צו תשפ״ד

00:10 Good shavua. Matzah Shabbos, Pesach, Pesach, Pesach Parah. Just, uh, for the next week already it'll be after we'll change the clock. So I'm thinking of switching to meanwhile for Sunday evening instead of, uh, Matzah Shabbos. What we'll do for the s-summer season, we'll discuss further. But let's now start off on our Shiur. So the first, you know, hefsikur, we had a, a week off. Last week was Purim. So we have here the first question. So a young mother has a, a two-year-old who had developed chickenpox. But, uh, her younger li-- the baby, who was one year old, didn't have chickenpox, so she sent her to a, uh, a childminder. And, um, then it turns out that the, the, uh, the younger child also had chickenpox and infected all the other kids. Well, well, some of them. So now the mother turns t- asks me, "Do I have a liability for having caused the other chil-children to have chickenpox by taking-- by sending my younger child to the, to the childminder?" In addition, some of those children have-- because, uh, they were affected by children with chickenpox, so then they don't go to the ch- playgroup. So then the, them, then the, um, childminder isn't paid 'cause she's just paid by, uh, whenever anyone comes, but just, just for that day. If they don't, don't come, then she doesn't get paid, so she's had a loss of income. So she's feeling a little bit, uh, uh, guilty of having caused, uh, this, uh, disruption, et cetera.

02:16 So let's l- first of all look at from a purely Halakhah level rather than a moral level. And so first of all, there's a concept called Hezek She'aino Nikker. If someone causes damage and the damage is not a visible damage, then they are not, not liable. So the classic example of that is if someone causes someone else's... This is the time when Trumah and Tarah are applicable or, or, you know, followed. So if someone causes someone else's food to become tamei, and now this is Trumah. They can't, can't eat it now. That's called a Hezek She'aino Nikker. If, let's say, I, you gave me your food to look after, uh, and I didn't, uh... Well, um, become, became chametz. So I, I, it's the, the, the food hasn't, uh, changed. It's just that it went through Pesach without being, uh, sold, et cetera. So these are called Hezek She'aino Nikker. But Poskim say that Hezek She'aino Nikker means that it's what we'd call a religious problem, a spiritual problem, something which a goy, it would make no difference to them. That would be the general definition of Hezek She'aino Nikker. To say that affecting someone with an, uh, uh, with chickenpox is a Hezek She'aino Nikker is-- doesn't seem to wash very well. Actually, I saw this. I looked up. Uh, I have a volume of articles which are written during Covid. So there was a discussion if someone, Lechaire, had caused someone else to catch Covid, what are their-- what's their liability? So the

04:06 argument is that to say Hezek She'aino Nikker, that doesn't, doesn't really work because it, it's a, it's a physical, and especially the symptoms later are gonna be very Nikker. So that, that doesn't work. But then looking from another angle, never mind Hezek She'aino Nikker, we have a, a another rule, Groma Ben Zokin Potur. A cause which caused a damage, you're not liable. And this itself is not a clear, uh, Halakhah because there's sometimes we say, "Do in dinu de garmi," that, uh, by cau-- you are punishable for causation. So we've got a difference between what's called, what's ti- the title Groma and the title Garmi. One being not liable, one being liable. So I looked up actually in the Encyclopedia Talmudis under the e-entry of Groma Ben Zokin, where he goes through a list of Poskim, Rishonim, where they-- how they draw the distinction between Groma, which is Potur, and Gri- and, and Garmi. Let me just give you my own marshal. If I, um, came to your... You went on holiday, and somehow I had access to your house, and I pulled the plug on your freezer. And then as a result, the, the, the food defrosted, and then it became, uh, became, uh, got, got ruined. Am I liable? So I'm just using this as another example of a question, a ca- a ca- a test case for the Groma or Garmi. So now let's take a look at the list of opinions or, or explanations on what's the difference. So we have

06:02 a Rashbam who says that Groma- Where you put to is when the damage will come later. And garmi is when the c-cause, the damage comes, let's say, right away. So let's say if I open a win-- I didn't, I didn't look this up. You know, let's say I open a window and, open the window and, and it's raining outside, and the rain came in and, and damaged your, your stuff. According to the Rashbam, that would be called garmi rather than grama. Where as if I opened the window and it wasn't raining, later the rain came and damaged, that would be ga... That would be g-grama, and be patur. So that's one distinction. Next distinction is the Ra- the Rashbo, who says, "Did I touch your, your stuff? Or did I do my own thing and then it damaged your stuff?" So grama would be, I didn't touch your stuff at all. That would be called grama. Uh, um, garmi is when I, when I touched your stuff also. All right. So then in the case of the freezer, that would be, according to the Rashbo, that would be garmi rather than grama. The Rosh makes a difference between grama and garmi, and he says grama is when the damage is not bori, it's not for sure it's gonna happen. Whereas garmi, it's inevitable. So let's come back to the example of the, of the freezer. Is the damage... If someone's on holiday and you switch off their freezer, I think that's bori hazeika. Um, so

07:38 that would be a garmi. In our case... Well, let's go, before we go fur-go further, the other reasons, other explanations. With the case of the chickenpox, it's, it, uh, comes laChas Man, number one. Number two, it's not... I didn't touch someone else's property. I brought my kid to the child minder, but I didn't touch, you know, the other, the other affected people. Number three, it's, I don't think it's bori hazeika. It's not in, it's not in-in-inevitable that, that the child next to this, my child will be picking up chickenpox. It's not inevitable. Some children will pick it up, some do... You know, and so c-could have had it before, whatever it may be. Whatever, it's not inevitable that the, uh, with, that the illness will be communicated to th-the specific child. You might argue for sure one of the group, and also not so sure on probabilities. But for each, um, child, it's la- not bori hazeika. Right. Then we have a Mordechai who makes a, a distinction that when the grama would be when this, this article remains intact, it's just it's lost its value, which seems to sound similar to Chezek Sheini nuker. Raivid makes a difference. Grama would be if my property caused the damage rather than I myself, um, which again would apply here. I brought my child. It's not I myself caused the damage. The Meiri makes a distinction whether it is a mesayeia. Let's say if I put a fire and then the wind came along and, and, and

09:17 caused the fire to spread, then I'm grama because I do-I didn't do the whole thing on my own. It needed to have another factor to cause it to happen. Garmi is, um, where it doesn't need another factor to help make it happen. Okay. Finally, we have, though, this is where I was a little bit, um, unsure. The Ritzvo makes a difference because whether it's motzu yu ain motzi, is it common that this damage will develop or not? Here, you could argue that this is a chezek motzi, that a child who has, has pi-- who has been in the, in the company of a child who has chickenpox will be a carrier and will infect others. So that you could say it is a chezek motzi. Okay. Having said that, we are not actually dealing with damages as the ch-kids ca-catching mi, um, uh, chickenpox. We're dealing with the, the aftermath, if that's the right word, the consequences, the repercussions. As a result, the mother c-can't send the child to the m- child minder. As a result, the mother loses work. The, the, the child minder loses work. But these are for sure indirect results of, of the, uh, of the, the children catching chickenpox. So certainly I see here that there's a din of grama ben yoso which is patur. So in summation, I would say that there's no monetary, uh, obligation to re, um, reimburse, to recompense anyone. Is there a moral, um, uh... Yes, I think that an apology is in order, but

10:57 I don't think it's more than that. It's not a financial obligation. Okay, let's move on to another thing. So someone... Before we... Someone said something on the chat. Yes. So someone, someone's asking, are they sure their kid was the one who caused it for all? Also true. Also true. So it's... Right. Now, I never heard of this word before. I might even pronounce it wrong. Pinata or pinada. Asking wh-what the, what this is for the, uh, uninformed like myself. It's apparently, it, I, I, I Googled it, and it's origin- it's originating from Mexico, uh, th-that kind of area, Central America, Southern America. And it's got to do with... You've got the, you've got this, uh, structure with various points, seven points, and it's filled with little bits and pieces. I'm not sure whether it's candies or something. And the meaning is to bang it to the point that it breaks open, and then these little things scatter all over. That is... So, and it's clearly the origin is Warding off evil spirits or something. It's clearly, uh, some kind of spooky stuff like that. Sh- so it sounds like Aveida Zarah to me. So, but the one who asks is, "I'm only do- I'm not doing it for any intent of Aveida Zarah, Chas v'Shalom. I'm doing it just for fun, and it seems to be become quite popular. So it's not an act of Aveida Zarah." Okay. But then we have something called Chukos Hakom, or Chu- um, following the, the practices of Aveida

12:45 Zarah. So let's analyze the question. This is an act being done for m- pure fun, not for anything, um, anything more sinister than that. But its origins are clearly in Aveida Zarah. So is that okay? And the, uh, the more common, uh, question is something like yoga, which has its origins in Aveida Zarah, and people are doing it. Yeah, yes or no? Um, I've read quite strong articles where it's showing how it, it is even the yoga as it's practiced now is also, um, still carrying with acts of, of mantras of Aveida Zarah. But let's leave that to one side, dealing with this. So here we have a d- rule of Chu-- You can see here the rule in Shechinat, the L- the Siman is Chukos Hakom. So we wouldn't-- we shouldn't be emulating the Chukos of, of Goyim. Now, it's quite interesting, we just learned Parshas Parah today, and we have Chukos HaTorah. And Chukot generally is understood as something, a practice which has no reason, or no, an ev-evident reason. So we shouldn't be emulating the Chukos HaGoyim, the, the statutes of the Goyim. So now, this says the Ramo. Says the Ramo, one should be distinct from Goyim in... Yeah, so he says, it's only if the Goyim are doing... If you're dressing like the Goyim, if they're doing it for Pritzus, for promiscuous, uh, intent, for example. That they would wear red clothing. And that is worn by, sorry, by prominent people. Mimalbushi HaPritzus. It's a garment of Pritzus. I don't

14:32 know whether I've mentioned this recently, though, recently. I remember once by Kinas HaShlachim, about thirty, twenty-five, thirty years ago. It was then the, the very far popular people were wearing orange ties, orange and bright red ties. And Rabbi Kunin, zoil zayn, he kind of made a public, uh, statement, "Why are people wearing-- why are Shlachim wearing orange ties?" So all right. So that's a question of wearing red. But then what's relevant to our discussion is the following. , If Goyim are doing something as a practice and there's no logical reason, there's reason to suspect that Darkehu HaMeiri, and there is a trace of Aveida Zarah from their ancestors. So when Goyim are doing something which is, does not have any logical explanation, so then there's reason to b-believe, and certainly in this case, we know that that's the case. It's or- it's originating from a Aveida Zarah practice. By contrast, he says the Ramo, if you have a doctor, would-- if it's normal for a doctor to wear a certain type of uniform, that when he walks around, people know that he's a doctor, that's, that's, that's not a problem. That's a logical thing. That's okay. But when it's something which is an illogical practice, which is done by Goyim, then that would come under Chukos Hakom. So therefore, in summation, we're not saying that this is d- playing with Pinada is Aveida Zarah, but it does come under the category of Chukos Hakom. It's e-emulating a practice which has its origins in Aveida Zarah.

16:11 I see two, uh, questions from the chat. Um, so here also on the... Right. Someone's asking about the facts, um, whether the other kids got, got caught it from this child. And yes, we've got two days, one day, um, as this is a question from Manchester, and I'm going to repa-repeat what Rabbi Hazan says. Don't ruin a good story because of some facts. Um, whether it was one day or two days, it doesn't matter. We're t- we're talking, talking about the Lomdus. Right. Okay. And someone is saying that the, um, this Pinada looks like voodoo. Okay. Same thing, yeah. At least for, for people like myself, it's all the same thing. Right. Let's move on to the next thing. As I told her, she was, uh, Schlucha wasn't so happy that she had to drop this plan. It was from before Purim. But yeah. Okay. So now this is a, a question. I generally try to keep to questions which people ask me, uh, rather than create my own ones. So this is a question which a Gabai in a shul in somewhere in Europe, not in England, and is asking that he is, he's a pretty mystical fellow, and sometimes people are talking in shul. And he, he will, uh, exercise some kind of, uh, duty to, to tell them to, to not stop talking. And, um, and sometimes people get offended. So does a, does a Gabai have a, uh, free license to offend people? This is, this is perhaps the question. So

17:48 I'm just go-- On the top of the page, we've got a Shechina. From this is Siman Kuf Kof Daled. Yes, Ligoy, one should reprimand, shout at the, um, people who are learning during Chazars HaShacharis or saying Tachana. Even if they do zone in at the end of each Bracha to answer Amen appropriately. But it's inappropriate because then if they're, if they're looking, doing their holy stuff, so then other people will be chatting and the whole Chazars HaShacharis is, uh, you know, it's gonna be disgraced. So, so you have a case where- There is a duty to reprimand. Does that mean you have freedom to embarrass? This is a really big question. Uh, so it's a... So I, I did a bit of a search on this. So we have here from a Sefer called-- It's a contemporary Sefer. Um, and he says, "Yes, you have Mishne Torat sometimes that wouldn't-- should, um, go around by someone who's talking during Hazak Shatz, one should reprimand them." I wanna just-- Before I go further, I want to sh-share with you, or perhaps I did say already once. About a month ago, we had a, a meeting of Gaboim, uh, from all allow- around London. There's Baruch Hashem, I don't know, ten or fifteen Chabad Minyanim, and the Gaboim of each of those Minyanim was invited, and we had a very, uh, I think, a very productive evening discussing strategies of Gabos. Uh, I wasn't there as the Gabe, by the way. Uh, just want to say it

19:20 about Halakha, and I felt it was a very productive evening. So actually, one of the Gaboim said there that one of the tricks he's done-- he do-- does is if someone's a bit over- over- overly chatty, they'll give him an, uh, Mishne Torat. They give him an Aliyah, and then that stops him chatting. Meanwhile, he knows he has to pay money for his Mishaberach. So then that's another disincentive for him to be chatting for the future. Okay, fine. But okay, so he writes the following. It's obvious that if you're gonna reprimand someone, they're going to be upset. So he quotes here from Rav Vosner that, yes, there's a heel of Heichala. There's a heel of reprimanding. Well, then we have general rules for reprimanding, and that is, first of all, it has to be done in private, to be done in a calm way. And if that doesn't work, then one would have to use the, um, public way. And, um, and then Rav Vosner says, "Sometimes you can't really get things right. You can't get it all the way. And if you see that that's by going over-- go-going, going all the way, you're going to damage Darche HaTorah. Uh, you're not gonna be able to do it right. So then you're Kabbalah Sar Al HaPrishah. You'll be rewarded for not pursuing it." So it's, uh... I-- What I wrote to this fellow in response, I said that you should be looking at the people in Shul as, let's say, the customers, your clients

20:45 who are coming to your, to your shop, and you should be, uh, you know, trying to make them comfortable, et cetera. There may be sometimes, there may be sometimes a customer who causes so much, so much of a nuisance that it actually may be a, the, the decision, a strategic decision to, to ask them not to come to the store again. But who makes that decision? That's certainly not a decision to be made on the spur of the moment. That's something which has to be, uh, you know, weighed up carefully, whether that is-- whether one wants to take that route. Okay. But that-- I don't think that should be the Gabba alone should make that decision. It should be discussed with the Rav of the Shul, et cetera. It's a very, um, weighty decision to make-- to take that step to say that the person is not welcome in the Shul. I had recently a case, again, this is not in England, um, that there's a man who has a troubled past, and he-- there was a child who was making noise in the, in the ladies' section, and he got so nervous, he went into the ladies' section and started shouting at this child or whatever. Um, but he's-- they know that he's not a well person. So how do you, how do you handle that? Yeah, there may be-- So there may be situations where a-a-a that person should be asked at least perhaps for, for a few weeks to take a break.

22:13 There may be, but, uh, it's, it's something which is-- It's not, it's not a free reign. It's not a, not a Hefkervelt, you know. Um, someone's saying that this-- he goes to a Shul where the Rav will stop the Shliach Tzippor of Al Koheire when there's talking. Yeah, fine. Um, yes, Baruch Hashem. Um, in some places, it-it's doable. Some places, it's less doable. Um, generally, generally, punishment works when it's very much in the minority. You can't punish a whole Tzippor. You can, you can perhaps use punishment for a, um, a minority, and the general awareness is that it's not okay. If the general awareness is that, that it is okay, then punishment isn't the way. That's the, the, the... Or the way is, is education. I have just one-- I don't want to spend too much time on this, but one, um, thought on that. It says in the Gemara, "Mishero Vu Haratz Chonin, Kol Golso Los Anhedri VeYoshvu Lo Bachanus." It says in the Gemara, in the times when there was ramp-- where murder was rampant, so the Sanhedrin exiled themselves from their regular seat, and they went to a, some kind of shop, whatever. And so you have sometimes the Gemara where they see that they are not able to implement the Halakha as it is. They have to sometimes step back. And as I say, then there's the need for re-education, um, rather than punishment as a strategy. Let's move on. Right. Now, the... What's the next question here? So this actually

24:03 is his very own question. We were learning Gemara, and it came up that there's a Minich of looking at the Chazan when the Chazan says Birchas Koidom. Now, this you can see, the qui- first quote is from Sefer Haminhogim. It doesn't say it's a Minich for everyone. It says it's a Minich of the Adamurim. The Rebbes would turn for Chazar Shatz at Birchas Koidom. They would turn to face the Chazan, and that by our Rebbe was very, very, um, you know, uh, o-obvious that the Rebbe was, during davening, standing and looking or s-- standing or sitting, looking in the siddur. He'd get up for Moydim, and then when it came the end of Moydim, or the Birchas Moydim, the Rebbe turns around to his left, looking intently at the Chazan. So there is an idea of looking towards the Chazan. What's the reason for this? And this, the, the background here, you have here a source to this Minhag. This is in a Sefer called, um, Yoffi Lelief, who was, I believe, a son of Rabbin Felaji. And he says that this idea of the Ch- the Chazan is giving a bracha. And so you per- turn towards the Chazan to, to be in a, like, a receiving mode. Like the, um, the main, the original, um, Birchas Kohanim, we make a point of ponim el ponim. Kohelet, um, says, "Gmar ponim el ponim." So there's the idea of first fa-facing the chazan. The difference being that by Birchas Kohanim, the Kohen is facing you,

25:36 and you're facing the Kohanim. Uh, yeah. Whereas here, we're looking towards the chazan. The chazan is looking ahead. The origin of this minhag is, uh, in, in Sephardi communities. In Sephardi communities, often the chazan actually stands more central rather than up front. Then it's more likely that people would be ponim el ponim, but that's the background. So my question was, yeah, so assuming you want to... Now, it, that is when it says you should face the direction of the chazan. What happens if you're facing the direction of the chazan, but there's a wall in between because you're in a side room, this L-shaped room? So is facing the direction of the chazan, or is it you should be seeing the chazan? So what came up in Gemara recently, we're talking in Gemara, and it came up in Gemara Yoma, um, based on Mishna in, in Midas, about all the walls of the Azara are tall walls, with the exception of the eastern wall. The reason why that was lower is because on the east of the, uh, Temple Mount, there is Mount of Olives, Har HaZeisim, and that's where the Para Adumah, again, Parashat Para. The Para Adumah would be done on Har, uh, Har HaZeisim, Har Hamishcha. And when that is done, the blood is to be sprinkled, Neichech, um, Pesach Ohel Moed or something, to, to facing the Ohel Moed. So now that is why the eastern wall of the, of the Azara, et cetera, had to be lower so that standing on,

27:14 uh, Har HaZeisim, you'd be able to see all the way through to the entrance of the Heichal. Now, if you say facing the direction is good enough without having to have eye contact, so then why do they have to have a, a, a lower wall? They can have a tall one, just face the direction. So obviously, when the Torah says, Neichech Pesach Ohel Moed, so that means to be-- have eye contact. And same thing when it comes to ponim el ponim, when it comes to a face facing the chazan. Having said that, if it's a very busy shul and there's lots of other people in the way, you, sort of... If everyone's gonna push to the, to, to see the chazan, you know, it's not gonna be always possible. So we do have a halakha, when-- a separate halakha about when you-- there is an advantage to daven, a recommended thing, to daven to, um, facing the wall. What happens if there are animals in the way? That's a chatzitza. But if there are people in the way, which we have from the Alter Rebbe of Shuchan Aruch, uh, Siman Saday. If there are people in the way, they don't constitute a, an intervention between yourself and the wall because it's like mim bemino ein hachatzitza. Then brings other opinions, but there is so... All right, if it's a full shul, so then davka to push your way to be able to see, have eye contact, I don't think that's necessary. But, uh, if there's,

28:39 like, an L-shaped room, you should be walking over to-- if you want to follow this minhag, yeah. So then you'd walk over to be able to have eye contact. Someone is writing the following. I'm gonna read it out. What is the position of someone who has unavoidably to daven ahead to avoid rebuke? Should he go out or assume that the reason for rushing on is known? All right. That's something I'm, I'm gonna leave that for another time because, you know, it's a separate question. Um, can-- We can discuss this by email rather than having to discuss it now on the spur of the moment. Let's move on. Um, so number-- question number five. Okay. So last Friday, I got an email or WhatsApp message that someone says, "I'm doing-- I'm having an event, and I'm having non-frum people coming." Non-frum as in non-shomer Shabbos at all. "And I want to serve cocktails, and to make cocktails, I'm going to mix in wine and..." I don't know what the other ingredients are. Is it a pineapple juice? I don't even know. But he's asking that he's mixing other things with wine. Does he need to have yayin mevushel, or can he use non-mevushel wine? Because if it's wine and they will touch the wine, then it will become, um, forbidden, the yayin, you know, stam yeino or yaynes, whatever you want to call it. So on the spur of the moment, I told him that there is a concept of wine becoming botel in one to

30:16 six. But that is only... So you can hear, you can see here, I think it's from Shimush Kuf Lammed Daled Yod Heh Dalet, where we have that if wine is mixed with six parts of water to one part of wine, then it's no longer aser. You're allowed to drink it. But on the spot, the Meforshim, the Shaar HaKollel says that's only water diluting wine. If wi-wine is diluted with water, it loses its potency. It's no longer wine. What happens if, let's say, if it was wine was diluted, was mixed with another drink, which is also tasty? So it's not necessarily going to compromise the quality of the wine. It may actually enhance the wine. It's not, it's not clear. So as a result, I told him that he should use yayin mevushel. Afterwards, during Shabbos, last Shabbos, I was thinking about this, and I realized I had made a mistake here. And that is because the Shechinah here in Kufla Medala, the lower quote, is talking about wine which has already been oser because of contact with a guy. Then it takes six parts of water to dilute it and to decommission it as, as, uh, as forbidden. Here we're talking about kosher wine and mixed in various, uh, flavors. And does it still remain the status of wine? Now that tur, that idea of wine being mixed with other drinks as some kind of cocktail is mentioned in the Gemara. It's called sometimes something like Aluntis or Yain Mulin. And so here we have

31:56 in Shechinah wine which is mixed with honey and with pilpulim, with some kind of... Usually we translate as pepper. If it distorts the cha-- the taste of the wine, then the wine is no longer wine, and it would no-not be oser if a guy touches it. It says davarsh. If it's just davarsh, just pilpulim. So if wine is mixed with other, uh, um, other drinks and doesn't no longer tastes of wine, and doesn't, doesn't, well, it doesn't taste of wine. It doesn't taste like wine, then it's no longer wine. And if a guy touches it, it would be mutar to, to, uh, to drink it. Um, if in the, in the immediate instance here, again, here we're talking about there's a bit of pepper mixed into the wine. Predominantly, it's still gonna have a taste of wine. It would still be hagafen. There, in the case of the cocktails, where you've got wine mixed, let's say one part of wine and two parts of, uh, apple juice and pineapple juice, whatever, then I would s-suspect that it would lose the hagafen also. And certainly it's not a problem as far as, um, you know, the issue of the ayin esav, et cetera. Okay, let's go on. We have the, uh, coming from Purim. I'll try to go through this quickly. With, with, uh, what we have on Purim, we, uh, on the by day that the Sefer Torah is kept. In Mincha Chabad, the Sefer Torah is kept out until after Megillah is read. So

33:33 we have to find a volunteer to sit there with the Sefer Torah for three-quarters of an hour, and only then does the Sefer Torah after, then Asher Volatzion, and then the Sefer Torah is brought back. Many-- Most communities don't do that. And in the, uh, series of Chique Mimogim, Rav Gurari, same volume, Kimel, he's got a whole article, several pages, showing different opinions one way or the other. And really what it boils down to is actually going back to a regular Monday and Thursday. Here's the Sefer Torah. So here you can see in the tour, I believe it's in Kuf Mem Tes, in the, the dinim of Kriyas HaTorah. It says the following, uh, after Kriyas HaTorah, Shliach Tzibur says Kaddish, Sefer Torah is returned. And then you say, Tilal David, et cetera. But Yesh Mekoymes, they first say Tilal David and Kaddish, which is Volatzion, and then they bring back the Sefer Torah. So we have here this question, does Sefer Torah go back straight after Kriyas HaTorah, or is it kept out until after Asher Volatzion? This is an old difference of Minhogim between Ashkenaz and Sefard. And as a result, according to Minag Ashkenaz, Sefer Torah is brought straight back. So it's, it's also brought back before Megillah. Uh, according to Minag Sefardim, it's brought back after Volatzion. And therefore, on Purim also, it stays till after the Megillah. Um, actually, just last night I was browsing, and I found in a... I have a, a Adani siddur. There they write that

35:10 you should take the Sefer Torah back right away, although they're Sefardim. But they say to take the Sefer Torah right away because they're worried that the Sefer Torah should not be exposed to, uh, irreverent behavior, uh, during... If it was kept out longer. Take it straight back. Okay. Meanwhile, what is the reason for the Minag Sefardim to leave the Sefer Torah out until after Volatzion? That's what we're gonna, we, we're gonna look at. So in the Shaar Hacoilal, he quotes here from a Biakav Ebden. And he says that Al Pi Derch, uh, Soid, there is idea that after Shemoneh Esreh, then there's Yeridas HaEilemes. And, um, and we, we delay the taking back so that there should be a gradual to, to, to, to prolong the Shefa, the, the, the, the Kedushah which is coming down to the world should, i-it shouldn't-- During Shemoneh Esreh, it's a very high, uh, Hashpah, and not-- shouldn't be immediate cut-off. It should, the-- It should be a tapering down, and that way it's gonna be more, um, having a, a desirable effect on, on a connection to Eilam Hazeh. And so he connects just to, uh, uh, the Gemara, which the end of Soitoh says that every day, there's no day that there's no, no, no, not worse than the day before, and it curses, et cetera. And then it says that what does the world stand on? Alma Maim Mekomechayim. So it says, A Kedushea DeSidro, VaShema Yeheshmei Raba D'Agadito. What does the world stand on? On

36:52 K-K-Kedushea DeSidro, which is Kedushea in Volatzion, Yeheshmei Raba D'Agadito. So what's, what exactly do those world-- words mean? And why does this Kaddish, Yeheshmei Raba after Agadito, why, why, and, and Kedushea DeSidro, why is this holding up the world? So what the Rabbi Yaakov Emden is explaining here, what he means is that, yes, Shemoneh Esreh has been very exalted. And then Coming back into the world, there's like a, like a cliff drop. How does the world work, continue to function when coming from Shemini Atzeret into the world, there's such immediate drop? So the answer is no. There's, there's Kedushah DeSidrah. So then there is, after Shemini Atzeret, there is a tapering down. There is still a Kedushah in Avodah Zarah. There's still... And then there's the, and the Kaddish thereafter. That is like a gradual, um, tapering down of the Kedushah coming down into the world. In that way, the world is able to sustain. That's basically what the Rebbe Yaakov Emden is saying. And the, the Shulchan Aruch brings this later on in the chapter. He says, "This is also the purpose of leaving the Sefer Torah longer, to prolong the Hashpa'ah of Kedushah in the world that the Sefer Torah has brought about." So that's, that's his explanation. Okay, let's move on. Right. So now, this is a bit of feedback on the new edition of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch with Minhag HaChabad, where it was brought that there's a Minhag to bang Haman, like, like bang for Haman during the recital of

38:32 the list of Asseres Bnei Haman. So the source of that is in the Kol HaChabad Luach, and which is written by Rav Chaim Noah. And this is from... What you have on the screen is from... There's a new volume, like a, uh, which was published in the last ten years, over Rav Chaim Noah's various writings, which haven't been published before in a volume, where he writes, "I remember when I was a child in the s- holy city of Hebron, that the Tzibur, the community, would say Asseres Bnei Haman before the Bal Kore." Now, that's how we do, yeah. We say Asseres Bnei Haman, although some say this. I think Mishnah Brurah says there's no point in saying that. Why are we reading Asseres Bnei Haman? But that is the Minhag. We say Asseres Bnei Haman first. And then when the community would say Asseres Bnei Haman, the children would bang. Then the Bal Kore would read over the Asseres Bnei Haman, and people wouldn't bang. And he says, um, "Why do the Asseres Bnei Haman have... Why do we read them first? What's, what's..." You know, I mean, the other positive things. Why are we reading Asseres Bnei Haman? We read them so that they'll be able, should be able to get the, the banging. Should be able to get Pot Pech. Because when the Bal Kore is reading, we can't bang because we have to hear them. He has to say, but it should... You can't take a pause. You have to read in

39:51 one breath. So in order to be able to bang, uh, for Asseres Bnei Haman, it's necessary for the Tzibur to say it first, and then the, then, then the Bal Kore reads it in one go, one breath. So there is that Minhag, but I think the editor who wrote to me about this, uh, he was right that the Poel, that's... Although that was Rav Chaim Noah's Minhag in Hebron, perhaps in Shalem, but it's not the widespread Minhag to bang, in Chabad at least, to bang during Asseres Bnei Haman. So really, it shouldn't, uh, be there. But okay. One of our listeners, one of our regulars, asked me the following question. This is question number eight. That he was born, he, his, be-before he was born, his mother had a baby boy who did not live more than two weeks. He had a medical condition, which, uh... So now, so he's asking, so he's not a Bechor as far as Pidyon HaBen because his mother had given birth before. Is he a Bechor in any other aspect? Does he have to fast, and therefore, does he have to have fast for, um, Erev Pesach and attend a Sim, et cetera? So here you have, which we actually learned this today in, this afternoon in the Halacha Shir, in Siman kuf ayin. A woman had, had a stillbirth, and then had a, a healthy child. That child is not a Bechor for Pidyon HaBen because he's not Peterechem, but he is a Bechor as far as in,

41:21 in, in his, the estate goes. He will get a, a double portion of the estate. Therefore, he would be, uh, he should be fasting on Erev Pesach. But then, here the Mishnah Beraita, et cetera, brings from the Shvus Yaakov, who writes the following, that a child who's born after a Nefel Bentisha. The child was, the previous child did, was... Now, it was, the pregnancy was nine months. He, the child died within thirty days of birth. Then the next child does not need to fast. Basically, he's saying that true, if the mother had, had a stillbirth and, and the, then a child, a healthy child, that child is a Bechor as far the, as the estate goes. But if the mother gave birth to an, a living child, although the child did not live long, but that is enough to say that the next child is not called Reish Itayoni. It's not, it doesn't, uh, it doesn't count as a Bechor for the Yerusha because there was a, a child who was alive, uh, albeit for a short period, and therefore, there's no need. It's, he, the next child is not a Bechor, and there's no need for him to fast on Erev Pesach nor attend a Siyum. He's been doing so. Okay, there's a Minag Tov, but it, uh, not Bechor to, to continue, uh, Min Hadin. Okay. So now the la- the second last thing which we have here, and that is someone, a Bechor in Morristown, s-sent me a, uh, few questions and

43:05 answers. So I know someone had told him I'd be interested in what he wrote, and actually I was, and rather chuffed at the thought. But then he writes the following. So we have a, a, um, a description of the Rebbe Rashab- Now this story, as you can see here, I've quoted it from the Hayom Yom. This is the Rebbe published Hayom Yom in Tof Shin, Gimel Dalet thereabout. And then he had actually prepared to publish another volume of Hayom Yom, and that was never published by the Rebbe. But in the volume called the Reshimas Hayoman, this He- Hayom Yom Chelek Beis is there. And this is also in Ha- in the Sefer Haminhagim it's written. And it says, "The nosos Reshimas of the Rebbe." So the story is the following: It was once on a Monday or a Thursday within the year of the Avelus of the morning after the Rebbe's mother had passed away, as in the Rebbe Rashab's mother, Rebbe Tzinivka. So the Rebbe Rashab got up from his place to go to the Bima to say Kaddish after Krias HaTorah. Meanwhile, someone else began to say Kaddish because he didn't notice the Rebbe walking over to the Bima. But as soon as he noticed, so he stopped saying Kaddish, and he stepped back. The Rebbe, uh, motioned to him to stay where he is. The Rebbe wrote-- said the Kaddish. Then he said to-- He instructed the other fellow also to say Kaddish. So, all right. So this is an interesting story.

44:52 First question is: Why is this quoted in Sefer Haminhagim? It's a bit of history. It's not a regular Mincha. Um, there was some kind of mix-up, but why does that belong in Sefer Haminhagim? A couple of interesting things here. And also, the fact that there's twice Kaddish being said after Krias HaTorah. I want to point out another thing. The, the Rebbe did not have the Aliyah laTorah. Yeah. Even though he was in the year of Avelus, he did not have the Aliyah laTorah. Someone else, it looks like, and then he was just walking over. All right. A little, a little bit more background. The Kaddish after Krias HaTorah, is it the privilege of the Baal Koreh, or the one who had an Aliyah, the last Aliyah? Or is it, uh, like the Kaddish after Kaveh or Kaddish after Shir Shel Yom? That it's a Kaddish which is actually available for the Yasom to say. If there's no, no, no, no Cheiv, then someone volunteers to say it. That's what I think about. So this, in, in the Sefer Mateh Efraim, Mateh Efraim, Shaarei Efraim, more-- Shaarei Efraim is quite clear about this. He says that if the Shlishi is a Ch-- is, is an oval, he should say the Kaddish. If a Yad Said is going to have Maftir, just coming to the Bima, in any case, he should say Kaddish. He clearly seems to be saying that otherwise, it's nothing to do with him. If he's, he's stand-- If it's-- He-- If he's not

46:32 going to be standing next to the Bima in any case, then he shouldn't be saying the Kaddish. And here we're seeing that-- and that's indeed the Mincha Chabad, as we saw in the story and we saw by the Rebbe, that even if he's not a Cheiv-- Sorry. Even if he's not having the Aliyah, he will still make a point of saying that Kaddish, and that's what we're doing when, when, when, when applicable, if there's a Cheiv in the room, we'll-- in the shul. Uh, so we'll invite them to say that Kaddish. So contrary to the view of the Shaarei Efraim that this Kaddish primarily belongs to the Baal Koreh, it seems to be that actually, uh, it, it should be given to the, the one who has Yad Said or is Naso Avelus. So I think that is the value of this story, at least that message. Now, in the-- on the, uh, margin, on the, on the screen, you can see here a quote from a Sefer called Agudas Ezer Midvari, who was a Rav in, in Poland in about, about a hundred and fifty years ago in a town called, I think, Luvic, Lovic, something like that. And he's discussing this question. Who, who does-- Who-- About this Kaddish. And he quotes from the Tashbets. The Tashbets writes that a child under Bar Mitzvah should not be saying this Kaddish. It has to be an adult. Okay. Accept that. So all right. So if you're saying that a child shouldn't be given this

48:12 Kaddish even though he's a Yasom, that tells me that if he was an adult, it should be given to him. That's what, that's what the, this Sefer deduces. So he-- This is going to bring, bring a Ra'aya. I saw just this evening in another Sefer who, who refutes this to say that the Tashbets evidently holds that you can give a child, uh, you can give it-- Under Bar Mitzvah, you can give him an Aliyah. So who says he's talking about a child who, who's there as a Cheiv, as Yasom? Perhaps as the, as the last Oleh, they would say the Kaddish. So it's, it's not so evident. What I have discovered recently is that in Sefardim Shmin Hagim, that the several Avelim will come and say Kaddish together by-- at the end of Krias HaTorah. I looked in a couple of Sefardim Shsi Sidurim, and by other Kadeshim, it says that Shat says a Kaddish. After Krias HaTorah, it says, "Ve'omrim." But it doesn't go to more detail than that. But a couple of people from, uh, Tunisia, from Morocco, told me that that's what they've seen, that, uh, that they, they have several Avelim. So they, they're clearly seeing this as a Kaddish, which is the privilege of the, of the Yasomim to say. Ad Dekach. Now, so now we have here two views. Is the Kaddish after Krias HaTorah belonging to the Hazan, to the Baal Koreh rather, and he allows the Yasom to say it, and then there should be only one

49:43 person saying that Kaddish? Or is it actually open for several people to say Kaddish even, and it's more the Yasom Kaddish? So possibly, and this is part of what this young man in Morristown is asking, why did the Rebbe tell-- Why didn't he tell him to finish Kaddish? Possibly the following. The Rebbe wanted to say Kaddish, um, but then had the, had the other fellow finished Kaddish, then there would be-- It wouldn't, wouldn't make sense for the Rebbe to say Kaddish afterwards because by Ashkenazim, we don't have, um, several people saying Kaddish after Krias HaTorah. Possibly though, once the Rebbe had said Kaddish, then you can turn to the other fellow and say, you know, "Hamatzel mitzvah nimor le'gamur." Once you've started, you have to finish. And so that could be the chesbon which, which, uh, went on over there. Um, that's as much as I could suggest at the moment. Okay. What do we have here? Someone suggesting the Rebbe may have had Maftir after the Kaddish. No. This, this story over here is on a Monday and Thursday, so there was no, no Maftir. Yeah. Okay. Let's go our last thing. Now, if you remember on the Parshas, um, was it Parshas Pekudei, we had this whole discussion which Maftir to say. Uh, because, because Parshas Vayakhel was Parshas-- was also Parshas Shekalim. So in some Chumashim, it has that because on Parshas Shekalim, we didn't, we didn't, we didn't read Vayakhel because it was o- pushed away by Parshas Shekalim. Therefore, we

51:26 should read Parshas-- the Haftarah Parshas Shekalim. Uh, Parshas Vayakhel should be read in Parshas Pekudei. That is traced back to the Mariel. Now, what I'm going to show you on this screen is that if you can see... So someone pointed out to me, I read Mendel Suffrin and others, that actually the Mariel says to say the Haftarah of Vayakhel, whereas Chabad Minik follows that the Haftarah of Vayakhel is by Yesh Lach Shlomo. Okay. Let's go a little bit further. That these are all in one sequence. You can see that you have Va'yhi, the Haftarah, which Chabad do for Vayakhel is from chapters, uh, Zayin, from Yod Gimmel through Chaviv. The Haftarah of Minag Ashkenaz is from Pasuk Mem through till Pasuk Nun. Now then, what the Mariel says is you should-- Because you didn't read Vayakhel in Parshas Vayakhel, you should read Parshas, uh, Parshas Pekudei, you should read Vayakhel. But then you should also read these two Pasukim in green. Vayishlam kol hamelacha and the Pasuk Oz Yaki El Shlomo. Why so? Because the-- That's which follows straight on after Vayakhel, as you can see. Pasuk Nun Alef and Perek Ches, Pasuk Alef. Why so? Because Vayakhel, which, which is the official Haftarah for Parshas Pekudei, starting from Vayishlam till and Va-Vayakhel. That, that Vayakhel is read on the second day of Sukkot. So since it's already read on the second day of Sukkot, so then you can afford to not say it on Parshas Pekudei. But these two Pasukim of, um, sorry, of

53:29 Vayishlam and Oz Yaki El Shlomo are not said on Parshas-- on, on, on the second day of Sukkot. Therefore, says the Mariel, "All right. I'm telling you to say Vayakhel. But the two Pasukim which you, you, which you didn't say on Sukkot, make sure to say those words." Those, those two Pasukim. Yeah. So you got it? So you got here Pasuk after Vayakhel, Ashkenaz. Yeah. Mariel says, "Say these two Pasukim, Vayishlam kol hamelacha." Um, right. So that might also be the reason, one of the reasons why in Chabad we're not doing that because, because we're not... If we're substituting Vayakhel instead of Pekudei, it's not Vayakhel which is leads straight into Vayishlam kol hamelacha, but we would have to do Vayishlach HaMelech Shlomo, and then have to skip some fifty or whatever, uh, twenty Pasukim to find that place. Um, and, and there's the, the worry you might not necessarily find it so easily. I'm not so sure about that reason because, um, if you did, if you were Ma'ariv Sidra today and you did, or yesterday, and you did the Haftarah of Parshas Sar, so there's also a skip. And so we skip, uh, a whole, a whole section until we come to, um, Bezaizis Halal HaMis Halal. So to skip, um, and especially where there's a, a, a gap which you can identify, uh, where to skip to easily, that seems to be legitimate. Now, one last thing, and that is we had someone in... When we were discussing this, so someone asked

55:17 the question, "Is it, uh, do we-- Is it, is the Haftarah Vayakhel ever read, or is it always pushed aside when it's Vayakhel Pekudei, then Pekudei Haftarah is read? When it's Vayakhel, then most times it's gonna be, um, coinciding with Parshas Shekalim. So does-- Is, is, is Vayakhel ever read?" So I wanna just share with you just for general information. So the-- We have, I think, seven pairs of Parshas which are sometimes combined and sometimes separate. And what you have on the front of you is, is from the Tour, Siman Tof Chof Ches. And just to look at this carefully, often in the, in a luach, you'll see the code for that year. And it starts off with either a Beis, a Gimel, a He, or a Zayin. This is the, the first letter of these codes is which day of the week was Rosh Hashanah. As you know, Rosh Hashanah cannot be on a Sunday, Wednesday, or a Friday. So you've got four other options: Beis, Gimel, He, Zayin. These are the four possibilities of Rosh Hashanah. Then we've got the second letter of this code is addressing the variation of whether, um, Cheshvan and Kislev, will we have twenty-nine days or thirty days. If both have only twenty-nine days, it's a Ches, which stands for Chaser. If both have thirty days, it's called Shalem. And if they have one is twenty-nine and one is thirty, then it's called Kasidron, and that's the, the Chaf. The Gimel Chaf, He Chaf, et cetera. So this

57:12 is-- these are the codes for the, for the years. And what we're seeing here is that in-- when the, when the year, when Rosh Hashanah starts off on a, uh... Well, we have here, if I hit-- Rosh Hashanah is on a Thursday, which means also if Rosh Hashanah is Thursday, that's Shemini Atzeres is Thursday, and Shabbos Bereishis is the day after Yom Tov. Yeah. If that's the, if that's the sequence, plus it's a Shalem, which means it's, um, twice thirty da- thirty days, that will cause the Vayakhel-Pekudei will be kept separate. And in that year, it's not going to be Parshas Qolim, apparently. And similarly, in, in, uh, in a, uh, leap year, it's in the same sequence, so Parshas Vayakhel-Pekudei will be separate. And apparently, in those years when it's a He Shin, or is it He Chet? I'm not sure which one. Um, then Vayakhel-Pekudei will be separate, and it's not gonna be coinciding with Parshas Qolim. And now in those, in those occasions, Parshas, um, they have Torah of, of, of, uh, Vayakhel, whether it's Vayakhel or Vayishlach Hamelech Shlomo will be actually read. Okay, that's for tonight. And as I said in the beginning of the year, next, um, next week, Motzei Shabbos will not be applicable, will not be possible. But, um, hopefully Sunday a week. And may Mishah will help him. Should be well. Wish you a Good Tovoh. Wish you have a y- week of Simcha. And you should hear the Besuras Haguola, Yesh Atid Kenoh, Be'eri Omano

59:07 Mams. Amen. Good luck. Good luck. Good luck