וישב תשפ״ה

00:08 Erev Shabbos, Yut Tes Kislev. Erev Parshas Vayeishev. Shabbos Parshas Vayeishev. Uh, by the time you're listening to this, it'll probably be Motzaei Shabbos, so Gut Voch. So I'm here presently in Chicago and recording the shiur which we'd normally deliver Motzaei Shabbos, and you're welcome to enjoy it at your leisure. Motzaei Shabbos in London, we have the, uh, very prominent Yut Tes Kis-- annual Yut Tes Kislev pabreenigen called Inspire. And there's a special guest, guest speaker, um, Rabbi Zalman Vochodsky. But, uh, whoever wants to listen to this then or at a later date, you're very welcome. So now let's go on to our list of shailas. First shaila we have on the list today is, as you can see the picture, there's a tzitzit in the way Chabad are following the Arizal and Rishonim to have the tzitzit on the tallit's cotton to have two holes, and between the two holes, there's a bridge, and the tzitzit are put in through one hole and out of the other, so they're hanging from two holes. And what's happened here is that the bridge has become very weak, and literally, the, the tzitzit are hanging on a thread. And so the first is asking, are they still kosher? And if they are still kosher, is it... Can he somehow repair the tzitzit? So is it kosher? So what you have on the screen is from Al Teru Al Chein Ha'aroach Siman Tes Vav. So here he's actually talking not about mamash our situation. He's talking about a tear

02:14 in the actual garment, the main garment of the tzitzit. But this, I wanted to ex-extend the same ruling. 'Bamed vorim hamurim,' when is it an issue when the kanof is torn away completely from the main garment. But if it's not 'nifrad mimenu legarmu,' if it's not totally separated, even though the connection point is less than three gedolin, 'keyvon she nisar mechuber me'at,' since it is slightly still connected, s- even a little bit, 'moyel es lo hatfira,' so then the stitching will be effective, 'sheyitfirenu betalis,' to re-sew that flap which is torn back to the tallit, that it should be, uh, through this considered 'bichlal hatalis.' And consequently, tzitzit put on that corner will be valid for this garment. So as I say, this is talking about a rip of the garment proper. But the same principle that so long as it's still 'mechuber me'at,' slightly connected, so then it's considered part of the tallit. Um, and so back to, uh, my understanding with this ripped bridge, maybe a kol shakein, that it's still considered connected. And by s-- and if you, if you are able to strengthen it, there won't be a problem of 'taase ve lo min ha'asit bibsul' because the original asiya was actually a kosher asiya. And now your, your efforts will be to maintain the original asiya, not to c- to create a new asiya, and therefore it should not be a problem. But the shaila is a shaila of chacham because actually there are more details about this. When you

04:06 want to repair, do any repairs in the corner. Within three tefachim, within three etzbo'ot, within six centimeters from the corner, repairs are not so poshut. So here you have also from Siman Tes Vav. This is in Sif Tes Zayin. It talks about if the corner is ripped. 'Yesh omrim.' There are those who say that even if it's a little bit torn, not even... 'Lo yitperenu bechut haroy et tzitzit.' Do not stitch. Do not repair anything in the corner within three etzbo'ot of the corner. Do not use a thread which could have been used for tzitzit. So if it's a linen garment, don't stitch in that area with a linen thread. Use silk thread. And if it's a silk tallit, don't stitch the corners with silk thread. And if it's a woolen garment, don't stitch the corner with woolen thread. So this is a shita of Rashi in Gemara Menachot. And the way Rashi learns is that there's a concern that the, that the one of the thr-thread used for stitching will somehow find its way to become one of the tzitzit. And it's obviously not been placed for that purpose. It may not have been made, made l'shemitz for tzitzit. So Rashi says you're not gonna do any stitching within the, that corner with, let's say, classically, you're gonna have a woolen garment. You shouldn't use woolen thread to make that repair. And then the second part of the paragraph, 'Afilu ein shum kera,' you're just stitching around these holes of the tzitzit so that

05:59 the hole for the tzitzit should not get stretched and wider. Or if you're putting on the extra lining, which is customary to put on the corners of the talis. In all of these instances, one should be machmir, one should be particular not to use a thread which is of the same fabric as the main body of the garment because of the chas-chashash, or the concern, that someone might make a mistake and use, um, use those threads, the stitching threads, to be used for actual tzitzit. No. We're already talking about tzitzit, we'll go on to the next question, which actually threw me somewhat. Someone asked me, why is there e-evidently not a worry about tzitzit for a scarf? So I ref-referred him to Siman Yud in the Alter Rebbe, which is ]So let's read these words. Sudar, which means a, a, a cloth, which is which is worn around the neck in the region of Eretz Israel, and in Arabic it's called a shid. It's exempt of tzitzit, even though it has the size, the dimensions of a talis, which will be discussed in tes zayin. Even though you are enjoying it to protect you from the heat, or the sun in the summer, or it's protecting you from the rain in the rain season. Nevertheless, since the main reason why this is worn is not for cover, but to use as a money bundle, or to use as wiping your s-sweat, therefore, it's not called a garment. Okay. So again, we have here a,

07:57 a cloth worn around the neck. And the re-- the heter why it doesn't have to have tzitzit is because it's primarily for money or for, uh, for wiping. That's all very well in, perhaps in some, uh, some stage in history. But nowadays that we have wear scarves not for money and not for wiping our foreheads, they are there as a garment. So then the charedi should have to have tzitzit. So actually, the Alter Rebbe, going to the earlier sources, they give two reasons. One is to say it's just covering the head, it's not covering the rest of the body. The s- the second reason is because it's, it's for lazaya and for, for tying, bundling money. According to this, the Alter Rebbe just brought the second opinion, so nowadays... So then we have a problem with our scarves. So what you have on the screen lower down from the Mishnah Berurah in the Birhalacha, and it says, "Nowadays, that it's become normal to, uh, wear a, a large cloth of an amah or more on the shoulders, and the reasons which are given for exemption do not apply. So then if it were a wide shawl, then it would be tzitzit. Whereas according to the other reason which the Beit Yosef writes, that it's not called derech l'visha, then it was, uh, just for covered and not for protection from the elements, one can be lenient. So Mishnah Berurah in Birhalacha, he is a little bit machmir on this. Let's see if we can get

09:42 it a little bit higher. Raise it a little bit on the screen. Let's go back. Right. So the Mishnah Berurah finishes off, "Al ken yedei Shma, im ya'aseh keren achas agula." So he recommends if you have a scarf which is an amah wide or more, then to cut off a corner to make it round. So that's the Mishnah Berurah. So we've had the Alter Rebbe before, then we have the Mishnah Berurah, and then on the left of your screen, you've got from the Piskei Teshuvos. In case you weren't aware, the word for a scarf in contemporary Hebrew is tzayiv. So he writes, "Tzayivim shelanu," our scarves, which we are wearing them for warmth, not just for show. Usually, they do not have the shir of tzitzit, which would be to cover an amah in the front, amah in the back. Even if it does have, if it's a wider scarf, the derech is to not-- the derech is to wear it folded, and therefore, it's not normal to use it for coverage. Like covering your back, covering your front, and therefore it's not necessary to cut off one of the corners. But if you do have a wi-wider scarf, you wear it as a shawl. As we know, w-women often wear shawls in such a way which are covering a large part of the back, et cetera. Then for a man, it would be indeed recommended to round off one of the corners to avoid a shail of tzitzit. So again, so a regular scarf

11:36 is not a problem because it's worn just around the neck, and it's usually not so wide. But if it's, has the width, and especially certainly if it's worn covering a large part of the back, then tzitzit would be an issue. So you could either put in tzitzit or you can, uh, cut off a corner. Okay. So someone called me. This is, uh, question number three. Someone called me, writes to me that they had, had some zayis- And at some stage during this sitting, he'd also had some grapes. And they finished off, and they made a Al Hamichya. Middle of Al Hamichya, he says, "Oops, I haven't... I had grapes also, so I have to say Al Ha-Etz Ve'al Pri Ha'Etz." So here's the question. If at the beginning you said Al Hamichya Ve'al Kol Kollo, and at the end of the Ki Ata Hashem Elokeinu Melech Ha'Olam Al Hamichya Ve'al Pri Ha'Etz, Baruch Ata Hashem Elokeinu Melech Ha'Olam Al Hamichya Ve'al Pri Ha'Etz. So you had the-- in the psichas habracha. In the opening of the bracha, he had neglected to mention Pri Ha'Etz. In the chosom habrachah, in the chasimas habrachah, he had mentioned Ha'Etz. So do you go and go to the psicha or do you go and go to the chasima, the beginning of the bracha or the end of the bracha? So I've told you many times, I have one of these, these, these two sfaryim called Shiyes Miyovim, specializing all the kinds of mistakes you can come up with. And

13:12 he addresses this question, and he says, "Yesh emim sheyotzo, yesh emim shelo yotzo." There are different opinions whether you can say, "Well, the main thing is that you mentioned at the end." Others say no. If it wasn't mentioned in the beginning, it's not okay. So b'lyevet, I think he would not be obliged to repeat because of Esat Habrachah L'vatala. Let's move on. I'm looking now at question number four. And this is something which I've been-- I spent the last two weeks thinking about. When you have two mitzvah acts, one after the other, the same mitzvah, one mitzvah or act after the other, do you make a bracha on the first act and on the second act? So the particular situation is the following. Two, two situations I'm looking at. Number one is in seven seventy, at the side of the building, there's like a, a yard. As you're looking at the buildings to your right, and that's where they make chuppahs often nowadays. That's also where the sukkah is built. On the other side of that yard is the, the, the, the building known as the Rebbe's Library. So between those two buildings, that's where the sukkah is built. For the, uh, don't know how many, la-last few decades. What's happened in the last thirty-something years that a bridge has been built between seven seventy proper and the Rebbe's Library building. A bridge where you have to walk from one building to the other. And underneath is like what you can call it, a tunnel,

15:07 if you want to call it. But when they build the sukkah, they built until this bridge and beyond this bridge. But effectively, these are two separate sukkahs. You've got the front sukkah and the back sukkah, but they are totally exposed to one another. You can see one to the other without any, uh, you know, ob-ob-obstruction. And the question is, if I made a lesievah sukka in the front part, front sukkah, and then there's a more interesting habranha in the back sukkah. Say middle of sukkah, say middle of the meal or middle of my sitting, habranha, I'm going to go over to the other, it's a different sukkah. Do I have to make a bracha, a lesievah sukka on this second sukkah? That is the question. So the closest I f- I found as a, as a, as a, um, comparison would be if you one day decided to upgrade your mezuzah. So you go over, you bought a new mezuzah, and you go and you take off the old mezuzah, and you put up a new mezuzah. Do you make, make a bracha on your new mezuzah? It's a new article, but it's the same mitzvah. You have kind of reinstated the same mitzvah. So is it an-- Does it call for a new bracha or not? So now in the Magen Avraham, in Siman tof, reish, lamed, tes, talks about walking from sukkah to sukkah, and he says you have to make a new bracha. And he refers to Siman kuf, hei, hei. The

17:00 Alter Rebbe also paskens as, as very often the case, paskens like the Magen Avraham. If you go to sukkah to-- from sukkah to sukkah, you have to make a new bracha on the next sukkah. And the Alter Rebbe brings out the point even stronger. Even if you would not have to make a new bracha on the food, which you're going from one to the other, you still have to make a bracha on the second sukkah. Well, so the Alter Rebbe says clearly, if you go from one sukkah to the other sukkah, you have to make a new bracha. It's not so clear, which I'll tell you in a moment. But first, before going to that, that why it's not so clear, there is a commentary on the Shulchan Aruch called Beis Meir. And actually, the Mishtabeure in Siman tof, reish, lamed, tes mentions the Beis Meir. And Beis Meir disagrees with the Magen Avraham. He says, "You go from sukkah to sukkah, why do you have to make a new bracha? It's the same mitzvah. You're continuing to do the same mitzvah." Unless what would happen if you were in the sukkah and you went out, you went back into the sukkah, you, you say you don't have to make a new bracha. So why if you're going back into a different sukkah, you're continuing the same mitzvah? That's the Beis Meir's time. The coming back, the Magen Avraham and the Alter Rebbe. Well, the Alter Rebbe, as I said, the Alter Rebbe says even

18:39 if the two chatz-- two sukkahs are in the same chatzer, and still you have to make a new bracha when you're going from one to the other. He gives us a reference to Magen Avraham in Siman Ches, which talks about, the Shimush Aruch talks about someone who put on a tallis cotton at home, and then he go with a bracha, with a tifa. And then he went to shul, he wants to put on a tallis. Does he have to make a new bracha on the tallis? And the Magen Avraham says he has to make a new bracha. And the reason is because the hilchah, the walking from the sh-- from the house to the shul is a hefsek. And the Al-- the Magen Avraham gives us a reference to Siman Kuf Ayin Ches, where you have the dinim of an interruption in the middle of eating, whether that you do need to make a new bracha or you don't need to make a new bracha. So I'm going to use this reference to Siman Kuf Ayin Ches to address our situation. It's true that shinui mokim, changing location, warrants a new bracha. If I, uh-- Now, there's exception to this. If, let's say, I was-- I had eaten something like bread, which is ton bracha acharono b'mekois moi. Halakha says I have to go back to my first place and to, to bench there. Because of the, I call it string attached, I take it went out to a different location, but I have something

20:15 which is pulling me back. Halakha says you have to go back to your place to bench there. Therefore, the going out of your place is not a, is not a hefsek. If it be something which the after bracha would be bear in the fascism, which doesn't require, so then possibly the shinui mokim is a hefsek. So now, then in this inyan of shinui mokim, we've discussed this in the past, kol sheroya es mekois moi. This is written in the Rishonim, that if I make a bracha in the house and then go out into the garden, so it's a, this is a change shinui mokim. But if from the garden I can see the room where I made the fir-- the bracha at the outset, so reias mekois moi serves as a bridge that the change of location is not a hefsek. And you don't need to make a new bracha on that, on the food which you eat in the garden, even though you changed location. Since there is still eye contact with the first place, shinui mokim is not a hefsek. Say, if so, when the Alter Rebbe says that going from one sukkah to the sock-- uh, second sukkah in the same chatzer warrants a new bracha, that's because from one sukkah to the other is einu reias mekois moi. I'm assuming that that's the pshat. He's-- Therefore, the going from one sukkah to the other is, is a, is a break. Needs to make a new bracha. But in the case which

21:50 we're talking about, the front sukkah and the back sukkah is there's reias mekois moi. Then it's-- there's no hefsek. And therefore, if the din of sukkah l'sukkah is based on Siman Kuf Ayin Ches about birkas hanenin, reias mekois moi is not a hefsek there, and therefore it's not a hefsek by sukkah either. Now, what about taking off one mezuzah, putting up another mezuzah? Not so, not so straightforward. You could very well say, and some of you want to say this, you took off a mezuzah, and you're putting up another one. It's, it's, it's, uh, you are mechayav a sukkah the whole time. It's not as if you had a, a break from the, from the chiyuv. You had-- You have a chiyuv to have a su-- a mitzv-- a mezuzah. You took it off for a short period. And if you put back the same mezuzah, you wouldn't make a new bracha. If you put up a different mezuzah. So some want to say you don't make a new bracha because you're restoring the original-- the, the original mitzvah. The counterargument to that by the mezuzah is me'ilah in the case of the sukkah. I made a bracha at six o'clock, and I had in mind possibly even. Yeah, there's the other room, the other part of the sukkah. It's reias mekois moi. Even if I didn't have specifically in mind. But it's, it's possibly all considered a continuation from that bracha because there is no hefsek. Certainly if I had in mind. When I

23:32 take off a mezuzah and put up another one, it's true I'm restoring the chiyuv. I had a mitzvah, and I took a break from the chiyuv. I'm restoring the, the duty of that space. But how can I say that my putting the mezuzah now is reliant upon the bracha which I said last year, two years ago, five years ago when I put up the m-mezuzah? So again, even if we're going to say that by the sukkah, and I believe that should be the case, that by the sukkah you don't need to make a, another bracha when switching one, one sukkah to another sukkah, and it's reias mekois moi. That's because you m-- there's no hesek hadar. There's no destr- total distraction from the original bracha. By contrast, when you switch the mezuzahs, there's no connection to the original bracha. Original bracha was made weeks, months, and years ago, and so that's, that doesn't help for the current mitzvah act. And therefore, you'd have to make a new bracha on the new mezuzah. Not everyone agrees, but that's-- I see a, a, a logic. Okay. So someone's asking. This is he. And he asked me to share it with the Olam. He asked me about burying shames, small town, and this is somewhere in Europe. And he gave it to the janitor, whatever, to, to, to, to bury. And the janitor is a frum agoi. According to the local je- legislation, you're not allowed to bury plastic because plastic is-- will last the Yomim V'rayim, and

25:22 they don't want to leave stuff in the earth, which is, which is, you know, not really a n-natural part of the earth. So he gave several sacks of Seumas to the goy to, to, to bury. And next thing he knows, the goy has taken out all the papers out of the plastics and put them, and covered them. So now, , what, what has to be done now? So near-- here we have... This is from Siman Kuf Nun Dalet. which has become worn out, should be placed in a kli cheris. It should be placed in a, in a, an earthenware vessel, and it's buried in a grave together with talmid chacham. Why in a kli cheris? That's so it shouldn't get eaten up by the, by the, by the earth. So you have to put it in a kli cheris, in, in a protective thing. Nowadays, they say to use a rigid plastic, which will, which will endure. And then the mefarshim say not only Sefer Torah sh'b'al, but also other Seumas. You wouldn't be allowed to take a Yud Kei Vav Kei. Actually, someone just this morning sent me a photograph of a mezuzah which somehow had been vandalized. I didn't understand what the vandalism was, but it had-- someone had written "Shem Dalet Yud" on the outside of the mezuzah. Perhaps that was the vandalism. Asked if they're allowed to remove it. They're not allowed to remove it. It's Hashem's name. To cause Hashem's name to be erased is an averiah d'lo sasum kein.

27:06 So to take a st- a text which has got Hashem's name and to put it in the soil, and then the moisture, et cetera, the, uh, elements in the soil will break it down. That goes into the averiah d'lo sasum shelo kein lashem l'kaycham. To put Seumas in directly in the earth would be a violation of lo sasum kein indirectly, albeit. So now in the Piskei Teshuva's, he actually says, although there is, uh, the original minhag mentioned in the Gemara to put in kli cheris, if that's difficult, he allows also using a wooden box, which I find very interesting. A wooden box which could last more than a hundred years. But then he says to put it in a plastic-- To, to put it in a, in a plastic bag or in plastic barrels, that's not allowed because the worms will freely come through, and they bite through the plastic, apparently. So this is-- I found that quite surprising. They so machmir. But coming back to that principle question, is it okay to take loose papers of Seumas and put them into the soil? The answer is absolutely it's not okay. To put it in protective bags, okay, so then that's arguable how protective they are. So what do you do when the legislation doesn't allow you to bury in plastic? So who kaparech leva, who komosiv, uhu dekometaret. The same shliach came up with a solution. Next time he has to bury Seumas, and it's illegal to bury in plastic, so he'll bring big

28:58 boxes. Inside the boxes, there'll be the Seumas inside the plastic. So on the outside, it will look as being buried in a, in a, in a cardboard box. And, uh, klapis shmayah gal yo, that inside there will be a plastic layer to protect the Seumas in the, uh, in, in that box to protect them from the elements, from protecting them from getting spoilt. Okay, so now... So I don't have it on the screen. Is there room to allow with a... What do you do with a disused Aron Kodesh? In any shul which upgrades its furniture, its Aron Kodesh, what do you do with the original? So that they're called Tashmishe Kedushah. They... And they have a Kedushah. The disused Aron Kodesh has a Kedushah. You can't use it for anything else. So is there a possibility? Now, to be-- Of course, it can be buried. But sometimes to bury an Aron Kodesh is a, is a big deal. Is there a, a simpler way? So there are poskim who do allow. You can look in Bier Halokos Siman Kuf Nun, Nun Dalet. Uh, the Masal Tashmishe Kedushah. Piskei Teshuva Siman Kuf Nun Dalet Ois Ches. There is something about the, the community are allowed to sell items of their use. Um, shiva tu vayei bima min ha'shir. That the m- the executive management of the community is able to sell items which belong to the, um, of, of Kedushah, and that will exempt-- that will take off the Kedushah. So the Mishnah Berurah is not

30:53 so happy about it, but there are poskim who do permit it. So again, what can you do with a disused Aron Kodesh? If possible, it should be buried. If that's not possible, there is a way of someone putting down a nominal sum, whether it's a pound or whatever, a small sum, to, to buy the Or HaChayim and to buy it out. In that way, it's no longer belonging to the community with the attendant's kedusha, the attendant's sanctity. It's now lost its kedusha, and then it, uh, you're allowed to use it for chulin. That's one way of, of, uh, of doing so. All right. So now a couple of wedding questions. What's the reason... Someone asked me, what's the reason for the untying of knots of the-- and the shoelaces of a chosson, etc., before going to the chuppah? So the answer given, you might find this surprising, the Pashina Lech Shofim, Lech Shofim, concerned that that would make the chosson vulnerable to witchcraft, where someone would be able to use some witchcraft to interfere with the function of the, uh, conjugal, etc., later on. And, uh, it rings from various sources. It looks like some people would some-- would use some kind of shtick, uh, black magic of sorts, to restrict the chosson's ability to function as a, as a man should. And by one-- And having knots in the, in the garment is somehow a, uh, foothold for that witchcraft to have effect. It goes here in the bottom half on the Pasuk, "Lo

32:51 yachvel derechayim voreche." So the Targum Yonason says that a man should not tie the chasanim and kallas with witchcraft. That's, "Lo yachvel derechayim voreches-- vereche v'nefesh uchel," says to use witchcraft to interfere with the functioning of a chosson and kallah. And then the... That's the Targum Yonason. Targum Yonason is less literal and more cha-- more druse perhaps than the Targum Onkelos. And targ-- There's on the Targum Yonason, some good Chumashim, you have Yonason, which is a commentary on the Targum Yonason. So in, in the Yonason, he says that this was a, overt and clearly a terrible, um, misconduct behavior, which was common in the early generations to use through a person having a knot on their garment somehow to, um, um, cause witchcraft to have an effect of them. So that's the, the, uh, business of untying knots of the chosson. I didn't do my homework adequately whether that applies to kallas also. And you can see here actually, "Yesh namanoshem hamatiyim shorim l'chosson v'kallah." This doesn't mean every knot, because you have-- when your, when your, uh, hem was sewn in your garment, so the tailor sewed a knot at the-- ti-tied a knot at the beginning of the, of the, uh, sewing. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a more significant knot. And those knots are on... So typically, we'll untie the shoelaces of a chosson so that he shouldn't trip up on his shoelaces. We tend to slip those loose ends into his shoes. And that's how he goes

34:47 to the chuppah with his, uh, tie-- with his kn-knots of his, uh, shoes untied. Now, if the chosson is wearing a belt, an elastic band, elastic strip around his waist, and that's got a knot, that's also not a problem. Like you don't have a problem with the knots, knots in the stitching. It's only talking about something which, uh, a more significant knot, which is sometimes open, sometimes closed. That's where that would be a, a weak point in the protection of the chosson from witchcraft, and therefore, tho-those, those knots we make sure to untie before the chosson goes to the chuppah. Now, someone asked me for some-- to make some clarity about... We all know that there's something about a ch-- a, a son-in-law and father-in-law shouldn't share the same name. And for that matter, daughter-in-law and mother-in-law shouldn't share the same name. So now, especially in Hasidisha circles, where there's so many people giving names after Rebbes and Rebbetzins, it becomes a very common question. Want to make a shidduch, and the bocher has got the same name as the future father-- as the girl's father, or the girl has got the same name as their future mother-in-law. So there is a solution to add a name. Now, here, there's different sources. In one place, the Rebbe is quoted as saying that it should be after thirty days when they've added the new name, then they should conclude the shidduch, a shoteva mitzvot. And in another letter, the Rebbe writes they should add to either

36:44 the elder generation or younger generation and add a name, and that should be done before publicizing the-- making the shidduch public. So here we have, is it thirty days before or is it before the making the-- announcing the shidduch? And it looks like it's basically depending on, on what's... on, on the, the practicalities. Very simple. Once the chosun kala have met and they're ready to conclude the shidduch, it's really, um, to say, "Now you have to wait another thirty days, and we're gonna make a meshivech ishur to add a name to the father, to the mother," it's gonna be strange, uh, and it's gonna be difficult. So usually, that isn't-- that thirty-day inyun is not followed through, and it's just done just before the shidduch. But, um, if-- where it's possible, so then okay, if it can be done quietly and without getting, uh, getting, uh, making it uncomfortable, then there would be a ma'alan doing it thirty days before, and that's because a name only becomes muchzak. It only becomes entrenched if it's been used for thirty days. That's it. We have here a reference to Gemara Baba Basra, Kof Zayin Amed Beis, and in Shekhinaruch, in Hilchas Gittin. A name which hasn't been in, uh, use for thirty days is not counted as a name, as a proper name. So also, for example, if you have a person, a woman was a man, a woman was mezgaier, and you want to make a chasuna. When she, when she was mezgaier, she took on

38:37 a Jewish name. To make the chasuna of this couple within thirty days of the giyur, so then there's gonna be an issue. What name do you write in the ketubah? Because the, uh, the Jewish name, it's only just, just, uh, uh, just the last couple of days. So that would be a problem. Now you might ask, how does that come in the first place? Bechal ha-giur, you have to wait ninety days before making a chasuna. But some, but they didn't do allow if the... Oh, well, let's say if there was a mixed marriage, and if they had already separated ninety days before the giyur, they would allow them to get married sh-shortly after the giyur without having to wait ninety days. But I'm saying you have here another issue, what to do about the name being less than thirty days old. That becomes a question whether you can include such a name in the ketubah. I've got one last thing which I wanna share with you for today, and that is... It came, I was on, on the journey here. I was reading the Kfar Chabad, and they had an interview about a new sefer of the Rebbe Leibel Groner, Alav HaShalom, the Rebbe's Gabe. And this is a third volume of the series called Bechadrei Seoras Secha. So the first two are on Chumash. The Rebbe had from Taf Shin Chaf He, every Shecha Breng and spoke about the Rashis, Rashi Sichas. And the Rebbe very often had conversations with Reb Leibel about people

40:16 did understand, didn't understand, do you have any questions? And so he faithfully recorded these conversations in his diaries, et cetera. And those have been published in two volumes, Bechadrei Seoras Secha. So that would be a very interesting companion volume to learning Sichas on, on, on the Al-Atara. Just recently, the third volume of the Rebbe Leibel's Reshimas came out, and this one is general about Halacha, Minag, et cetera. So comes along, um, here, one of the things which Rebbe Leibel... There's something which the Rebbeim, we have a, uh, tradition that we don't combine Rebbe names with other names. That's a, a, a discipline. You give a name to a child. You wanna give a name Menachem Mendel, fine. You wanna give a name Chaim Yankel, Chaim Yankiel, of course. But no, you wouldn't combine Chaim Menachem Mendel, for example. Because one is a, a Rebbe name and one is a regular name. So Rebbe Leibel asked the Rebbe, "What about the Rebbe Rashab?" He is named David Ber, was named after the Mitteler Rebbe. The name Shalom, so we know the whole story that he, they had a dream and the Tzemach Tzedek's father was called Shalom Shabna. And the Tzemach Tzedek's father kind of came to someone in the dream and says, "Don't forget about me." So they gave the name Shalom David Ber. So it's a combination, Shalom of the, uh, of the grandfather, and David Ber is of the Mitteler Rebbe, also grandfather. But one was a Rebbe, one wasn't a Rebbe. And

42:07 this, the Rebbe answered two words, "B'im i efshar." If there's no option, then it's okay to combine another name. Now, that's a little bit, uh, vague, but the Rebbe Mendel Groner, the-- who's, uh, I believe very much involved, the son of Rebbe, Rebbe Leibel Groner. Rebbe Mendel is a maganshir, mashpia in Kiryat Gat. So he understands from this that sometimes they have a case, um, when it comes for a shidduch, and his, his na- his name is indeed Menachem Mendel, and there's a shidduch for his daughter. The boy's name is Menachem Mendel. So then it's okay to add another name. That's what the Rebbe says here. Be-- It's i efshar. So the fact that we don't combine other names with Rebbe names, but im i efshar, that is okay. And indeed, actually, um, I'm mentioning the name Rebbe Mendel Groner. He-- When it came to the time when he making shidduchim for his daughters, he saw the need to add another name to himself. And whether his name is Meir, Menachem Mendel, whatever, he added another name to his, his own name. And so that's something which is, uh, which is a hero of the Rebbeim, that if there's a need to add a name, the fact that it's a, a Rebbe, your, your original name is a Rebbe's name, and you're adding another name to it, if it's necessary, that would be, that would be acceptable. Uh, that's what I have to share with you for, uh, this afternoon, for this Erev Shabbos. And

43:47 hopefully, you'll hear it in the coming week. So Shana Tova. Mit Limud HaChasidus, v'daas HaChasidus, t'chaseh v'yichasemu. And we should have, Bezrat Hashem, uh, ol broches, b'teifa nirve nigla, t'chaseh v'yichaseh nu in'eilu v'shuv chol hatesin b'rachmim. Chol tzotze.