תזריע תשפ״ד

00:09 Good evening. Welcome to tonight's Shiur. Tonight is, uh, Sunday of Parshat Tzaria. Um, advance warning, uh, or notice, next, uh, Sunday evening, I won't be able to do the Shiur. Baruch Hashem, we're making a chasuna this week, and that will be during Sheva Berachot, so I won't be able to do the Shiur on time. And, uh, we'll see what happens after that between then and Pesach. But meanwhile, let's get to what we have for tonight. Lots of interesting things. So first of all, a woman was, uh, converted. And now it's a good few years later, and she has a child who's... Was, sh- this child was, was unborn at the ti-- Was... Well, she was pregnant with this child at the time when she converted. The dilemma was that there is a concept of the mother toiveling, the mother, um, uh, immersing, and that being valid for the child. Usually, that would have been documented. Every time there's a giyus, there's a conversion, that would be-- there would be a document, ce- a certificate. And there, there was no mention of this. So that was a concern. Is there... I- if a, um, a pregnant woman went through conversion, went through giyur, and it wasn't known that she was pregnant, does the conversion work for the child? So it's actually not terribly relevant for... But i-it's a fascinating topic, actually. So here we have on the Shechinach. This is in the Dinim of Gerus, right, Yoreh De'ah, Siman Cheth, tells us, "Nochris SheNizgiru," a non-Jewish

02:14 woman who converted, "VeHi Mu'beres," and she is actually pregnant. "V'No Ein Tzorich Tevilah." The baby, who hasn't been born yet, does not need to be immersed separately. And there's a discussion in the Gemara, why is the mother not a chatzitza? The m-- If the child needs to be toiveled, why is the mother's body... And Gemara answers, this is the way the child grows, inside her mother's body. Therefore, it's not a chatzitza, et cetera. Okay. So we know that if there was a conscious conversion for the child, so then the mother's immersion counts for the child. So now we look in the... On the margin of the Shechinach, we've got the Dagul Merivavah. The c-- These are short comments by the one, Rabbi Cheskal Landau, other, otherwise known as the Noidei Bihudah. So he writes the following. "Im Yodu Habei Stin Beshatz Vil." If the baste were aware at the time of tevilah, she himu beres that she's pregnant, hadin pashut. That's an obvious, a straightforward halacha, that the conversion, the immersion of the mother is valid for the baby. Aval im lo yodu habeis nesheimu beres. If the baste were unaware. So he tells us very briefly, "Yesh Li Baseh Aruchus Devarim." I have a lot of discussion about this. "Atalya Baash LeRaaver Ve" It depends on great oak trees. In other words, the great, um, authorities, and there's different opinions. "VeEn Kan Mokim Leha." He says, "I haven't-- I, I'm, I'm not going to discuss it at length over here." But here we-- He's,

03:56 the Noidei Bihudah has told us that if the baste are unaware that the woman was pregnant, there is a question of, as to the validity of the giyur, of the conversion for the baby. So this came up this past week as a practical question. Does that child, ten years, fifteen years later, twenty years later, does that child need to go through a conversion or not? The chumra, tsve, et cetera. So I have a volume at home called Brisi Yitzchak, and it's, um, dedicated to the topic of Gerus, written by Rabbi Yitzchak Brandt from Eksleban, who I've met several times, and he addresses this point. He quotes one chazzanish who discusses this. Now, there is a concept, "Uvor Yerech Imoi," that the, the fetus is like a limb of the mother. And so if you take that... This, this is debated in the Gemara. If you say, "Uvor Yerech Imoi," which means like when a m- person is Megayer, so his hand and his foot also become Jewish. So the baby is part of the mother, and therefore the baby is also Jewish. Uvor Yerech Imoi. This is not such a straightforward, uh, thing. As I said, it's debated whether we say, "Uvor Yerech Imoi." So one fascinating, uh, um, spin-off, if that's the right word. There is a halacha, it says in the Torah, that, um, a Mitzri, a, if a, if an, an Egyptian, Egyptian person was Megayer, so then, "Doshlishi Yovel Hem Bikal Hashem." Third generation may join into Kal Hashem. So a

05:55 Mitzri can convert, but the first, second generation may not marry into regular Jewish families. Third generation is allowed to. So this woman who converted and she's carrying a baby, if she was a Mitzvahs, if she's an Egyptian, the baby which she gives birth to, is he Dosheni or Doshrin? Is he a first-generation Ger or a second generation? And it looks like in the Gemara, certainly there are views in the, in Halakha, that this baby is considered second generation, which means that his children will be able-- his or her children will be allowed to marry into Klal Israel. Now, if you say that the Uber Yerech Imai, that the baby is an indigenous part of the mother, so then why is it the baby's second generation? It is part of the mother who was Megayer. It's first generation. We have also in Gemara, it talks about if a pregnant cow gored another animal, and it's the first or second time, it's called a Sher Tam. And the limitations in that case are, are-- one of the limitations are that it's only Mishalam Migufoy. That the, the owner, h-his liability is only if there is value in the, uh, in, in, in the, um, animal which caused the, uh, damage. But if the animal doesn't have value, do-doesn't have enough value. Let's say the damage was three hundred zuz, and the animal is only worth two hundred zuz. So then the liability is... Well, I want to talk about Chatzin Esek. Okay, let's say the animal is

07:57 less than half the va-- the, the damage. So then the, the owner doesn't have to pay any more. That's the concept of Chatzin Esek Migufoy. Now, what happens if a pregnant cow caused damage willfully, knowingly, so to speak, and then it gave birth. Can we now-- Can the, can the, the victim who sustained the damage, can he collect payment not only from the mother, but also from the baby? To say as if the baby was part of... So the mother says, "Yes. When the animal gored, when the animal caused the damage, the baby was kind of having part of the, part of the fun." And also, there's other sit-situation. We said the baby is part of... When the mother is motivated, the baby is also part of that motive. So what's, what's, uh, let's try, try to, um, come to a kind of conclusion here. It, it does follow that even if you say Uber Lav Yerech Imai, which seems to be quite a, a strong swear. It's not mamash a part of the mother, but it still follows that when the mother has a motive to become, um, to, to convert. She's conversion is will, uh, knowingly, will-willingly. So that willingly will also include the child. So the child, the, the unborn fetus was also part of the willingly, uh, becoming a Ger. So that's the argument to say that even-- that the baby is included with the mother's Gerus, even though it's not a Yerech Imai. It's not an indigenous part of the

09:38 mother, but it is kind of, uh, carried along with the mother's motive. Comes along, however, according to the Rambam, when we-- when, when there's a Gerus of a... So there's a Bezdin would be present at the, at the immersion. According to the Rambam, that's imperative in Hatoira, that there has to be an-- the immersion has to be in front of three. Now, if the Dayanim were not aware that there is a baby involved, so then the immersion of the baby was not in the presence of Dayanim. That is the way he explains the dilemma of the Noi de Bihuda. If the Dayanim did not know that the woman is pregnant, is the, is the, uh, the immersion, is the Tefilah of the baby, which they don't know about, is it valid? Because they're not-- they didn't see it, it happening. Um, before I go further, I just want to, uh, clar-clarify something. That when Tefilah of a, um, a female takes place for Gerus, so the Bezdin will... They, they, they will use a, they will use a, uh, kind of a tent, like a cloth, that the, the woman will be covered by her neck. And so the-- she won't-- Her, her body won't be visible to the Dayanim, and that will be kind of floating on the surface, and they will only see as her head goes under the water. Okay, let's move on. Let's go on to the next question. Okay, here's also a marriage-related question, and that is the following. That

11:23 a Kohen has got certain restrictions, who he's allowed to marry, who he's not allowed to marry. So we know that a Kohen must not marry a divorcee. And if a Kohen does marry a divorcee, so then the children born from that union are called Chalalim. They are kind of, uh... But I don't know. I'm not, not gonna think of a word, but they are somehow not... And, and a Kohen mustn't marry a Chalala. So that's-- And also, a Kohen mustn't marry a Zayna, uh, Ish HaGrusha, uh, Zayna Ba Chalala Lo Yaka. We have a case of a non-Jewish man who had, uh, a child from a Jewish woman So that child, we know that in, in-- when there's-- if in case of a mixed marriage or mixed, uh, e-et cetera. So the identity, the status of the child goes according to the mother. So if it's a Jewish mother, the Jew-- child is Jewish. Here, we're not talking about whether the child is Jewish. We're talking about, yes, the child is Jewish. Is the child suitable for a kohanim? So here we have a Halakha in Shekhinarah. It's a couple of times in Avodah Zarah. If a Goi has relations with a Jewish daughter, and she gave birth to a daughter. So a, a Jewish woman whose father is not Jewish, she is not suitable for a Kohen. Yeah. So again, if a, a-- you have a, a, a woman whose, whose, whose mother is Jewish, fine woman, but her father is not Jewish, was

13:16 not Jewish, is not Jewish, then she is not eligible for a Kohen. Now, the Halakha here is that if they did get married, they do not have to divorce. The question here in our, in our case is we're going a generation later. Again, a Jewish woman whose father is not Jewish, she got married to a Kohen, and now she has a daughter. Can a Kohen marry that daughter? So what we've seen in Shekhinarah, that there's a pagam, there's a blemish. She should not have married this Kohen. Does that, that, that, that... Does that ob-ob-objection carry on to the next generation? That's really our question. And I must say, it's not really spelt out clearly in Poskim, in, in earlier Poskim. In the case that a, a, um, a man-- if a Kohen married this girl whose father isn't Jewish. So do they have to-- are they allowed to remain married? So here we see here that, "Al kein bedi eved ein moit siyin im nisets lekoin." They do not have to divorce. So they are allowed to get married. What's happened in the last half a century or more that you have particularly, but most notably Rav Sholom Messas, who was the Rav in, uh, the, uh, Chief Rabbi of, of Morocco. Later, he moves to, uh, to Israel and he becomes the Rav Rashi of Yerushalayim, Swardi Sha, Rav Rashi of Yerushalayim for a period. And he, he, um, took the view that if you have a Kohen who's already in a relationship, in

15:16 an active relationship with a, a girl whose fa-- with a Jewish girl whose father is not Jewish, then he considers that like a Bedi Eved, and he allows the marriage to happen. So again, you have here the, uh, a, a Jewish girl whose father isn't Jewish. She comes along to Rabbanut HaRashi. She comes to a local rabbi, and she says, "We've-- I'm-- I've got a relationship. We're-- My boyfriend for the last I don't know how many years," whatever. "His, his name is Hezek Cohen. Will you marry us?" And Rav Messas took the view that that's called a Bedi Eved, and they're allowed to... And they-- and we allow to officiate that marriage because they are already in union. Certainly, if they've got a, they've got a civil marriage, he will say that's-- it's, it's already... It's, uh, it's a Bedi Eved situ. It's done already, and he would allow you to make the, uh... Now, they again, they don't address whether this goes on to-- over to the next generation. But contemporary Poskim say, "Listen, if you are allowing them to stay married, and if you're gonna say the next generation are going to have a pagam, the Kohuna are gonna be in a-a-- unsuitable for Kohanim, you're perpetuating the problem. Why should-- why are you allowing them to stay married?" And therefore, they, they take the view, conte-- they take very much contemporary, um, Poskim, take the view that the pagam does not go over to the next generation. So therefore, the question which

16:45 was asked to me this past week, again, uh, there was a, a Kohen who had married a Jewish woman whose father was not Jewish. Now, their daughter wants to get married to a Kohen, and the Halakha would be that they are allowed to get married. Let's move on to the next question. Interesting question. Okay. So someone, one of our regular listeners, sent me the following herah, which I wanna share with you. There is a issue of m-m, um, liquids which were left overnight in metal. So here you can see this is from the Alter Rebe's Shekhinarah based upon a Gemara. That if you have liquids, you should not drink liquids which were left overnight in metal or cleanest or whatever that is. So liquids which are left overnight in a metal thing, you shouldn't drink. Then the Alter Rebe adds in brackets, "Ve'en zo chloima ma'yim atzmon." How much more so water itself, never mind other drinks. Certainly water which is left overnight in metal kelim, you shouldn't drink. Now, this is a chidush of the Alter Rebe, and we've discussed a few times the brackets in the Alter Rebe's Shekhinarah are often chidushim of his, which are not, um, documented in earlier sources. The Alter Rebe says that water left overnight in kelim atzmon is a problem. Now, it happens to be that the water in my kettle was overnight in the pipes in my house, and the pipes in my house are metal. Whether they're copper or other, they-- And largely, the water

18:23 in our taps, in our sinks is Has been overnight inside a metal pipe. And there was Rabdovitz Shapiro, a brilliant Goan in Yerushalayim, uh, in about si- sixty, seventy years ago, and he saw this piece of the Alter Rebbe's Shekal Aruch, a big Chiddush, and he says, "That's, you know, that's, that's, uh, that's huge. You're saying that we have a problem with all our water in the water supply." You know, the olden times people would just go with buckets to the well. But now that we are sophisticated, we've got a water supply. Well, all our water supply is of our, is Linas Lilo. So he wrote to the Rebbe about this. So, uh, the Rebbe writes back to him that in order to justify the Minuchat Yerushalayim that they're not worried about it, is possibly that the concept of Mayim which were left over in a, in a, in a Kalee container, that means a Kalee which is portable. When we talk about Kalee, normally we talk about a, a portable item. Whereas if it's a Kalee which is plumbed into the building, connected to the building. So then it may, for some aspects, it loses the status of Kalee. So now then he says, the Rebbe says a, a, a rule which I think I've shared with you in the past. But when we come to all of these Ruach Roah, these kind of spiritual things, which have got to do with evil spirits, et cetera, as Chovot HaLevavot, we don't expand. We-- because

19:51 we don't understand the Svarot here, and therefore we don't take it beyond the, the, the totally obvious. The Ein Lanu Elo Mashakosa B'Farash. We'll only be Machmir as where it's written clearly. So when we have Mayim Shelona B'Chali Matris, B'Chali, okay, this is not a Kalee. A, a pipe is not a Kalee. If you're gonna start saying, for Mikveh, perhaps it is a Kalee, it doesn't matter. In-- it is, in some aspects, it's not a Kalee. That's enough to take off the concern of water left over in metalware. But then the Rebbe goes further. The M is A, I don't know whether you need to go to all of these excuses, explanations. Omach Varto, the pref- the preferred, clearest answer is, Even the Doshu Borabin. When we've got something that says in the Gemara it's dangerous, it's dangerous. But then you see that it's, it's largely ignored. People have trampled over it. Many people have trampled over this thing. Which means that it's widespread that people don't take heed of the caution of the Gemara. So then we have Shoim Mepsom Hashem, that Hashem protects the fools. So although the Gemara says this is dangerous, but when it's been widespread, uh, behavior that people don't worry about it, so don't worry about it. And in the Hemsha of the letter, the Rebbe refers to the Semach Tzedek who says, "Even the k- those who are know- knowledgeable of the Gemara, they are also allowed to rely on Shoim Mepsom Hashem, that Hashem protects the fools,

21:22 because it's become widespread that people are not worried about it." So we've got many things in the Gemara, it says it's dangerous. When it's widespread, uh, people don't worry about it, then that's in itself ahead. So again, why is there not a problem with the water in the tap? Well, you could say it's not a problem because it's Mechubar Hakarka. Maybe you could say Shoim, Shoim Hashem. Having said that, now let's come now to drinks in cans. So it's Mayim Shelona B'Chali Matris. It's drinks which are left overnight in Chali Matris. So some people, I know that the late Rav Maolo was, was particular about this, that he would, uh, have... When he was traveling, he wouldn't have Coke from a can, only from a bottle. Okay. Uh, although I don't know what happened to the factory before it got into the bottle, but never mind. Now, since someone sends me the following experiment which someone made. He takes a can and rubs off the paintwork, then he puts it into a, a, a bowl of some chemical. And forgive me, I don't remember the name of the chemical, but it eats away the aluminum, or aluminium in, in English. And then you're left with, as you can see, you can see, it, it... You got left a plastic liner inside. Basically saying that every drink in a can, or there's a standard practice, that there's a plastic bag which is lining the can. So therefore, uh, you don't have to worry of Mayim Shelona

22:57 B'Chali Matris, the, of the drink being left, oh, in metal. Metal, actually, the drink was inside the plastic, which was inside the metal can. So therefore, that problem goes away totally. Uh, Rabbi Lou told me this, this morning that actually he had, uh, going back more than fifty years ago, sixty years ago, he had this kind of conversation with Rabbi Zalman Shimon Dvorakin. As one of the, his, uh, colleagues had said that the, the, the plastic, the cans are lined with plastic, and Rabbi Zalman Shimon took it on board, um, that it's, it's, that it's not a problem because it's lined with plastic. Yes. So yes, Ari is pointing about the Shabbos urn. According to the first approach, Mechubar Hakarka, uh, un- unless you're gonna start... There, there would be a problem, and then we start kind of differentiating, is it plugged in to electricity, or is it, um... I don't think it makes any difference. I don't think the, uh, the wire would make it Mechubar Hakarka. Uh, don't have to go there. I, I, I just feel if the Rebbe says it's safe because of Shoim, Shoim Hashem, that's good enough for me, and, you know, I don't worry about it. Okay, let's go on to the next point, which we have, um, another point here. Someone's asking, water left in kettles, hot water urn is okay? Yes, the answer is okay. As we say, the Rebbe says, Shoim, Shoim Hashem, and you go into most Yiddish homes, they have a, for Shabbos,

24:20 they have a, an urn, and, uh, Baruch Hashem, you know, um, we are, Baruch Hashem, we're hale and hearty. Let's move on. Uh, what's number four? Oh, okay. So now, interesting how the two things are connected. So someone, um, asks me, in their Chabad house, they have a large crockpot. You know, one of the wonderful things which happen in Chabad houses is one thing is they daven Shacharis late, which means that, um, it's attractive to some people. And the next thing is they serve a cholent. And you know how many people are protected from so many hours of Chilul Shabbos because dawning starts late, and then there's a, a nice, geschmacke lunch until, you know, until you turn around, it's, the most of the day is gone, and Baruch Hashem, they've sa- they've saved them from Chilul Shabbos, and Bezrat Hashem warmed them up to Yiddishkeit, uh, gevaldik. So these cholents, uh, so they've got a crockpot for the cholent. So the, the way crockpots work mostly nowadays is that you've got an in- an insert, a removable in... You've got a, a metal housing, and then you've got a, a, a ceramic insert. And then in order to save the effort of scraping the, uh, pot clean at the end of Shabbos, so apparently there's some kind of plastic, uh, uh, liner that you put inside. And so the cholent is actually sitting in a plastic liner, and the liner is sitting in, in the ceramic, and the ceramic is in the metal, and

25:59 it works out. It's Gishmak. Question he asked first of all was, does the ceramic, um, pot need to be toveled? Because after all, the cholent isn't even touching it. It's always in the plastic. So really, this brings us to a question: What about a baking tin? Most of us present company, myself excluded, when I, when I-- when you bake cookies, bi- biscuits, you'd often use a greaseproof, uh, sheet of paper, and then you put that in the, in the tin. And that, uh, and that baking tin, okay, doesn't, doesn't touch the dough. So do you have to tovel the baking tin, which is always used with greaseproof paper? Another variation of this is those who've had the good fortune to be in, in Eretz HaKodesh, tipene vezikhonen. So milk comes in bags. And then tho- those-- The milk in bags is placed in a jug, and then you, uh, cut the corner of the, the bag, and, uh, and that's how you pour out your milk. At least that's how it was when I was in yeshiva. So now, if that jug were not plastic, but it was a metal jug, would it need to be toveled? And so, Rab Shlomo, they need-- we need a contemporary poskim take the view that the jug with the milk does not need to be toveled because the, the bag of the milk is quite durable, and therefore it's, it's, uh, you know, it's, it's one kli holding another kli. So the kli holding the other kli does

27:42 not need to be toveled. By contrast, the baking tin, which has got cookies, so the-- really the, the, the sheet of greaseproof paper is so flimsy, it doesn't really count as a kli. It's a lining, but it's not a kli. And therefore the baking tins where you bake your biscuits on, on sheets of greaseproof paper, those baking tins do need to be toveled. So there's that distinction. Now, I must tell you before we go further that really ceramic does not need to be toveled. The to- the mitzvah of tevilah applies to metal, and it applies mid'Rabanan to glass. It doesn't apply to, to, uh, wood, doesn't apply to bone, and doesn't apply to ce- to ceramic. We generally do tovel our-- we buy new bowls, et cetera, because of the glazing and the, uh, the, uh, assumption or the concern perhaps the glazing is it's, is also-- is considered a kli, and therefore you have to make it-- you have to tovel. But definitely, definitely no bracha when you're toveling ceramic stuff, china, uh, et cetera. Definitely no bracha because it's, it's not really not clear that you have a-- that you have to tovel it. All right, let's leave that aside. We're coming back to the question: Does the lining exempt the main container from being toveled? And the answer is no. Like I said, with the baking tin, the fact that it's used with a lining does not exempt the baking tin itself to be toveled. Right. That now then, so yeah, that

29:22 was one question. Does it, does, does it need to tovel the, the slow cooker if he's only using with a bag? And the answer is, in principle, yes, if it was metal, et cetera. Then comes the next question. What about... There's a concept called hatmona, and I think it's worth discussing a little bit more carefully about this. Insulating food, hot food for Shabbos. So there's two levels of insulation. One is bederech she'aino moisif hervel. It's just retaining the temperature. It's not in- not intensifying the temperature. So there are fine families even to this very day, where just before Shabbos will take the soup, the Shabbos soup, off the fire, off the stove, and put it in a box. They will wrap it around with some quilts, and it stays boiling hot. Served to the-- a to- two hours later, it's still boiling hot. That's hatmona bederech she'aino moisif hervel. It's not intensifying. And that's permitted before Shabbos. You mustn't do it on Shabbos, but you're allowed to do so for before Shabbos. Then you've got hatmona bederech ha'moisif hervel to insulate in a manner that it's, it is intensifying. The heat is in-- There's condit- con- continual renewed heat coming this way. Without going into the various other examples, but there is a simple situation. Let's say if you had a pot Of soup. And you wanted to get it mamish very, very hot because there's someone in your house really likes their soup very hot. So you get a tea cozy, you got a

31:11 s- a, a, a or a towel or something, and you wrap it around from top and sides, it's all wrapped around in toweling, and the bottom is sitting on the hot plate. So it's hatmona because it's wrapped around, and it's moish of hervel. There's heat coming from the underneath. That's not allowed. So yeah, so a, covering a kettle with a tea cozy and putting you on the hot plate is not allowed for Shabbos because it's hatmona bedova moish of hervel. Now, another variation of this is about a kishka of some sort, of kugel, where some people would take, uh, the kishka material like this, whatever it is, doughy, matzoh meal there. The end product very, very tasty. So I don't know all the ingredients. But they take... make this kind of roll, and then they would wrap it in a roll in, in, in silver foil and take the whole thing and, and put it into the cholent. So you got this kugel which is stewing inside the cholent. So some Poskim, some Rabbonim pointed, ra- raised it, this is a problem because the silver foil wrapping is like another little pot. So now you've got your kugel, which is wrapped up, uh, and it's, it's surrounded with cholent, and that's like the insulating material. The cholent is sitting on the stove, on the, um... and it's therefore it's moish of hervel. So you have here a problem of hatmona bedova moish of hervel. So there is this, there is this problem. As you can

32:50 see on the screen, um, Rav Farkash in his Sefer Shaalos Karloka, volume Beis, so the first chapter's about hatmona. This is something which contemporaries for him do deal with. That to have a, a, a food wrapped in silver foil sitting inside the cholent would be a problem. One of... before going back to our topic, one of the solutions would be if it's not totally submerged in the cholent, it's just sitting on top. That's one solution. Another solution is say if you're going to prick a few, few holes into the silver foil, say it will still re- hold the shape of the, uh, kugel, but it's not, uh, uh, how you say, isolated from the main food. Okay. Let's come back. So this Shliach who's asking me about the crockpot in his Chabad house is asking, "I've got here a bag, a bag of cholent. This bag of cholent is now surrounded with an insulat- an insulation. That is the cer- the ceramic, the ceramic, um, insert. So it's hatmona bedova moish of hervel. All right. Perhaps it's... All right. So before, you know, without going into detail, it's open at the top. It is open, it isn't open. I want to take the view that just like when it came to Tevilas Keilim, what did we say? That the sheet of greaseproof paper isn't a separate Keili. It's, it, it's, it's just a liner. And therefore, the main thing remains the, the cookie sheet or the cookie tin or the, the, uh, the biscuit tin.

34:29 I'm gonna use this, that. That has to be tovel. I'm gonna use the same story here to make, make it lenient. That the, the liner of the ceramic pot is, is not a, it's not a proper Keili, it's a liner. And the main thing is that the food is cooking in the, uh, in the ceramic pot. Therefore, there's no need to worry about, uh, hatmona. It's, uh, the, the cholent is sitting in the ceramic pot. There happens to be a liner, but you're allowed to ignore the liner. That's, that's my, um, suggestion. Okay. Let's move on. So someone's asking about a Mechitzah in shul between the men and the ladies' shul, and the origin of the idea of a Mechitzah, of a separation between men and women. As read in the Mishnah, it talks about Simchas Beis HaShoeiva and how they, there were various stages in this, the Gemara tells us. But then the, uh, Tikun Gadol was that they made like a balcony for women to be upstairs, the men to be downstairs. So we do have this idea of having a Mechitzah. How... So if it's, if it's on two levels, it's much more lenient. If it's on the same level, the question is: How opaque does that Mechitzah need to be? So the- there is a volume called Toras HaMechitzah by a contemporary fine Talmid Chaham by the name of Rav Moshe Hanunu, and he did a whole study about the Inyan of Mechitzah. Some say that it should be so opaque

36:11 that you can't see a profile of a, a person through. Others say, so long as it's enough that you don't recognize the person on the other side of the Mechitzah. And this seems to have been in various places in Europe, et cetera, that they would have like a trellis kind of Mechitzah, crisscross wood, and you had little squares where you could see through. And, um, that was used as a Mechitzah. It was not... The holes are not big enough to recognize who it is, but it's not as if you can't see that there's anyone there on the other side. So it's alw-- this is always the kind of the, uh, two sides. In, in a certain Chabad house situation, it's all similar. We want people who come in to feel part of what's going on, so the, a degree of, a word, using the word transparency by... would be, it would be, uh, suitable. On the other hand, Halakha requires a Mechitzah. So this is the challenge. So- The way, the way I, um, I, I can see that there's, uh... So long as you don't recognize the person on the other side of the mechitza, that would be opaque enough, um, to be a kosher mechitza. There's certainly some poskim would take that. But Hashgacha Protis, I just got a... In the post, I got a small, um, booklet by, uh, Tuvia Bleich or Zanghezant. This is number twenty-three, issue number twenty-three of his memoirs and, uh, Verta, et cetera. And here he published

37:45 a, uh, a letter of the Rebbe. Apparently, he quotes that there's just recently been published the ru- the, uh, the, uh, guidelines for mechitza according to the Lubavitch Rebbe. I have not seen that publication. But meanwhile, we have-- He, he copies out this one letter. This letter is addressed to, doesn't say the name. He says a rabbi in the west of England in around nineteen fifty-seven. The letter is from Tuvshin Yud Zian, a rabbi in the west of England. And I'm curious, where is west of England? Which community is this? But meanwhile, let's read the, read the letter. To tell someone that you're not doing the right thing. Uh, he's-- Now he's, he's come to this community to tell the people that you're doing the wrong thing, et cetera. It's korav levadai. It's most-- almost certain that the guests, the words of the guest who hasn't really become a local yet, uh, will not be accepted to change what has been done by the committee for many years, and actually it may cause, it will cause greater obstinacy that they should dig in not to change, and it will cause hard feelings, difficult rela-- difficulties in the relationship, um, and it will cause also damage to cooperation of, uh, yomim tovim mitzvahs. So the Rebbe is telling the, this Rav not to be too pushy. Then the Rebbe writes specifically about the mechitza, that you've written to me that the mechitza is not high enough. That you should join there for prayer, for davening, abso--

39:40 certainly makes out of the question that you should not. Poshet shemufrach. It is, uh, kedai, it is advisable to suggest that you should be present in order to... I'm not sure what he means by lashkiach al hakavod. Perhaps it means that to, to, to, to be respectful. You come to town, you should be respectful of that community. And the Rebbe hinges this on, yarshelu lenahel, they should allow you to, uh, have a, uh, a-- to be active, to raise the mechitza adequately. So very, very interesting. We've got-- I don't know who this Rav is. Was he-- Did he become the Rav in that community? I actually wrote to the editors if they could be so kind as share with me the details. So I don't know what exactly his position was. Was he perhaps just a chazan or... I don't know. He comes to a community, and the Rebbe is telling him to tread carefully. And then he come-- As far as a lack of mechitza, it couldn't have been a chazan because the Rebbe was telling him not to daven there. Um, but, eh, to try to be, to do something where he could to raise it. So how low was the mechitza to the point the Rebbe says, poshet, shemufrach to daven there? I don't know. I can tell you, going back about forty-five years ago, a bit more, about closer to fifty years ago, when Rav Arendor Safrin, alav ha-shalom, is in Beehive Lane in, in Ilford, and they ca-- there was

41:20 a change at the choir, men's choir. For some reason, instead of being where the choir was till now, the choir, choir took over a part of the women's gallery. And he took exception to the fact there's gonna be men and women on the gallery, and there was no mechitza. And he would come to shul, and he'd stand there with his kapote. I don't remember where, I don't... I remember the wore talis. But he, he-- That was his protest. He would come to shul and protest that there's not, that there's no, there's not a kosher mechitza. What was-- How that was resolved, I don't know. Um, but here's very interesting, and, um, that, that there are positions where because the mechitza is in-inadequate to say that it's poshet, that one should not be davening there. No, I'm, I'm, I'm intrigued to know more details about that, uh, story. Let's move on. So here the question is a Chabad, a Chabad house has been offered a Se-a Sephardi sefer Torah. And this question is, is it appropriate for us to have this Sephardi sefer Torah? Now, I'm not-- I asked, is it one of those in the, in the, uh, cases? And apparently not. It's just the, the script is a Sephardi script. Is it appro-appropriate for Chabad, uh, for a Chabad institution, and the shliach is Ashkenazi. Would, would it be appropriate to have a Sephardi sefer Torah? So we have here on the m- on the f- on the right of your screen, you have

42:57 from the Shaarit Shuvah on the margin of the Shechinah Oroch in Siman number deux. That's the chapter in Shechinah Oroch which talks about the formation of the Hebrew letters in the Sefer Torah and the Tefillin He quotes the Birkei Yosef in the name of, uh, Maram Habib, uh, uh, who was the author of the Sefer Get Poshut. He says that Tefillin written in Ashkenazi script are different to the way it's for Sephardim, and an Ashkenazi script Tefillin are not valid or possible for Sephardim. And he brings so also from, I think, Rabbi Yosef Molho, et cetera. So that's, uh, quite a strong position to say that Ash-- that, uh, Ashkenazi Tefillin are not valid for a Sephardi. That is, as I say, that's on the margin of the Shechinach. On the left of your screen, you have from the Sefer called Me'asef Lechol Ha-Machnis. Me'asef Lechol Ha-Machnis was written by, I've forgotten his name now, but he was a gabbe of the Minchas Elazar. He was also the one who put together the Darkei Chaim V'Shalom, so he's got like a cyclopedic work on Hiddush Tzitzit and Hiddush Tefillin. That's as far as it went. So he refers to Ain Beit Oved. Beit Oved is a siddur, um, a Seph-a Sephardi siddur printed in Livorno, and he brings the Birkei Yosef, which is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch, and he writes, this is a Beit Oved, he says, "But sha'at hak." If you cannot get Sephardi Tefillin, you can put an Ashkenazi Tefillin rather than

44:37 not putting a Tefillin together, but do it without a bracha. Then he goes on, uh, Al Pi Sifrei, which I'm not familiar what that Sefer is. He actually retracts, and he says-- He quotes, uh, Sefer She'eorit, he quotes the Noi De Behuda. He says, "Ma'asim bechol yom." It's a daily, regular practice. The Ashkenazi and Sephardi shul has an Aliyah, and he says a bracha. An Sephardi who's an Ashkenazi shul will also have an Aliyah make a bracha. And if that's the case, if it's valid to have an Aliyah in a Sefer Torah of the, uh, other community, so too with the Tefillin for Ashken-of Ashkenazi. Ashkenazi Tefillin are kosher for a Sephardi, or pshita is the same, the opposite. And you should... And contrary to Maran Habib and Maran Molcho, it's not a, it's not an issue, V'yanichem b'bracha. So this is in this Sephardi Sefer, Beit Oved, in this, in his later Sefer. So what we're seeing here is that the latest Sephardi Shulchan Aruch, and I'm sure the Ashkenazi will also follow. You see here, Noi De Behuda says the same thing. Yes, there are differences with Sephardi Ashkenazi, but they are not s-not substantial to the point to say that it's not kosher for the other one. Having said that, having said that they are kosher, is it a... But there is a concept of following your minhag avot, et cetera. So would it be appropriate to have in a Ashkenazi shul to have a Sephardi Sefer Torah as a second one,

46:11 as a spare, et cetera? I, um, you know, I'm, I'm... I think I'm more okay with that. But it should be on the regular basis. The Ashkenazi should be using a Sephardi Sefer Torah, or Sephardi use Ashkenazi Sefer Torah. I think they should l'chatchila be keeping to their, their minhag avot, avot and keep, keep to that, um, Sefer Torah of their, of their following. Let's move on. So someone's asking me about, you know, if you have a square corner of your kapota, et cetera, that raises a question that you're, you might have to have tzitzit. So just to address this briefly, the, if the bottom corners of your kapota are square, so that counts as two corners, yeah, the two front parts. If the back of the kapota, or, or raincoat for that matter, is more than halfway down, split open, so then if those corners at the back of the kapota or c-raincoat are also square, then you'd need to have, uh, tzitzit. In order to avoid this issue, the kapota man, um, um, tailors will make a corner, they'll make a corner rounded. So therefore, it's not four corners, it's only three corners. The question is: How, how, uh, how do you measure this corner? How, how round does it have to be? How, how close to the... Or how far from the extreme corner does it be-start be-to begin to curve? So Rav Chaim Nora writes, "You should work out the following. Take a piece of paper which is twelve centimeters diameter,

48:04 and you put that on the corner, and you make it that it's the edges are at the edge of the garment. And if the square corner is sticking out beyond the circle, that part should be cut off. And then, then if it's, if it's, uh, rounded that off that way, that would be, uh, that would now be called a rounded corner. Because it's got to do with that, uh, the minimum smallest garment is three by three, uh, etzbaot. And e-etzba being two centimeters. So six by six is the smallest what's called a corner. So if, if the... From the beginning of the six by six, it already begins to curve, that's already called a, um, that's called a rounded corner, and it doesn't need to have, uh, tzitzit. Now, very helpful is that I actually measured. You can see I've got in my hands a, a, a regular CD. I found it in my, one of my, one of my antique collections. Um, it's actually measures-- I measured it. It's twelve centimeters across, the diameter. So if you'd put this on the corner of the garment, and the corner is rounded from three o'clock to six o'clock, that's rounded, then your corner is, is rounded, and it doesn't need to have tzitzit. That's, and that's... And that will take... Then, then you... That will solve the problem for the entire kapota, yeah. If out of the four corners, one of them is rounded, then the garment doesn't need to have tzitzit. Okay, let's move on.

49:46 So now I've got this question from a shlucha in a town in, in Europe, a rather large city. And she says that she's started walking her seventeen-month-old toddler to shul on Shabbos. They are on shlichus, and, uh, she sees it's important for her shlichus to be, to be in shul as possi-if possible. And she's not keen to a goy pushing a buggy for her. That's not-- She's not interested in doing that. Probably the wisdom being that if she can do that, then other people will push the buggy themselves. Okay, so she's-- But now that kid is allowed to-- is able to walk, so she's walking. It turns out, however, that the kid gets, gets cranky somewhere along the way, and it looks like the child is pos- thirsty. The child will be able to have a drink, and that would solve the problem. So she's asking me the question: Could she prepare a backpack with a bottle of water, some crackers, put it on the child's back, and walk the child with a backpack to shul? And then when the child ge-gets, uh, a bit, uh, tired, well, it will stop. It'll take the backpack-- take the bottle out of the backpack and have a drink, and then they'll go on to shul, et cetera. That was her question. Now, there is a very big difference between not interfering with what a child does and giving the child to do something which is forbidden. There's many-- In many areas, we say if a child is

51:30 doing something against Torah, in normal mitzvah, you're allowed to ignore it. But if the, uh... But to give the child... We're just learning-- Yesterday, we were learning in Shechinach, are you allowed to give a child matzah on Erev Pesach, um, when we're not meant to be eating matzah on Erev Pesach? You're certainly not allowed to give a chi-child treif. So giving the child a backpack is like giving them something which is for them to do melacha with to carry. Now, if it were-- If, if the streets-- If it was a small town where you don't have hundred-- six hundred thousand people, then you could say that carrying the street there is a de rabonan, and then you could take a lenient view. So let's read this insight. This is from the, the siman in Shechinach about Chinuch. It was Shabbos, it's siman shimim gimel. So there are those who say that if it's a de rabonan, you're allowed to feed the child an isur de rabonan. The Shechinach disagrees with that. He says you're not allowed to give a child... To feed a child isur de rabonan is also not allowed. He then quotes Rabbe Ki V'Eiga. A case where the, uh, there's no erev, are you allowed to have children carry sforim for you to shul? Can you rely on the Rashbo that an isur de rabonan can be given to a child? So he says no. Well, first of all, the, the assumption here is for sure that the carrying is in a,

53:02 in de rabonan because it's not shishim ribu, et cetera. Can you give a child to carry the sefer you want to sefer in shul? Can you give the child to carry the, uh, the sefer for you? So he says no, because the Ran says even the Rashbo, who says you can give the child an isur de rabonan, that's only for the child's benefit, but not for your own benefit. On the contrary, uh, you'd have to tell them, "No, don't carry it for me." And then Rabbe Ki V'Eiga says, if you give the child a siddur or Chumash for the child to use, and then you'll be also following inside along with the child, that would be okay. But meanwhile, what we're seeing here is this is clearly only a heter for an isur de rabonan. If-- A-and for the benefit. If it were isur de rabonan, you'd be allowed to give the child a backpack. If we're talking about a bigger city where the concern is, uh, uh, shishim ribu, then I'm concerned, um, about giving this to the chi- to a child because you're-- as if you're feeding them isur. I want to just clarify something. And what I've seen in Poskim is that the-- For example, the Chiddushei Harim, the Ger Rebbe, Rebbe, yeah. So he has a teshuvah he says about a child carrying on, on Shabbos. In the thread, he says a child doesn't have machshava. And e-e-integral to a melacha on Shabbos is the machshava, to bring it from A

54:26 to B. But a child doesn't have machshava, and therefore he's not doing a melacha altogether. And there are other poskim who find other loopholes to allow a child to carry. And living in Stamford Hill, I do often see chil- little toddlers going along with holding a baby's bottle or a, or a pacifier, dummy or whatever, packet of crisps. And the parent... Now, that-- But that's not such a problem if a child took it on by their-- on their own accord. Here, we're talking about giving to the child. What-- My hunch about this is that in Poland, it was generally there were erevin in the cities. And the question was, on the in-- on the odd occasion, when there's no erev, can you give the child to carry? Possibly in Litza, et cetera, I'm, I'm, I'm guessing. We don't hear about them be- having erevin so-- instituted on a-- um, all over. So when there's no erev, then giving a child is not just this week, it's week after week after week. And possibly because of this, we see a, a, a stricter position. Okay. So really, I told her that I'm not very keen about this. Um, and so we'll find another way of, uh, persevering. She asks if the child is, is just near the shul and doesn't want to go in, can you ask the security guard to carry, to carry the child in? So I says that's okay. If you're stuck with a child on the street and they want a guard

56:00 to help you, that's okay. Let's do our last question for today, and that is someone is publishing a new edition of a siddur in another country, different language. Uh, of course, the Hebrew is Hebrew, but the, uh, translation is another, another language. And he's asking me, he said, "Chabad siddur," and he sees on the words in Hadar Zve'emuno, "Hasigu ivehasegev." So in some Chabad siddurim, hasegev is spelt with a sin, and some it's spelt with a samech. So, yeah. So, uh, y- what you have on the screen, this is from the first print of the Cha- of the Alter Rebbe Siddur in Taf kuf samech gimel. That's two hundred and twenty-one years ago. And here he has, "Hanoiv ha'neitzach lechai olamim. Hasigu ivehasegev lechai olamim." And here you have the segev is with a samech. Now, the truth is that there's no such word in Hebrew of course segev with a samech. It is the word nisgov, se-- um, et cetera. Sogv mimenu. That is a, uh, exalted, a high up, and that is written with a sin. The shoresh is sin gimel veis. What we do find is that often there's an interchange between the sin and the samech. So what's happened here is in the alpha-- the Hadar Zve'emuno is in alphabetical order. And so hasigu ivehasegev, the letter samech. And therefore, the word hasegev, although correct, in correct Hebrew it should be written with a sin, but it's written with a samech because that's how it fits there, to fit the alphabetical

57:40 sequence. Then comes another printer and says, "No, but the real word is segev with a sin," so he puts it a sin. So my feeling was that a siddur is made for simple people. And we are-- it's also should be for simple people. And then looking at the, uh, the simple person looks at Hadar Zve'emuno, he sees a sequence of alephs. He comes along to hasegev and he says, "What's the sin doing over here?" Oh, you're gonna say, "Well, really sin is pronounced, pronounced a samech and really da, da, da. And it's put here because it's instead of the sin." That kind of pilpul I think is beyond what, what you, you should expect from the simple reader. Therefore, the simple reader put a sin. And for the ones who are more sophisticated, they all know that how, that, that, that the word is really with a, uh, with a sin. And of course, for the reason of the alphabetical sequence, it's been put as a samech. Now, someone pointed out, as mentioned this on Friday night, someone m-mentioned about what about in, uh, in Kel Olim. We have, "Smeichim betzeison vesasen beoym oysim be'emar tzoin keilim." So why is smeichim there with a sin? Why is it not with a samech? Okay. My simple answer is to put smeichim with a samech, you'd never get away with it. The word hasegev is not such a common word, and therefore, it's put in, um, with a samech which to, to, to fit the sequence. Both

59:01 of them are, are valid positions, but I just-- the question is what's advisable how to publish in the siddur. I was more inclined to put it with a samech, and I was pleased to see that that, that's how it was in the first prints of the Alter Rebbe Siddur, as you can see. What you have on the screen, this is from the forthcoming edition of the Alter Rebbe Siddur with Mekoreis Tzion ve-HaAros. Um, habo aleinu l'toivo, uh, bakorov. And, um, yeah, so you can see, uh, the, the, this, this, this comment. Um, that's what I have for tonight. I want to wish you all a very good evening. And we're going into Rosh Chodesh. Should be a Chodesh Hag'ulah. Hag'ulah, uh, protis for the, uh, hostages and Hag'ulah klalos for Klal Yisroel and, um, with MoShiach Tzidkeinu. As I mentioned at the beginning of this shiur, uh, we're making hasidim b'ezras Hashem on Wednesday evening. And as a result, uh, I won't be able to do the shiur next Sunday, not neither Thursday evening nor Sunday evening. And so b'ezras Hashem, uh, once we get back into things, you'll be, uh, duly notified, and I look forward to sharing with you, uh, further inyanim, um, ve-chavuyos v'harchava. I-- and meanwhile, I already wish you a kashe and freilechen Pesach. Thank you and mazel tov. Thank you. Warm mazel tov. Thank you. Mazel tov.