile, what the tzipa will hear is from the balkoynah, and we've discussed this before. There is a sevarah discussed in some achzaric and in our Chaim Lamed He that the, the, the bracha at Kriyat HaTorah is really the balkoynah's bracha. He's the one who's doing the reading in public. It's just he allows the privilege for the person who's called up to say the bracha. So certainly, if the balkoynah says the bracha, it's legitimate. Um, the only thing I would say perhaps that balkoynah shouldn't have another aliyah the same morning. Let's move on to the next question, and that is un-quite an unusual question of a Kohen who happens to work as a courier. He drives around stuff for... And so he also drives around, uh, he's got jobs in the medical world. And so sometimes he's being, he's asking the question, what happens if he's given a human organ, human skin

14:02 Speaker 1 to transport from A to B? So here it's very interesting. My-- I, I wasn't sure what were they asking about. Eh, from a, a live human or for a dead human? So for example, there could be a case, I don't know, uh, I'm, I don't, I'm not in this sort of field, but let's say there would be a kidney, uh, transplant. So has-- the kidney has to be taken from A to B. So the truth is, in that case, it would, he would allow to, be allowed to transport it. And let's explain this. You can see here in the Rambam. This is in Rambam, you can see in the sources. In Rambam, in Hilchot Tumat Mez, peh gi-peh beis, that a, um, a, an ever, an organ which has been separated from a human being. So that's got a status of a, as if it's like a dead person. And a Kohen would be tamei. I mean, every would be tamei, but for a Kohen, it's an ever min ha'torah for him to make himself tamei according to most poskim. I say according to most poskim because some poskim take the view that since the Kohen now is already tamei in any case to be, make himself more tamei, some poskim say that that's not a min ha'torah, it's midrabbonon. Any rate, but a Kohen may not, mustn't make himself tamei. That we know. Every Kohen knows that. And so ever min ha'chai. But the, the definition of ever, the definition of ever is only

15:23 Speaker 1 if it's got, it got three components. It's got basar, it's got flesh. It's got gidim, sinews, va'atztomois and bones. So a finger, a, a, a foot, uh, these are called evarim. Very, very interesting that ne- the lungs and the heart and the, and the kidneys, uh, et cetera, all of these are not called evarim in halakha because they do not have bone. And so why, why is it so interesting? Because, and I think we've discussed this once before, when we make a Mi Sheberakh for a choile, or echad l'itzlan. So we say, um, "Sh'shvor shleima b'ramach evara v'shasar gido." So you're asking about for his two hundred and forty-eight limbs. Now, technically, the, uh, unfortunately, many illnesses do not affect the, the, the bone type of limb. It's talking organs. They're talking about the inner organs, which are, l'halakha, not called evarim. So all right, so that's, that's a discussion on its own. Why, why do we word the Mi Sheberakh in this way? But coming back to our point that if it were a human organ, which is a d-- or, or skin, which does not have from a live person, then that would not have a tumah, and he would be allowed to transport this. However, if it were the same, um, human o-o-or, um, piece which is from a dead body, then he wouldn't, then he would be tamei, and w-- and the Kohen wouldn't be allowed to transport this. So let's read that in the second part of the Rambam. Min

17:00 Speaker 1 halakha dalet. Ever hapoyresh min hameit, an organ separated from a dead body. It's meitamba magam asar. Kohen, it's like, it's like a whole body. And then he says, Chaser atzmo. If a bit of the bone is missing from that organ, en nisha'alo basar kazayis. If there's a kazayis of, of flesh, meitam hekemes sholom. So what we're seeing here is that as from a, a, a, a dead, uh, human, even a kazayis of flesh is going to make the person who carries it tamei. And therefore, I don't see any, any, I don't see any leeway for the Kohen to be able to be a courier for, for human, um, parts if they are, if they are, um, from a, a dead person. The only thing I could think of is if the Kohen, if, if the, if he's driving a van which has got a cab at the back, a, a cabin which is separate from the cab where he sits, then perhaps he's be, he'd be allowed to drive the van because it's, uh, in a different oyho. That might be a, a way, but then also he would not be allowed to lift the box from the van into the building, from the building to the hou-- um, into the van. It would be really quite, uh, quite awkward because he's... By lifting it, there's a tumas masse. By lifting it, never mind oyhel, there's a tumas masse, and that we wouldn't be able to, uh, um, so that he wouldn't be allowed to

18:37 Speaker 1 carry it. Then if he takes it into the house, it's gonna be, uh, into the building, the tumas oyhel. So really, um, it doesn't seem to be a suitable job for a Kohen to be, um, a courier for pathological, um, paraphernalia, if that's the right word. Okay. So comes up somehow in some conversation about putting on tefillin with a man who hasn't put on tefillin today, and it's now after sunset. Is there, is it... But it's, it's, it's Friday. So it's going to Friday night. So generally, we've gone through this before perhaps, there's a machloket whether layla zmant tefillin or layla lavez mant tefillin. And that's because of the pasuk, "V'shomartos achukah hazos miyomim yamimoh," in the Parashat Kadush, you should regard this statute, Miyomim yamimoh. Does that refer to tefillin, that tefillin should only be done by day, miyomim yamimoh? And indeed, Yerushalmi, uh, says that when a man takes off his tefillin towards the evening, he would make a berachah, "Hashechet shomer b'tzvat sevan u'lishmer chukkov." And we in Ovad etzion, well, that's officially the earliest, um, spot where... About taking off the tefillin. So we have here this lashon, "Shenishmer chukekha baolam hazeh veniska venichya." So there is a svara that this is instituted because of the removing of the tefillin. That's according to Yerushalmi, who holds that wearing tefillin by night is excluded because of "Shomartos achukah hazos miyomim yamimoh." But the Bavli, et cetera, certainly does not follow that. And we, we hold that, we pasken that layla zmant tefillin.

20:32 Speaker 1 In HaTorah, you do for-- have the mitzvah of tefillin at night also. It's only because of, uh, that you might come to fall asleep whilst wearing the tefillin, and once you fall asleep, you don't have control of the functions of your body. Therefore, you would or might be, uh, violating the, the, the, uh, respect for the tefillin. And that's why we no-don't wear tefillin at night. But that's all true for a reg-- a weekday night. But for Shabbos, then we learn separately that Shabbos is lavez mant tefillin. Therefore, there's a-- So there's a difference between any other evening and Friday night. So now, what, what we're going to read on the, on the screen is from the Alter Rebbe's siddur. And he writes, "Ein lehon niach tefillin achar t'chilas hashkir." As you know, the whole thing of Rabbeinu Tam and, and, and, and, um, and the Geonim, number one. And number two, we also know when it says shkir, does it mean the beginning of shkir, the end of shkir? And that's a whole discussion when it comes to benching Hanukkah licht. "Mitzvosu mishetiesh kahamo," does it mean the end of shkir or beginning of shkir? And that's why we, we're noig to say mi-mishetiesh kah means from the beginning of shkir. That's why we light menorah right after, you know, right after shkir, right after Mincha, right after shkir. But to the, to the other siddur, that it might be mishetiesh kah means from the end of shkir. That's why instead of having it

21:59 Speaker 1 burning fif-- um, thirty minutes, which is the way it's recommended in the Gemara, we make it a, a minimum of fifty minutes so that even if mishetiesh kah means from the end of shkir, so then we give it another twenty minutes or more, depending on, uh, whatever the circumstances are. But that's the hesbon of the fifty minutes which is written in Sefer HaMinhagim. So coming back, the Alter Rebbe is writing here in the siddur not to put on tefillin after t'chilas hashkir, the beginning of sunset. But nevertheless, "Im hoyu olo nikodim," if you were wearing tefillin from earlier, "Ein tzorech lecholtsa." Uh, he-- You're not mechuyav to remove them. Um, before going further, I have to stop and tell you this little story that one time the Rebbe pulled up. It was the earlier years, and he was coming back from the oil, and he saw this bochur was wearing tefillin out just outside seven seventy, and the Rebbe made some kind of comment, um, of it being slightly inappropriate. And not to the bochur, but to the driver. So I think it was Rabbi Krinsky who said, "After this Rabbeinu Tam's." So the Rebbe said, "Vi ich ken zein nochushim mit dos Rashis." Rebbe says, "I know, I know this bochur, and according to the way I know his personality, this is Rashi's tefillin. Kol ponim, so if you're wearing it before, you don't have to stop. No, it's a chatzo gomer. Kol ponim," the Alter Rebbe continues, "Ki im be'erev Shabbos, be'erev Yom

23:25 Speaker 1 Tov. Shetzorech lecholtsa lifnei hashkir." By contrast, on Friday, there, there is a duty to take them off, and before sunset. "Zman ma kodim shemadlikin haneres be'erev Shabbos." A little bit of time, some time before the time of lighting the candles on Motzei-- on, on, on Erev Shabbos, on Friday, um, before, before, uh, sunset. And this is based upon the famous Gemara in Shabbos, which talks about when they would, I think it's chaf alef, but maybe a bit further, about sheis tkiyas hoyu tokin. That they would-- There was a customary to have six tkiyas on a Friday towards, uh, nightfall, towards sunset. First one was to alert the people out of the fields to pack up. The second one was for the shopkeepers in town. And the third one was to tell the people to, um, uh, time to say Chamin and to take off tefillin. And then the fourth one is the time for Adlokas Haner. And then it, it's kirat shor kir, and then it's Shabbos. So you see clearly in that Gemara, the taking off the tefillin is a little bit before Adlokas Haner. And that's the Alter Rebbe's source, which is very interesting that I, uh, when I looked around, other poskim don't bring this word of the tefillin should be removed a little bit before shkir. Coming back to our question, is there a justification if a person hasn't put on tefillin? Well, we have here Halakha. The Halakha is that you don't put on tefillin, uh, especially at ni- on

24:56 Speaker 1 Friday night. A regular night, so then there, there is Halakha. You know, it says in the Gemara, "Svara v'Halakha v'ein boren kein." You can't pasken that you can put on at night. But there's, there is, there is, n- you know, I, I said... I just got a question this week. Someone who is mamash in his la-- um,very, uh, very frail. They don't know whether he'll live till the next morning. And, um, could you put on tefillin with him at night? No. I can't say you're allowed to, but I, but I can say that it says in the Gemara, halakha ve'ein boreh nikkei. Yeah. So there is, there is leeway on that. But-- and when it comes to Shabbos, so we have that, that Shabbos one doesn't put on tefillin. Let's move on. This is gonna be an interesting one. And that is... This is a, a Lubavitcher Rebbe in, he is in Europe. His father lives in Eretz Yisrael, has become very frail, and needs to have a live-in carer. To help with his medical, with his, with hygiene, et cetera. All right. So they're going to... The live-in carer means that in the house, they're gonna designate a room, and this will be the carer's room. The carer says that he is a Catholic, and he is a devout Catholic, prays every day. And so the, the son asks me, he says, "I want to know l'chatchila. I don't want to have a cutting corners. Is there a problem if the, this Catholic

26:32 Speaker 1 carer will come in and put up a tzelem, et cetera, put up a cross in the house, worship, et cetera?" So he asked me, and my first, uh, reaction was that it's not a problem, but then I said, "I'll look into it." And, um, looking into it, I'm not so, uh, comfortable with it. Yeah. As y- as I say, he's asking for l'chatchila. We're not talking about cutting corners. He's asking for l'chatchila. So we have here, this is in Shulchan Aruch, Siman Yoreh Deah. This is in Siman kuf nun alef. And we have Sif Che says one shouldn't be selling a home to a goy, to avodah zara, uh, nor fields in Eretz Yisrael. You shouldn't because that's a concept of choneh. Do not give them, um, do not... An encampment. Don't give them the ability to settle in Eretz Yisrael. Amal maskirim lohem batim. You're allowed to rent out houses to them, but not fields. Okay. Now let's scroll down to Sif Yod. Am ha'makom sheytidru lehaskir. Even where there is permission to rent out a house to a goy, lo yitidru ela le'otza'ah. That's only as a warehouse. Lo chayotze. Aval lo lediro. But you wouldn't be allowed to rent out premises for a dwelling. Nephesh machnis letoychoi elilim bekeva, because he's going to bring in an, an idol into your dwelling. And so you are giving accommodation for a, an avodah zara. Now, I can't see it on the screen now, but this is, this is where it applies in the Chutz

28:10 Speaker 1 La'aretz also. Um, ve'o idna. Then we have the Ramoh who kind of backtracks on this, and he says, "Ve'idna nowadays, lo hagula haskir af le diro." It's common for Jews to rent dwellings to goyim, even as dwellings, not just as warehouses. And why so? So he says, "Kei von she'ein noyagin lehachnis avodah zara bebatei," because it's not common for people to bring an idol into their homes. That is what the Ramoh says. He lived about four hundred and fifty years ago, and that's what he says. So then on this point, this fact, this assumed fact of the, uh, Ramoh. So the, the, uh, Shah, as you can see on the left of the screen, um, in the Yabia Omer, he says, I, I-- That's hardly the case. Koshe d'chochazin, we see the people that goyim do bring in idols into their homes. And to say that nowadays their, their whole worship is not considered avodah zara is a bit oc-- difficult to say. And he says perhaps in the time of the Ramoh, which was, uh, a hundred years earlier perhaps, or less, perhaps it wasn't so common for goyim to bring getshkes, to bring idols into their homes. But, uh, the, the, th-this-- things have changed. So he comes up with another explanation. So he says, "V'fi halacha de'tinira," there's another teshuvot which the Rosh says that although r-rental, rental doesn't mean sale. "Dehidur leidan skhirut lekan." So it's your house, you've got-- you, you are accommodating avodah zara. He says, however, "Kei von

29:57 Speaker 1 she'yad omer stakipa," because we're in Chutz La'aretz, and we are bound by the civil law. "Ube'dineihem skhirut leyoime k'mekheira." In the civil law, a rental is dealt with the same as, as a sale. And, "Im nofal beis ha'shomaskir," even if your own home, the re-- the, the landlord's home collapsed, "einei yochel le'otzi'ot," he would-- doesn't have a civil... In civil court, he won't be able to evict the tenant because he sold it. The te-- the, the contract of a rental is, is dealt with the same, uh, power as a, as a, as a contract for a sale. On that basis, it's not your house. So again, what the Rosh is saying is what the Shah is adopting, that why is it okay? Why is it okay to rent premises to goyim who will bring in avodah zara? Because they are as if it's not your house anymore. It's rented to them. It's as if it's their house, not yours. And therefore, it's okay for them to bring in avodah zara. So coming back to our question, we're talking about bringing in a carer. I don't-- I find it difficult to see the logic, the... I don't know, to rationalize that the carer is a, is a, is a tenant. The carer is a carer, and the, uh, perk of the, uh, whatever, practical need. But it's nothing-- There's no contract on the, on the, on the rental. And as a result, I don't see a heter if he brings in an aver zarar. So let's

31:36 Speaker 1 say he was a Hindu and start bringing in little, uh, idols, et cetera. So that would, would be a problem. And so then it comes back to the-- to our question, if he's a Catholic and starts bringing in a cross. Is the cross considered an article of aver zarar? So that we're gonna deal with. Right. So now-- So let's, let's now go to the next slide, and we'll see what, uh, the status of a cross is. So here we have in the Ramoh. I think it's in Siman Kuf, Michah Aleph. And he says the following: "Shessi ve'erev," a cross, "Shemishtachav im lo," which is bowed down to. "Dinoi k'din selem," is like an image, an idol. "Ve'ossur b'lo bitul," and therefore it's also banned. "Avol shessi ve'erev shetoilin betzaror l'zikaron shebo mim kom yosei." But if people wear a cross around their neck, that's just to say that there's-- it's, it's a sign of their affiliation. "Lo mikri selem." This is not called a worshiped image. "Umutar." Therefore, it's, it's mutar b'hanah, et cetera. So that's why I especially, um, spoke about if they put up a, a cross to, to bow down to, to, to worship. If it's a cross which is just, um, uh, an ornament, not, not for worship, then that would, that would, uh, change the halacha. That would be okay. Yeah. Right. Now, I, uh, did a little bit of searching on this, and I came across this Sefer which alerted me to this. This, you can see on the

33:18 Speaker 1 right of the screen, HaSocher VeHakabel BeShabbos. It's a very contemporary Sefer all about landlords and, uh, et cetera, and primarily about Shabbos. But he also has a whole chapter about, about Aver Zarar, uh, and accommodating, et cetera, which I found very, uh, helpful. Right. Let's go on to our next question. So our next question: Are piercings forbidden as Chukas HaGoyim? So someone asked me this question that he was asked by a girl. He says she's a Frum girl, but she's asking, she's asking about putting a, a nose ring and an extra earring and a ring in her belly. I asked, "I don't understand. If she's a Frum, if she's a Frum girl, what is the point of having a, a, a ring in your belly that's covered in any case? Is it ossur?" So the answer is ossur, yeah. Chukas HaGoyim. Yeah. So interesting. I-I-I think it's the obvious, yeah. But the-- The girl's asking, is it ossur? So now looking here in Siman Kuf Ayin Ches, in Yoreh Deah, the definition of Chukas HaGoyim. So we have here not to have a haircut like a Goyish haircut. And it goes into details what was common then. Don't build buildings which resemble the churches. Well, that's another discussion, yeah. And then it goes, and the Ramoh says one should be distinct from the Goyim with clothing and other things. "Vechol ze einu ossur ela bedavar shenohagu bo hagoyim l'shum pritzus." This which we say Chukas HaGoyim is when the Goyim are do-doing this in a

35:16 Speaker 1 way of, how would you say the word pritzus? Of, um, I don't know if promiscuity is the right word. But they're doing it, uh, all right, uh, uh, to show a lack of restraint in a, in a, in a more, in a, in, in immoral way, et cetera. "Shenohagu," for example. "Shenohagu lilbush malbushim adumim." That they would wear bright red clothing. "Hu malbush sorim okoyatsim kadima lozem im albushay pritzus." Wearing bright red clothing, we know that Eden don't wear that, and that seems to be the background for this, that it's, um, red is very eye-catching. And I remember once by Kinat Shash Shluchim, this is a g- twenty years ago or more, and Rabbi Kunin, zal, he, he, uh, was upset. He saw some of the people wearing, then it was a common-- po-popular, these crimson, these bright red ties was the fashion then. Uh, he was upset that he saw some of the Shluchim also wearing those, that type of, of thing, which is probably coming from here. I'll give you an example. Let's say wearing jeans which have got a couple of tears on the knees, lower than the knee, above the knee, whatever. That is, uh, in my mind, it's a, it's a, uh, it's, it's a fashion. A little bit it's, it's a concept of, of pritzus. It's a certain-- It's a pritzus of saying, "I'm... You know, I've got this certain rough type of behavior or rough type of nature, and I'm available," whatever it may be. But there's some

36:52 Speaker 1 kind of message there, and that's what the pritzus are. So certainly, um, the ring in the belly, I think definitely is, is that, and I think also, uh, a ring in the nose or the, or the other piercings. I think they're all, they're all saying a certain, uh, a message of, of a certain pritzus Of, of tzniyuskeit, um, and that, that wouldn't be okay. So coming back to the previous question, someone's asking if a carer brings in a Quran, um, and leaves it in our house. Well, the Qur- the, the... That's an interesting point. The Islam is not Avodah Zarah. This is something, I think, well-known concept, that they believe in Hashem. Um, well, that's the only positive thing about it. But they, they... So they-- That wouldn't be a, a, a, an item of Avodah Zarah. Yeah. Um, so what would you do with it? I don't know, but i- it's not an item of Avodah Zarah. Right. Let's go on to the next question, for which I do not have a proper source. So someone's asking that Rivka wore a nose ring. That's, that's, that's true. That's-- And, and we have the concept of nose... The idea of nose rings is mentioned in the, in, uh, in, in, in, in Torah several times. The, the answer is that in those times, it was, it was an accepted thing. It was a normal thing. And, um, there's an expression, "Afa pi sha'hu v'vymeha oves snu v'vymeha bon." There are things which there was a

38:39 Speaker 1 time when they were accepted, and they were, they were positive things. And now they, they are by the association. And, you know, no one, no one puts on a nose ring because they want to, uh, emulate Rivka Imeinu. So I think that's the Dvar HaPoshet. Uh, yeah. Let's-- So now, I, as I say, I do not have a source for the following, and that is about saying a bracha with a little child. Uh, from what age could they say a bracha with Hashem's name? So we do know, it says in Hayom Yom, that from the age of three, we train-- they start training the child to wear yarmulke and to wear tzitzit and to say brachos. Um, some people start earlier. Some children are able to speak earlier. So my question here is, if the child is not, not, uh, not c- not clean, they're still wearing a, a na- a nappy, a diaper. And so then I think it's a bit premature to say a bracha properly with Hashem's name. So I'm just looking in Siman Ayin Cheis in, in Erechai, I'm talking about saying brachos. Now, we have a pasuk. Everyone's familiar. The Madian went to battle. So it says that you should, uh, have with you a spade, and when you need to relieve yourself, so then you should go out to the machane and you should recover-- and then you cover it up. And it says, "Ki Hashem eleichecha mischalech bekarva, uh, machanecha, ohoia machanecha kodesh, va'layira b'cho'er vasdovo v'shov mei'acharecha."

40:15 Speaker 1 There is an idea that to mention Hashem's name, there has to be kedushat ha'machane. There has to be a state of kedusha in the environment. And therefore, if, um, if there is... If there's-- We're not, not allowed to say a bracha in the presence of human excrement because of machanecha kodesh. And then we have even if it's covered, but if it's attached to the body, that's what we're reading over here in Shevet Ha'Narf, if, if a person is dressed, if they have, um, tzoia, which is, um, outside the body, but in the, uh, by the, uh, by the back, so then you wouldn't be allowed to say a bracha. And I guess even if you can't smell anything, but because it's, uh, it's a, it's a violation of kedushat ha'machane, saying a bracha. So I think that a, a child which is not yet, uh, as I say, I haven't seen this anywhere, just as in, you know, contemporaries forum. But I think at that age, it would be appropriate to make with them brachos, but you know, "Baruch atah Adonai," something like that, but not saying the Hashem's name until they are, uh, able to look after their own cleanliness. Let's move on to the next thing, and that is a couple of things left on our list. It'll be a bit shorter than usual. Baruch Hashem had a busy week. We had a simcha on Motzei Shabbos, last Motzei Shabbos, uh, in New York. And so, um, Baruch Hashem. So less time to,

41:46 Speaker 1 um, be chok and betorah as usual. So thank you. So now what we did, um, discuss a couple of, um, weeks ago was about Birchat HaGomel if, if it-- there's an expiry date. And I brought sources which say that there is an expiry date. So my son-in-law in, in Chicago sent me a reference copy of this piece from the Stei Chemed. So the Stei Chemed is this encyclopedia written by Rav Chaskiel Madini, who lived in the-- He was a contemporary of the Rebbe Rashab. And, um, post-war was this, uh, encyclopedia was published by Kohos, by, by, um, by, by, by Kohos, with a seen for the need to provide this kind of access for this information for Rabbonim and Halakha. At any rate, so in the... So you've got the Stei Chemed is divided into two main sections. One is Kuntress HaKlalim, which is more lomdus. Then we've got Mareches Hadinim, which is more Halakha. At any rate, so he, he brings here this discussion about whether there is an expiry date to Birchat HaGomel, and he ref- gives here a reference to the Divrei Nechemya, who says that, um, saying Birchat HaGomel even later, that's, that's okay. Although there is a recommendation to say within the first three days, but that's not... That's a recommendation. That's not an expiry date. He brings here also, um, Shitah Mekubetzet, which says, Masuchet, uh, «מיוכל חיך דלכה אסורה». Now, for the Birkat Hagomel, you need to have ten people, ten men. Then he brings a Svara that

43:35 Speaker 1 you should wait. You don't have ten people, wait for thirty days. It mi-you might be able to do it then. Then now I find it very interesting, he says, after that, you should say it even by yochid, which is very interesting. He's saying you can say it by yochid. Uh, pashut, it has to have a minyan, but he's saying up, up, up till lamed yud. Okay, so we, we're seeing here that there are definitely sources. Although the, um, the sources I quoted then say that there is an expiry date. Now, those who say clearly that you can say it even at a later point. I just want to kind of perhaps a bit of, um, to differentiate that if it's a Birkat Hagomel because a person went through a, a, an ordeal of a medical thing, et cetera, that doesn't fade so fast. The, the-- That, that's what the ca-- Here we're talking about a person who traveled, and I think there's a difference between the Birkat Hagomel after a medical, uh, ordeal to a travel where one, o-one is, is the, uh, is more enduring, I think. The, the, the feeling, uh, et cetera, is... I can, I can see a difference, but all right, fine. Um, there are those. We have, uh, one of our neighbors came in once, uh, here in, in Lubavitch. He dow- He usually davens another shul. He came into our shul to say Birkat Hagomel because he says in his shul, they don't say Birkat Hagomel on traveling

45:03 Speaker 1 on a-- with an airplane. You can see in Piske Teshuvas are those who don't, who don't see air travel as the, as, as warranting Birkat Hagomel. So in Lubavitch, we know we do if it's air travel across the sea. But nevertheless, um, I can see kind of when-- with this delay, et cetera, I can see, uh, you know, the argument to say that it's completely, uh, obsolete, completely forgotten. Well, all right. Let's go on another two points, and that is about last week, if you remember, I spoke about a woman who's expecting, um, multiple birth and will have to... The, uh, hospital are insisting on-- that they'll use-- they'll have to supplement the milk, and they're gonna use the milk which they have, um, the, the regular, you know, baby's milk, which they have. Uh, now, so then I mentioned about the-- from Rabha-Rab-Rab Frank, Rabbi Shulin, Hartz VI, how he talks about lactose. Lactose and milk powder, and he wants to use the same heter which is applies to butter, he wants to use for, for, um, milk powder also. So I-- Last night, I read through the Hartz VI. It's, it's in Yoreh De'ah, as I said, kof gimel, kof daled. Uh, he's, he's-- What he's saying is the following. When we-- When there is the lashon in Gemara that «חלב טמא אינו עומד», you can't make butter or cheese from non-kosher milk. It doesn't mean it's not possible. Now, this fellow, uh, someone sent me a, uh, some research that you could

46:53 Speaker 1 get-- you can make cheese, you can make bu-- from, from, uh, milk powder. You can make from other-- any mammal's milk, you can make chee-cheese or something from the, from the milk. When the Gemo- Gemara says, «חלב טמא אינו עומד». So Rav Frank explains that it doesn't mean it's not possible. What it means is that there is-- every milk has got a li- a water content, and it's got a solid content. The cow's milk has got a, got a high proportion of solids, and therefore, you'll produce a re- a reasonable amount of cheese from X amount of milk. The same amount of milk from another species, from a pig or from a camel, will apparently produce much le-- It's, it's got more, uh, much... It'll produce much less cheese per, um, measure. That's what he's... I mean, I, I, I am-- I didn't check this out. I find it very interesting because my impression is actually that camel's milk is actually thicker and creamier, uh, than, than, uh, cow's milk. But that's, that's, uh, one point. Rabbi Pink, who is, uh, very involved in commercial kashrus, he also challenged, you know, he raised a couple of points about this, about this, uh, baby's milk, about relying on, uh, on the heter equivalent to butter. He says, first of all, even-- By the way, today's butter, you can't rely on the heter of Shechet Challah because there's various other ingredients added to butter which are not necessarily kosher. So butter would also need to have a

48:33 Speaker 1 hechsher. It can-- It doesn't have to be Mishas Chaliv. It can be Mishas Sasiya, but it has to have a hechsher that they don't put other ingredients which aren't kosher. And he says that baby's milk is also-- They have added ingredients. And besides the Cholov Akum issue, whether it's Cholov Yisrael or not, but there's also what about the other ingredients. And then he told me another interesting point. To make m-milk powder, and I understand that the baby's milk is made with milk powder. So there's something called a spray dryer. Apparently, a spray dryer is as tall as a three-floor building, and it's like a kind of oven, and it's-- the, the fluid goes through this, in this, uh, large chamber, and it's changed from a liquid into a powder. That's about the spray dryer. Now, this is a very expensive facility. And then the-- It's very common for the same facility to be used for other products. And so you, you say it's o- it's only-- it's milk. It's Cholov Akum or Cholov Stam. But what was the machinery used for yesterday? And te-technically, they are so large that to kasher these, these facilities, these spray dryers, it's very, very difficult to, to kasher them. And so the answer to all of this is that talking about a baby's milk or milk powder, et cetera, it would need to have some kind of hechsher. There's these different levels of hechsher. There's a kind of approval, which means perhaps they've, uh, visited the plant and seen

50:10 Speaker 1 that everything is okay. And then you have something which is called a certification, wherethe, the kashrus authority has a-- meets up and makes a, a, a contract with the, with the c- with the factory that if they're going to ch- change the, the ingredients, they're going to have to inform them. So that's a more solid type of hechsher. Well, at any rate, so the, the message here is that the-- this milk which we want to say is okay because of the, the need, would have to have, um, a hechsher of sorts, that it's not used-- they're not using, um, the same equipment for non-kosher stuff and that there are no non-kosher ingredients. It happens to be that the milk which we're talking about is on the London Beth Din list, so that's, that's okay. Right. Um, one last point which is not on our list, and that is, as I was on duty at the Beit Midrash on Stamford Hill on Friday morning, someone asked me a question which I've never had before, and that was that someone was davening Shacharit. And then I think he'd finished Shema, and he was by Emes Veyatziv, and then he answered Kedusha perhaps or something. And then he forgot, and he started Shemoneh Esreh. So he hasn't said the berakhah of Emes Veyatziv to Goel Yisroel. Now, he's finished Shemoneh Esreh. Does he say the berakhah? So I told him that this... By... In, in his word, he should say it. But, and then I looked up

51:45 Speaker 1 my, um, uh, Sefer Mishnayos Megillah, which is all about mistakes in davening. And so here he quotes from the Birkei Yosef in the, in Siman Samekh Bet. It's quoted briefly in the Mishnah Berurah in Siman Samekh Bet. Um, I think I've mentioned before, the Birkei Yosef, from the Kiddo, he tends to be much more of a melakei. He's by quoting various forum. We're gonna read what he has to say. Right. "Ve zeh hoyu maaseh be echad she hoyu mispal be azarah." He was davening in the azarah, I guess he means in the shul, and before he came to Shiru Chadashah, the Sefer Torah was taken out in the shul. And so he fell silent because he now sees the Sefer Torah being carried. And then he was confused, and he did not finish off, and he just started Shemoneh Esreh. And others, I guess he discussed his predicament with others, and they scoffed at him and says, "Why did you stop to look at the Sefer Torah? Do your own thing." And I say to, to them that actually he was right. He should have stopped. To stop to look at the Sefer Torah was the right thing. "Ve chen kosov harav..." We're going on to the second column. "Harav ha-khaviv bit sh-sh'voysov hanitfoses chadashes me ato." Now, who is the khaviv? I don't remember now. Uh, I didn't, I didn't research this. And "gedolah mizoy," further, the Rav says there that he holds that if he stops in the middle of Birkat Keriat Shema,

53:17 Speaker 1 he should say Mizoy Sefer Torah, which very interestingly because I don't think we would follow that. By the way, this is by the Sephardim where they do Hagbe before Kriyat Sefer Torah. But this, uh, "elo da hai gavra israh b'hanishkach kedein." Eh, it's... He's, he's very poetic here. He's quoting obviously the holiness of the pasuk, of, of Sukkot. But this fellow had... You know, the fact that he stopped to acknowledge the Sefer Torah was perfectly appropriate, but then he had forgotten to say the end of the berakhah. So what should he do now? So, yeah, he says, "Pashut," that after Shemoneh Esreh, he should say She-- he should say Shema again and then say Emes Veyatziv to Goel Yisroel. That's what he's recommending. So not only to say the berakhah, but to say also Shema again. And then he pro-- quotes also, um, Mari Kash, Mari Yaakov Castro, in his notes in Siman Samekh Gimel, Shekhinorot, that he has the following. "A fellow ein pnai lehispalel." If for some reason he's under pressure, he doesn't have time to daven Shemoneh Esreh, he should say Sh- should say Shema till Emes, and then he'll take a break 'cause he didn't have time to daven Shemoneh Esreh. Then he'll, then he'll... When he has time to daven Shemoneh Esreh, he will say Emes Veyatziv and then go straight to Shemoneh Esreh, and this way he's saying like geulah l'Yisroel. That's, uh, also a very surprising psak. At any rate, um, he says for sure it's talking about

54:50 Speaker 1 ones harbe. It must have been very extenuating circumstances to allow him to take a break after Shema, before Shemoneh Esreh. Uh, at any rate, but this is-- It comes back to our question. If a fellow, for some reason, start a Shemoneh Esreh and hasn't said Emes Veyatziv, so then after Shemoneh Esreh, he recommends he should say Shema again and then say, um, Emes Veyatziv all the way to Goel Yisroel. And with this, I'll finish off. We should be zoche to see the Goel Yisroel, geulas Yisroel from the Galus, and we should see, uh, Yeshua for Klal Yisroel, uh, with Mashiach Tzidkeinu, uh, and we should hear the Besuras HaTov from Eliyahu Hanavi that hiya zman geulaschem. And we should see this bezman hazeh oheinen uveshukat olamee, barakh hu, agadei tov.

55:42 Speaker 2 Barakh hu.

55:58 Speaker 1 Barakh hu.