ויצא תשפ״ה

00:08 Speaker 1 Welcome to tonight's Shiur. Motzaei Shabbos Vayeitzei. And, uh, regards from the Kinus Hashlzuchim, where I was last week. I don't know whether you remember the story, uh, of the fellow who had a guest. He owned a dog, and he had a guest who had a, a, uh, fancy new iPhone. And the guest had put down the phone on the coffee table, and the dog had decided to... that it's a, uh, biscuit, and he chewed the phone. Um, and then the owner of the phone wanted the owner of the dog house to pay for the damage. Anyway, after the, uh, banquet, I'm in the lobby and Shliach introduces me to his... one of his balabat who he had brought to the camp banquet. It came out... He was saying one thing about a dog, and I said, "I have this wacky story with a dog eating a phone." He says, "I was the owner of the dog." So I, I, uh, closed that circle, um, about meeting the baal ha'kelev which, uh... Okay. I'm gonna get later to, um, about why we... about Eliyahu HaNavi. But if you remember once on a... Dovid Heller was once at a, some event. He says, "If someone will come to shul with a little dog," and you say, "Why, why are you having a dog?" He says, "Because kelev is gematria Eliyahu." So therefore, he wants to, uh, welcome Eliyahu HaNavi. That's why he's bringing his dog to shul. So that was his, uh... Okay, we'll come to that.

01:52 Speaker 1 Um, let's come to the... our first shailah. So then someone, um, someone's learning Rambam earlier in the week. We're learning now in the three prokim a day. It's Hilchot Avedah. And he comes across this halacha, which is Peh Gadal VeLo Chi Yad Aleph, that if a person is reckless about his property, he leaves his b-barn, stable, he leaves it open. He leaves his property on the street and, and walks off. So you don't have a mitzvah of hashavat Avedah. If someone is reckless, you don't have a mitzvah of hashavat Avedah. The Rambam, however, says the seer, the observer is not allowed to take it for himself. So this person who's a-asking the question, he actually runs a camp. And at the end of camp, there's lots of valuables left over by the kids like towels and perhaps other useful stuff. And so he's been always mulling over what should he do with the stuff, and is he allowed to use the stuff which the kids leave over. So now he's seeing it's... well, it's Avedah Le'Daas. They've left stuff knowingly, recklessly. But then he says you're not allowed to take it for himself. So yes, no. So actually, first of all, this halacha, why the Rambam says he's not allowed to take it, the, the find, he's not allowed to take it, is a bit of a mystery. And actually, as it's rooted in Shechu Nenorach in Chesh Mispat, you can see that the Rambam actually brings, "VeYesh Odom DeAvedah Bedaas Havah Hefker VeChol Hakedem

03:34 Speaker 1 Zacheh." Not only is it not mitzvah of hashavat Avedah, but actually you're allowed to take it. Fair enough. So now, however, before, uh, taking all these l-lost, found objects, I pointed out to him that actually these kids who leave this stuff in camp, they have... they're not... it's not their property. They don't own the towels or the flip-flops, whatever, which they leave there. It belongs to their parents. The parents have generously bought them these, uh, pieces of equipment. And the children, if they are reckless, all right. I mean, that's, that's, uh... But that doesn't make it hefker. So we're back, back to it's not hefker by... It wasn't made hefker by the owners. Parents, I'm sure, are upset and, um... probably, at least. So now the question is: what do you do about... We have a famous idea, comes up many times in Gemara, that Yehei Munach Achiyov El Eliyahu. That if something was found and it's not possible to return it, you c-don't have any markings to how to identify the owner, Yehei Munach Achiyov El Eliyahu. It should be left in s-s-safekeeping, I guess, till Eliyahu HaNavi comes. So the question begs itself, is there somewhere a large, um, yellow storage Achiyov El Eliyahu? Where does all these Achiyov El Eliyahus, where are they, where are they kept? I can tell you there's no place in the Kadasha office, that I can tell you. Um, from the much as has... I've been there. So what hap... So the question is: what happens over

05:22 Speaker 1 the generations? There's been all these Achiyov El Eliyahu situations. Um, so what's done with them? So three, um, three sources on your screen here. One is from the Sefer Piskei Choshen. See, he comes up with an interesting idea. What happens if someone passed away and he has assets, but there's no way his heirs are going to be... They don't know about it. So he says, "Moment SheEino Omed L'hisbar Mi HaBa'alim." Property which is not going to be recovered, um, to be re-identified who's the owner, is not included in yerushah. Very interesting chidush. So you've got someone passed away, he's got his yorushim, and the one who passed away has got property which is, uh, elsewhere, but irretrievable at this p-point. So then yerushah does not work. If yerushah doesn't work, it doesn't go over to his yorush. So then it remains the property of whoever is, uh, has it in-- currently in, in place. That's not really a, a adequate solution for our question, because that's talking about over many years if you can be confident by then. The original owner passed away, but that you couldn't really, uh... In short term, that's not gonna help. So what we have here is on the s- on the left of the screen, we've got two quotes. One from Rabbeinu Feish, Moshe, and the other one is from my Rabbi, Harav Henach Padva. And they say something similar. Now, the question, I'm, I'm going through this because it's such a common thing. You've got someone came to

07:01 Speaker 1 your house and left an umbrella. You don't... Whose this umbrella belongs to? No, no, no label, nothing. And after six months, it's been gathering dust. What do you do with this umbrella? And so on. Coats, whatever it may be. So, so, um, Rabbeinu Moshe says, "Assess the value of it, and then make a note of th-this article, and then if you need to have help, other pe-- get a, a, another pe- couple of people to help you assess the value, and then you can use it." Rav Padva takes this a, a bit clearer. He brings from, again, from Shechinach, a . If someone found tefillin. So tefillin seem to have been an easily replaceable item. So you're gonna assess the value, and you'll buy them. Because it's they're easily available to, to buy replacements. That's the of the Shechinach. So what Rabbeinu Rav Padva is saying, an item which is easily replaceable, it's not gonna become like a sacred item which you're never allowed to touch. It can stay... You, you can use it, and you'll, you'll designate. You'll say, "All right, I know what the value is. When the owner will identify himself and give us money, okay, fine, so I'll pay him the value." So that's the answer with all of these, yeah, stuff. The likelihood is never, they're never gonna be claimed. But if there is a possibility, okay, so I've, I've made an assessment of the value, made a note, and, uh, doesn't mean how the, how much a brand-new towel

08:46 Speaker 1 costs. We're talking about how much a, uh, a thirdha- a towel which was left lying around, probably not in perfect condition. Okay, so you make out how much it is, and if the owner claims it, then you'll be ready to reimburse them. That's better than just having it sitting there taking up space, yeah? Right. Let's go on to our next point. So here there was a, a bit of a controversy last Shabbos somewhere in Europe. That's as far as I'm gonna identify. What happened was, I think Charles Shuddess and one gentleman wanted to wash Mayim Acharonim. There was a bottle of carbonated water on the table. He tips the bo- the bottle, pours a little bit onto his fingertips and washes Mayim Acharonim. So one of the others who were present there took extreme exception to this, and he says, "You've now made a Ruach Hatumah on the whole bottle. Not only is the water which has gone onto your fingers, but the water in the bottle has also become Ruach, um, uh, how do you say, contaminated with Ruach Hatumah." So this is the, uh, the question came my way. Is there any basis for that? Yes, no. Okay. So what you have on the screen is from the Sefer Minat Yisrael. Now, reading those opening words, Now, this is ambiguous. When you say , do you mean the Mashpia Keili or the Mekabel Keili? Do you mean the cup or the d- or the bowl? It's not clear. Now, those who are particular

10:39 Speaker 1 not to use a f- a dish which you use for eating, not to use Mayim Acharonim from such a dish. And he gives a couple of references. And then others say, "If you don't have another dish, then it's okay to use, to use this." Then he gives a... Then he go- comes down and he says, "You can see from the Mashal," quoted in Magen Avrohom. He talks about you just washed out a cup, and you can use the remain-- the rinsing, the water which you didn't rinse the cup with, and you can use it for Mayim Acharonim. So obviously, the Ma- Mashal is not so, uh, worried about the dish where you're pouring the water from. This is from the Sefer, from the Minat Yisrael. Now, I did not manage to look up all his sources, but this is so... You have to be so careful with these Seforim which are Melachim. I'm just gonna show you a couple of his sources. One is going to be the Imrei Pinchas and also Ikrei Hadad. Um, we'll see, yeah. I'm gonna go scroll down. So here we have from Imrei Pinchas. This is from Pinchas Koritz, who is a colleague of the Mizritcher Maggid. The whole story, he was a Talmud of the Baal Shem Tov. The whole story with the piece of chitz диs on the floor. He came to visit the Maggid. He wasn't so enamored with the- Spreading of chiddush done by the Maggid. So this is the Pirchei Kosrei. He's writes, "I

12:16 Speaker 1 heard from Reb Moshe Pshevorsk that most cholshes, that, that people are, are suffering frail- frailty is because they're not careful" I emphasize the word . His problem is not the dish where you're pouring from, but the dish where you're pouring into. Okay? That's-- I think that's very clear. So to quote him for the dish where you're pouring from is a misquote. The Ikre HaDat is a Sefer from Reb Dovid Trani. People are sitting and they're washing their hands be-ems hasudoso. Now, people who wash make a point of not only rinsing the mouth between the fish and the flesh, but also to wash their hands. They take a dish at-- from the table. They wash their hands into a bowl, which is on the table. It's a soup bowl. Is there worry about becomes despicable. to use that dish again. if it's been well-rinsed. I answered. What's the whole fuss about? should be no, no longer usable because you poured, um, water into it. True, that we're particular not to pour mayim achronim onto the floor because of ruach ra and all that. Okay. There's no stigma on the dish. you washed it out, it's not a problem. Not an issue of ruach ra being stuck to the kalei. So he's clearly talking about the dish, which is the mekabel. And is-- even that he's not worried about. So to start saying that there's a problem with the dish where you're pouring from doesn't really have any source. Now, let me just clarify. We've got three,

14:43 Speaker 1 um, shall we say, the three issues. One is the kalei where you're pouring from, then there's the water on your fingers, and then there's the dish below. Okay. Now, you can see here on the screen that the Kaf HaChaim says, first of all, an interesting point. It says, "allen. chovah." Literal meaning is is a duty, but the word chovah also means of sin. And mayim achronim is, is kind of giving a chelek, giving a portion for the sitra achra. And that's, that's why we have this problem of ruach ra with it. It is giving a-- giving something towards throwing a, a bone to sitra achra. And that's why we say before, we say the pasuk, , as if we're discarding it. And that's why it's also in Chabad we don't use a silver dish for mayim achronim, the bowl. We wouldn't use a silver dish because it's like a Negel Vasser. We don't-- Like we have also by the Makas. It should be, um, it shouldn't be a fancy kalei for the w-w-wine from the Makas. You don't gift wrap the stuff you give to sitra achra. Now, because the water of mayim achronim is going to s-s-- is kind of a chelek of sitra achra, writes the Kaf HaChaim, You shouldn't put it on your mustache or your lips. You shouldn't put your fing-fingers, wet fingers on your mou-- on your, on, on your, uh, lips. 'Cause this water is water for sitra achra, so why are you putting it on your lips?

16:29 Speaker 1 Okay. So that's what the Kaf HaChaim writes. Piskei Teshuvot disagrees with this, and he says it's a minhag. This minhag is mentioned in Gemara Yoma. There's a whole story in, uh, in-- about someone who didn't wash mayim achronim, and then the whole thing that, uh, someone came to his wife and told him to give, uh, some valuables because... Then they gave him a simmerin that he's-- he had very nice, uh, uh, lentils for breakfast. And, uh, had he washed mayim achronim so it would have been-- he would have wiped away his lips. And meanwhile, his-- the wife gave away the The-- She-- He-- They, the, the, uh, tricksters told the wife that he, he told us a simmerin, to give us the valuables that he had in, in lentils for breakfast. And when he heard for the, uh... that the wife had given away the valuables, he killed his wife. So it says, "Mayim achronim horeg es hanefesh." So the idea of wash-wiping your lips with mayim achronim is obviously that's the pshat of the Gemara over there. Okay. And before we go read further in the Piskei Teshuvot, this week we have in the, uh, we wash the tips of the fingers. And then you pass them as they are still moist. on the lips. So this idea of where although the Kaf HaChaim not happy about it, that's clearly our minhag. So on this, we therefore conclude going back to the Piskei Teshuvot. The ruach ra is only in- In the water which

18:21 Speaker 1 goes away from the fingers and then lands in the dish, uh, where you pour it into, that's where there's the Ruach Ra. But the finger... The water which remains on the fingers and the water which is therefore on the lips, that's not, um, the it doesn't have the Ruach Ra on it. And having said all this, so if even the water on the fingers hasn't got a Ruach Ra, and that's why it's okay to put them on your, on your lips. How much more so the water in the bottle where you poured from, um, so I don't see it being a problem at all. So again, you've got this, this, uh, um, I did look up some of the sources, and I, uh, as I showed you that they are talking about the not the but, uh, there may be... I didn't manage to f- trace all of his references. There may be such a but not really something which we should be, uh, overly concerned about. Certainly noth-nothing to argue about, yeah. Let's move on. Our next question... Oh, before going further, is about the pasuk. Someone asked me, I was gonna have protests about the psukim before and after . So the pasuk before, as I just said, that's it's going to clip it, okay. Um, then the pasuk after, . So that's a pasuk in Yechezkel talking about the Mizbeach. And there's a famous Gemara which comments on this. There's a couple of places in the Gemara. It starts off at, about

20:03 Speaker 1 the Mizbeach, and then it finishes off about the Shulchan, to tell you that when we have a Beis Hamikdash, the Mizbeach is a form of atonement. And when there's no Mizbeach, so then Shulchan is . You use your table for, for , for, for having guests, for hospitality, and for eating , then your table becomes like a Mizbeach. That's based upon this pasuk, . Just one thing which I saw in, in my notes, we have a pasuk, . So look at those five words, and those... The p- the pasuk, this is my God, and also I will beautify him. But also of accommodate, create a dwelling for Hashem, So what we're saying is, we've eaten and hopefully and we're going to try to use the energy so that's these we've eaten and will use this, uh, energy in a, in a, uh, you know, in a g- good way, in a way. We're going to go to question number three, and that is an L-shaped doorway. Um, first time I've come across such a thing. You can see it on the screen. It's like a pat- patio doors, but from two sides, and they meet in an L shape. So when it's... I guess they close well. Um, does such a doorway re- need to have a mezuzah? So what's the question, even? Well, there is a in Gemara Eruvin. You can see on the margin, . So in the context of Eruvin, you sometimes have a fence and a gap in the fence. If

21:58 Speaker 1 it's up to ten ammas, that's okay. So there's a rule in Hilchas Eruvin that, uh, you cannot have a gap at the corner because it's... You can't call something at the corner. There's a pan, something missing in the corner. You wouldn't call that an entrance. It's not a normal way to make an entrance. On that basis, you can start asking, "Oh, since it's not normal to have an entrance in the corner, therefore, this is not called a proper entrance." So what is being said here, that although that may be true in the context of Eruvin, but that's nothing to do with our topic, which has got to do with mezuzah, and it is mezuzah. Okay. Now I'm going to read one of our messages, which reads... It tries to say the following. I was told that in Brunois, when a bocher used a drop from the kettle for Mayim Achronim, Rav Nissan asserted that the water from that whole big kettle, I guess, wasn't... Was not okay. Okay. All right. So perhaps Rav Nissan had, uh, Ruach HaKodesh concurred with the Belzerov, but, uh, in s- in strictly Halakha, it seems to be okay. Right. Um, generally, we have in Halakha, if something... There's... Something pours down, it doesn't go upwards. There are, in, in case of Yayin Nesech, there's, there is such a thing, Is it okay for me to pour from my bottle of wine into a cup which has got non-kosher wine? Does the contamination go back upstream? So in the case

23:31 Speaker 1 of Yayin Nesech, that would be a problem. So let's say if you had Yayin, which is not Mevushal, and you got a Goy is holding a glass, and you're pouring into the glass, so then that would be a problem. Not... That'd be a problem for the bo- wine in the bottle because of the upstream connection. To say that that goes to okay, that's a big Chiddush. Right. Let's move on. Certainly not, not, not, uh, you know, it's a bottle of carbonated water belongs to a, a Sibur. To start saying you have to throw it out, I would think t- more than twice before doing so. Let's move on. Okay. Question, as I was traveling and the kinus that came up, someone actually asked me, "You have a bag, you're traveling, and you have your tefillin in your bag. Is it okay to put your bag on the floor?" So here you have in Siman Mem. In Hilchas Tefillin, the Dinim of, covered of tefillin are discussed in Siman Mem. So there you have it on the screen from the Piskei Teshuvas. Tefillin, all right. Then he says, tefillin a, a suitcase to... With tefillin inside, Min Hadin it's okay because the tefillin are double, in a double pouch. They are in their own pouch, you know, the velvet co- um, bag, and then they are in the, in the case. But Hilchat Chilla, you shou- they should, you should try to avoid them, the tefillin being at the bottom of the bag. There should be

25:01 Speaker 1 something else in between. Um, at least there should be a, there should be a Tefach higher than the floor. So strictly speaking, so Min Hadin it's okay. Better if when you're packing your bag, put your tefillinnot right at the... Not at the bottom, but put them a little bit higher and that's-- that would be okay. I mean, for-- according to what's being read over here, the Min HaDin, your, your regular tallis bag, you can put on the floor, which I think most of us wouldn't do because it's clearly, uh... We would see it as disgrace to put a tallis bag with tefillin on the floor, um, even though it's a double bag. So when you're traveling, sometimes it's-- you don't have, uh, always a choice where to put stuff. So, um, Min HaDin, it's okay, but it's n-not the best thing to do. Let's move on. Okay. So here we have the following story. Last Friday evening, someone has company over, and several people, amongst them was a non-Jewish young lady, and, uh, or she was bekavod haYid. And so she came along part of the package. Okay. Perhaps she's going through, um, interested in gir. I don't know the details. Meanwhile, this was, um, this... So, so-- And, and then in conversation, he says that he, that he forgot to put the kugel in the oven. And because it's Shabbos, you know, we're not allowed to put the kugel in the oven. So Kathy says, "Uh, no problem." And she sa-- Kathy, on

26:36 Speaker 1 her own volition, takes the kugel and puts it into the oven. So now he's asking, is he allowed to eat this kugel which the goy, without being asked, put in the oven. So now what exactly is the question here? The kugel is... If the-- If it had been something like a soup, then that would not be okay because a cold soup, cooking it, reheating it, that's issur bishul. And when a goy cooks something even for themselves, we're not allowed to have benefit for the-- from it because shemo yarbeh bishvilo, in case they'll warm up a bit more, cook a bit more for you. So that's not okay. If a goy boils the kettle, you're not allowed to have the remainder of that hot water because shemo yarbeh bishvilo. Happens to be that this was not, um, called, uh, uh, wasn't soup. It was a kugel. So what's the problem of taking a cold kugel and putting it into an oven? So something called chazara where-- that we have rules of putting stuff back to the fire when it wasn't on the fire. It's nira kimivashal. It's not mivashal. It's nira kimivashal. So there's, there's the rules of chazara. It has to be still in your hand, and you have to have it in mind, and it has to be still warm. There's a list of chaz-- of, of the rules for chazara. So here there was a violation of chaz-- of the dinim of chazara. The violation was done by a goy. So here we

28:10 Speaker 1 have it on the, on screen. Siman reish nun gimel sif kof he. Vechol ze kasher yelach zir Yisroel be'atsmo. If a Yisroel put it in, um, back near the heat, that's a issue. Aval im yelach zir al yedei nochri. But if it was put back on the fire by a goy or to the, to the, uh, heat by a goy, afilu bemeizid. If it was done deliberately. Deliberately, I guess, the Jew, the Yid told her, him. Afilu mid'samim ve'yofim imo hayu merushim kol tzorechom. If it was to it fully cooked, sheeino nehenim meinu kol cach. Yeah, it's gishmak. It's a bit wa-it's warmer, but it's not kol cach because it edible before. Kim shekar ho'iroi lech. And I believe that is the case, that, that a kugel is edible raw and cold also. Room temperature, you can eat a kugel. That's not a problem. Iz gishmak. A hot kugel is more gishmak. That's clearly what the halachas say. That if it was the chazara, the violation of chazara was done by a goy, then there is no stigma on the kugel, and you are allowed to eat it. Let's go on to our next question. It's gonna be a little bit interesting. So here's the question. One of our regular listeners. He's asking some-- He sees some people wearing their gartel around the tallis on the outside. Now, that's certainly the exception rather than the rule. Is there an obje-- uh, an issue of not wearing your gartel over your tallis? Now, there's something similar,

29:51 Speaker 1 and that is about sticking your ritzuus from your tefillin into, into your gartel. Now, what's very, very interesting, that this inyan of putting the ritzuus in the gartel is mentioned in Pri Etz Chayim by the Reb Chaim Vital, Talmud of the Arizal. And yet... And it's mentioned in Kitzur Shulchan Aruch in some place. And at some stage, Re-Reb Nissan Mindel prepared a translation, a Kitzur Shulchan Aruch for ch-for children, and the Rebbe was magiya. And so he wrote over this, this line also about sticking the ritzuus into the gartel, into the belt, that they shouldn't drag on the floor, and the Rebbe deleted those, those words. And we can see in Chabad is you don't have... People don't stick their ritzuus in. Although we know that sometimes you sit down, and sometimes your ritzuus might fall to the floor. And so you make a point, you pick them up, but you don't... So there's two... These are two things. Sticking the ritzuus into the gartel and wearing the tallis in the gart-- um, um, wrap-wrapping the, uh, the, the gartel over the tallis. So what you have... Meanwhile, what we have here on the screen- I'll come back to the Gemara in a moment. We have here from the Sefer Darkei Chaim VeShalom. These are the Minhogim of the Munkacs Rov. And he writes that he was-- he would not put the tzitzit into his belt. And he says that tallit is oyer makif. Therefore, it's not appropriate to constrain it, tzimtzum. Um, it is-that's

31:31 Speaker 1 not appropriate. And in the... So the Darkei Chaim VeShalom was written, I have to say from my desk now, it was written by the Gabe of the Munkacs Rov, who was Mechil Mechel Gold, an eminent Talmid Chacham in his own right. He actually authored two other seforim, uh, the two volumes of Ma'asef Lechol HaMachanot. So he, uh, he explains the Minhogim of his Rebbe. He says it was very particular not to put the tzitzit into the belt, even though there's an advantage that the tzitzit won't be dragging on the floor. And he gives us a Gemara reference to Gemara Zevachim, Avnit m'gaz gayes. So I'm going to go back to that Gemara. And before we go to the Gemara, just one other point. He says that really the Matzas Shmurim writes that there's no issur of a tzitzit dragging on the floor. Maybe a, a risk of they're getting torn, but as far as Kedush is concerned, he says that's not a problem. All right. So where is this business? What's the... So this one issue he said was more a Kabbalah thing, that it's a makif and not to rim-limit it, which I, I can relate to that also. But here we have a Gemara in Zevachim Daf Yod Ches on Ad Alef on Ad Beis. Tonu Rabbon, on Hoyu Merusholim Mesulokim Meshuchokim. If the g-the garments of the Kohen were, were, uh, like, um, s-slagging, perhaps the word is, um, or they were too, too, um, too high or, or, um, worn out,

33:10 Speaker 1 they avoid this caution. Meanwhile, there's a discussion here. And here it has, Rav Hunna ikla lagiz, Aramaic, Rav Hunna ikla lagiz, Aramaic, Rav Hunna ikla lagiz, Aramaic. Well, that's the point which we had before in the, in, in the, uh, Darkei Chaim VeShalom, that the Avnit is as if it cuts off. Let's read the Rashi on that. That which is lifted by the belt is as if it's cut off. That's basically what is being said over here. That, uh, that, that which is lifted by the belt, if it's... So if it's a garment, this is discussed in Seferim. Um, actually, in the first volume of Sefer B'sdei Ashlichas, I discuss this more carefully. If it's no-normal to wear a belt, then that's part of the shleim. So the, the Kohen wears a belt, he wears a Avnit on the, on the, uh, kesones. That's not a problem because that's the style. But if it's a garment which doesn't need a belt, then the belt as if it's cutting off the remainder, as if it's not there. So it's a little bit, uh, should we say, a little bit abstract, but there is a kapedah not to have your te-your, uh, not to have the tallit tucked into, tucked into the gartel. You can see here clearly that Lemaise, the Munkacs, was particular about this. And generally, most of us, that's the minhag, and so there's a little bit of a lomdish of basis for that. Let's move on. So what's the earliest source? Someone met

35:19 Speaker 1 me in New York, and, uh, was asking me, "What's the earliest source of Kagavna?" Someone had told him that the earliest is in the Alter Rebbe Siddur. Not exactly true, because the Alter Rebbe Siddur was printed in Tov Kuf Sanot Imil. And in the Siddur Ari Z"L of Reb Osher of Brod, uh, which was printed in the year Tov Kuf BeMchez, Kagavna is included. But here you have, if you want to be-- anyone wants to read more about this, there's a volume called Minag Avoseinu Be'odeinu, two volumes from Re-uh, Gedaliah Oberlander, who's now, uh, the Rav of Chabad community in Kingston, Pennsylvania. Before, he was in Monsey. So in his volume on, on, uh, I think called Sheunos, Shabbos Kdesha, whatever. So he brings the following. So he's got a whole chapter on this, and he brings from Rabd-a story of Rabdovid Lakis, who was, uh, in the Talmud of the Baal Shem Tov. And he told over that one time the Baal Shem Tov came to a particular village. It was a Friday. When he was there, there were only three talmidim, and they did not have a minyan for Ma'ariv. And so they couldn't say Borchu. So at that point, the Baal Shem Tov said over the n-the text of Kagavna, which is from the Zohar, and it finishes off V'leima Borchu. And this was kind of as a substitute because they weren't able to say Borchu in the normal fashion. So that's the earliest source of the same Kagavna. And in-interestingly, there's

36:54 Speaker 1 n-not much more, um, how do you say, historical documentation. The Nu-Nusach Ashkenaz in many places, they would say it, "BaMei Madlikin," at this point. And so here, instead of saying, "BaMei Madlikin," to say a piece of Zohar. And, uh, again, there's differences in Chabad After Khavono and also the Shabbos, we say Kadesh and then, then Borchu. In the Polisher world, they just say, uh, L'ime Borchu. They go straight into Borchu without a Kadesh. So there are variations, but that's the, the... This is a story of the earliest source, how Khavono became part of the Hasidisher davening on a Friday evening. Let's move on. Now, the next point, I do not have it as a question. I don't have... Someone's asking, if there is a Minyan, why is it said? I, so I, I don't, I don't have a, a clear answer for that. Um, seems some-somehow developed. Oh, we can say, we can say this piece of Zair instead of Amech Boaz. I'm not sure. Now, what I don't know the answer to this is, it says in Shul... Whilst I was looking around about, um, the Yitro Noach, I think we discussed it last week also. So I was looking around, and I see that in Shulchan Aruch it says in the Ramon, Resh Tadeg He, "V'noag uloimer lehazkir Eliyahu Hanavi motzei Shabbos l'spallol sh'yovo v'asrei nagualam." It's customary to mention Eliyahu Hanavi motzei Shabbos, that he should-- to, to pray that he should come and tell us the good tidings of the imminent

38:25 Speaker 1 redemption. The same thing is in the Alter Rebbe. That's in the bottom of the screen. Um, that after Havdalah, to, uh, to, to daven that, that Eliyahu Hanavi should come and, um, t-to tell us the, the, about the geulah because on Shabbos he couldn't come on Friday because people are busy preparing for Shabbos. And on Shabbos is a question, uh, of So I don't know how, why this, how this works. But someone at the Kinus came over to me, and he asked me, someone from Montreal, he asked me, "I, I, I know that the, you know, of saying, um, um, the Yis- the Yitro Noach together, right? Does it have to be with the same siddur? Can it be just two, one near one another?" So I said, "As far as I know, it's very clear that our Minchah is to say it in a s- in a shared siddur." So I did look around. Again, I looked back to this, um, Sefer, um, Minigga Stroltir. There he talks about... The idea of Yitro Noach saying with two people is that I'm saying the berachah to you, you're saying the berachah to me. That's the, that's the thought behind it. But, um, there he talks about pe- two people sitting opposite one another and saying Yitro Noach, and each one is facing the other. The idea of s- Um, so but here we have from the Sefer from Rabbi Zeligson. So he has here b- a, a quote from the Sikha. The Rebbe says, "Ba

41:26 Speaker 1 Yitro Noach, Advar Pearl that Rab- Rabbim would say Yitro Noach with someone else." I don't know the reason for this. Is it because if she was Yitro Noach, and also the other one should, should hear the other one's Noach or another reason. After the ikar, we saw several times, even when the Friediker Rebbe was very, um, pressed for time, he would stay after Havdalah, and he looked in the siddur together with someone else or with several people, and they said Yitro Noach from the beginning to end in the siddur. That's one quote. Another quote the Rebbe once said, uh, writes that he, that he was called over by the Friediker Rebbe, by his father-in-law, to say the, uh, uh, Yitro Noach from the same siddur. So that is the mindset. That's the general Minchah. Um, oh, so Rabbi Mendel Safran is sharing with us that Rabbi Yo- Rabbi Shronoyach in Brunoy also had this Minchah of singing Eliyahu Hanavi on Motzei Shabbos. Um, do you, uh, do you remember the tune? Yeah. Okay. Um, okay. So then the other thing which I discussed last week, um, we have here, again from Rabbi Zeligson's Sefer, he writes, "When Yom Tov would be, um, finishing with the Sha- Mo- Motzei Shabbos after Kaddish Brocha, the, the Rebbe said, 'Yitro Noach beYoshvoi b'mokai ma'eis va'adus.'" So I wrote to Rabbi Zeligson, and, uh, uh, Yossel Katzman sent me this picture. There you can see that this is after Kaddish Brocha. This is after several hours of pouring wine

42:59 Speaker 1 for thousands of people, and you can see the, the, the tablecloth is saturated with spill- spilled wine. And then the Rebbe said Brocha Achronah sitting down. Then he stood up. And if you remember last week, we, we went through this point that they write that the Rebbe would move over. At home, he would go to a different table Here the Rebbe moved the siddur clearly over from his space, so it should be able to be, um, shared with someone else. And there you can see, um, that's probably in between Yosef Katzman and the Rebbe, that's probably Rabbi Meir HaLevi Kalisher, who would be standing right near the Rebbe, and they're saying... Rebbe's saying . So I, I wrote a-about this, uh, to Rabbi Zelikson, and he s-sent me a copy of his third edition, which is Tosfot Yom Pay Dalet, where he's corrected this mistake. So the Rebbe said, "Vayitnakham" standing at the end of Havrayah, not sitting. Okay, what else do we have? So two more points which are not on the list. We have a couple of minutes. We might be finished a few minutes early. That's also okay. Um, I mentioned that we had... I was at the Kinus Hashluchim, and we had... On Thursday, we had a full day. We had f-full four, uh, shiurim in Halakha. That was the Halakha, um, workshop. There were other, uh, you know, many other groups for different other, other focuses, but this was our, this, this focus of this group. And one of the

44:31 Speaker 1 presenters was HaRav, I think his name is Yonason Weiss. Or is it Binyamin Weiss? I don't remember. Um, at any rate, he's the Rav of Montreal and, uh, evidently a very, very knowledgeable in Halakha and in Halakha and, uh, medicine. And he's trained people to answer difficult shailas which come up with Halakha medicine. So we had two sessions, and one was about beginning of life, IVF and all that kind of stuff. And then the other one was about end of life, brain death, stem cell, whatever that, that, that whole department. And he addressed both of these very, very clearly. Um, and during the break in one of the sessions, one of the people came over to me and said, "Uh, I really enjoy your weekly, uh, shi- podcast. And really the stuff which was said over here also should be shared." This kind of the information was being shared by the, by... in, in that forum by this workshop should be shared with the broader community. I told him as a policy, I mostly I don't invent these shailas, uh, much as it might s- you might think so. Mostly these questions are questions which come my way. If someone comes-- So actually, someone this past week asked me, um, about whether organ donation is permissible or not. What should they advise? And that was, as I say, that was one of the, the topics which Rav Weiss addressed. So I'm going to address that. Um, so the way he explained very well is that

46:22 Speaker 1 for organs like for vital organs like a heart, um, I think he said liver, uh, lungs, they are only of any use for transplant if they are taken from whilst the body is still alive. So there's something which is in, uh, something called brain death, and there's different levels in that. There's... I, I'm not gonna... Don't ask me all the details, but the way I understand is in brain death itself, there could be a s- a, a, a, uh, general or a central point where you see it's no longer functioning, but that doesn't mean necessarily that all the cells in the brain have ceased to function. And there, in, in medical, in the medical, uh, world, they would say once there is general brain death, even though not, not total, that is enough to consider the patient as dead, and therefore, they are allowed to, uh, switch off the machinery, whatever, and take the organs from that, uh, person. In Halakha, the way he presented it was that that's not recognized as death, and therefore, it's not possible to harvest organs like a heart from a dead body because i-if it's body's, if the body's taka dead, then the o-organs are g- are going to be no use. And if it, if it's not dead, so then, then, uh, taking the o-organ is killing the person. So really, uh, despite the fact that if there's an organ available, we would, and if so, we, we, we would need it, we would welcome it, but giving

48:07 Speaker 1 an organ is something which we have a problem with. So that's, uh, that was his, uh, explanation. Right. Um, someone's pointing out, going back to Eliyahu Hanavi, that is El-Eliyahu Hanavi in, in the Bal HaMeir part of the Sephardi siddur. As I said, in the Zmiros, there's some very beautiful Zmiros, um, uh, which talk about Eliyahu Hanavi, but they're not in our siddur and not in many siddurim. They are... It's, it's in the Zmiros, which are more kind of optional in comparison to, to the stuff which is, is in, in the siddur to be said as a say. Right. One last thing, and that is, uh, Mazel Tov to my grandson, whose name is Nachman, who's turning, whose turned nine this Shabbos. And, uh, his aunt, my daughter, prepared a cake, as you can see on the screen, in the shape of a nine. Now, the cutting the letter nine is not a problem because it's not, it's not writing. It's a letter nine, but it's not writing on a, on a paper as such. It's okay to cut the nine apart. But she had also made here the, as you can see on the screen, spelt out the word Nachman with about, uh, sixty-five little, um, little dots of some kind of candy and create, created the, the three, the four letters of the word Nachman. So are you allowed to cut that piece of cake on Shabbos? So this relates to the whole discussion about, uh, having biscuits which have got writing on

49:50 Speaker 1 them, and there are di-different opinions, and other Poskim are more lenient about this. That's true. And some say if you put it in your mouth, it's De'oraita, etc. The Alter Rebbe doesn't seem to buy any of those Heterim. I've written about that also in the, in the Nesiv Miste'ach Likos. And we see that the Alter Rebbe in the Dinim of Pesach talks about the three matzahs of Kohen, Israel. And it comes up there about whether it would be a-appropriate to kind of stamp on the matzahs Kohen Levi Israel. In this way, you could designate each one for... And he mentions there, you wouldn't be allowed to eat the matzah because you're going to be erasing the writing as you're eating the... So despite the Meiri Behuda and others who are lenient about the, uh, eating of biscuits which have got writing engraved, the Alter Rebbe is, doesn't buy that hetter. Fine. Um, my dilemma here was whether dots which are next to one another, is that called writing? And therefore, so the, the, so the question would be both ways. Would you allow, be allowed to on Shabbos take things like Smarties and put them in formation to create letters? And the other q-question would be, if they are already in formation, would you be allowed to s-cut through them and thereby being erased? It was, is it eksev or not? So what you have here on the screen is from the Sefer, um, Shmiras Shabbos K'Hilchosa, and he talks about baked foods which have

51:27 Speaker 1 got writing on them or pictures, and he mentions either with cream or with little pieces of fruit or little, uh, candies. So he says you are allowed to eat them, but that's according to his opinion that, that since it's derech hachilo, it's, it's okay. As I said, according to the Alter Rebbe, it's not okay, even engraved, and certainly if it's, um, certainly if it's a s-separate material. Now, on the bottom of the screen, and this is what, what triggered my, my, my curiosity. This is from the Sefer Chol Hamoed K'Hilchos, written by Rav Forchash, and he talks about a shinui as far as writing on Chol Hamoed. And he brings that there are those who say that if you, instead of writing in a n-normal way, you just write dots, and you can see through the, um, the dots together, you can see a letter and a word, that would be permissible on Chol Hamoed. I don't think that's enough to say it's mutar, but that's a Chol Hamoed, so long as it's with a shinui, that's enough, um, to take away any problem. But I don't think that's enough to say that it's not, uh, that it should be allowed on Shabbos. And the simple solution is that you take a knife and you cut, uh, horizontally. You cut underneath the name, and you put that on a dish till after Shabbos, and the rest of the cake you can enjoy. That's the simple solution. Um, right. I'm gonna g-give you one last thing.

53:09 Speaker 1 Someone else is saying here there was a story in seven seventy when someone took mamakrain from a large drinks dispenser. A maaler said to pour the whole thing out. Okay, so I'm hearing from a couple of sources that there is an issue about it. Um, I'm still not convinced that that is, uh, halacha. Maybe, maybe, um, maybe Chassidim, uh, you know, lefni v'lefni me shor shadin. Okay. I hear. Um, one last thing, and I'm gonna share this with you, that someone was on a bus in Eretz Israel, and he was holding a pole, and the bus lurched. And as a result, he bumped into someone, and that someone's glasses fell off his nose and fell to the floor and broke. And Mr. Glasses is asking Mr. Pole Holder to pay for the damage. So I haven't answered this, this shailah. It just came in just before Shabbos. But I was thinking about this and saying the following, that it's... You could say that, that, that lurching on a bus is something to be expected, and therefore, you could say, tfiloso v'bishiva sofer beonus, you could say that it, he was responsible to look after himself, um, not to s-lurch and, and bang, bang into someone else. You could, you could say that. I do still think that the glasses falling off and then the glasses falling to the floor and breaking, I think that's clearly grama. So if he had caused damage by his body smashing to something directly, then possibly he would be chayav

54:59 Speaker 1 to pay the damages. You know, that's the idea. Adam muad le'olam bein beonus bein berotzon. You, even though you didn't want to slip, but possibly you'll be, um, li-liable there. But the fact that the glasses fell and the glasses then smashed, I think that's, uh, in my mind, clearly an issue of grama and, uh, grama min hazakin is patur, and he shouldn't have to pay. Uh, if anyone has further insight on that, I'm welcome to and happy to hear. Meanwhile, I'm going to finish here. Wish you all a gut Voch. We should hear Besuras Teves. Uh, Beshuv Hashem es shivas Tzion. And, uh, Besechzenu eineinu beshuv Chol Hamoed rachamin. A gut Voch.

55:41 Speaker 2 Amen. Good Voch.

55:46 Speaker 3 Good Voch.

55:47 Speaker 2 A gut Voch.

55:54 Speaker 1 Amen.