משפטים תשפ״ה

00:10 Speaker 1 and, uh, regards from Yerushalayim, Ir HaKodesh, where I've been for the, uh, past twenty-four hours plus. Um, it's gratifying to meet a couple of people who listen to recordings during whilst I'm here in Eretz Israel. Um, he asked about-- Someone asked me this evening about the timing of this year. It's ten o'clock tonight, uh, here in Yerushalayim, so it's just as well I haven't changed it to later. But, um, also when I get back, we'll look into it, perhaps make it eight thirty instead of eight o'clock for the moment. Okay. Um, before actually going into the list of questions, koragil. So we had a very special event this week. It was the first shiur of this new Kollel Beit Midrash Iyun Tefillah, which is a series or a whole course of shiurim, meanwhile planned until Rosh Hashanah time to go through davening. And the first shiur, which was bas- given by myself, was on, uh, Birkat Shachar. And there were over a hundred people who had signed up, so fifty of them were live. This is, uh, five PM in London, which means twelve o'clock in, uh, in New York time. We had fifty people plus signed in, which I found, found amazing, and the others will f-follow with recordings. So for those who are listening just to the audio recording, if you want to join this thing, it's, uh, iyuntefillah.com. Iyun is spelled I-U... Sorry, I-Y-U-N-T-E-F-I-L-L-A-H.com. So, uh, one shiur is on the halachas, which was given by myself. The second shiur by Rabbi

02:13 Speaker 1 Yosef Klein will be about, uh, Pirkei Avot, um, explaining the words of the... and, uh, and the, the breathing in the life of Hasidus, the-- into the davening. That's Rav Oshar Farcash. So that will be a cycle of three shiurim. Okay. Having gone through those introductions, so I've been asked whether it's important to have a meaty seudah for the Purim, uh, meal, especially this year because Purim's on Friday. So then people are asking, you know, want to have it early in the day, do they have to have fleishigs? So my, my reaction to him was, you have to have kreplach. There's three times a year you have kreplach, and one is, uh, Rosh Chodesh, one is on Yom Kippur, and one is on, one is on Purim. My father used to say, alav ha-shalom, he would just say that, uh, you've got three times when we clap. When you clap Al Chet, and when you clap Hashaynes, when you clap Haman. So, uh, so we have the kreplach. These are all like semi-Yomim Tovim, and therefore you have the, the meat, which is the celebration of a Yom Tov is kind of under wraps. There are deeper reasons given for it, but that seems to be the poshtut pshat. So kreplach are usually fleishig. But besides that, you have on the screen from Nisan Gavriel saying that it is a mitzvah le-echol basar, but it's preferable to have fleishigs. And so that's recommended. So if a person has a big difficulty, I'm sure we'll-- they'll

03:48 Speaker 1 find a heter, but that's the recommended practice. Let's go on to question number two. And that is, someone asked about at what age can a young cotton-- sorry, a young kohen join his father and brothers perhaps in Birkat Kohanim. So let's read the halacha in Siman kuf chaf ches. That's the dinim of Birkat Kohanim, where it says that a child, cotton, afilu hu ben yud gimmel shana. If he hasn't produced be-zarus, is-- doesn't-- is not noseh kapayim, he shouldn't be duchaning on his own. It wouldn't be ap-appropriate for the tzibur to be beholden to a, a young lad like that. Along with the other Kohanim, he would be able to join in. And he says further, afilu ein hu ben yud gimmel shanim, even if he's under thirteen years old, but provided that he knows how to nisa et kapav, to raise his palms in the air, and so then he would be able to join the adult Kohanim, k'dei lehischanach b'mitzvot. So there you have it. It's very clear that once the little boy is capable of raising his hands in for duchaning, then he is eligible to join his father in front of the shul. Um, let's move on. So the next, uh, question we have is: Is there Torah guidance reputting a-- regarding putting a pet to sleep due to its frail condition? So direct, in di-direct, uh, direct ma'areh makom I wouldn't have. I've seen various sources where they discuss it and saying it is permitted, but I want to share

05:43 Speaker 1 with you the following response which I gave. V'hashgacha protis, I came across this past week, sh-shortly before I was asked this question, about... I came across a sefer called Maaseh Hashem. Now, those who love reading may recognize s- a, a volume called The Travels of Rabbi Eliezer Ashkenazi, published by Feldheim. I read it about thirty years ago. Uh, he was a contemporary of the Ramon, et cetera, and he wrote a Sefer dedicated to, uh, the Halakha aspects of the stories in the Torah. That's, that's his, that's his, uh, mandate. So he writes a fascinating pshat. When it says that Hashem creates man, and He-- Hashem first creates a form of man, uh, out of earth, clay, and then he says, "Na'aseh Od-", whate-whatever. He says, "Na'aseh Adam b'tsalmenu b'tsalmenu." He c-calls-- He galvanizes the-- all of creation, which, which was, m- whether it's the mountains, whether it's the plant life, whether it's the animal life, and He calls them all and He says, "Na'aseh Adam b'tsalmenu b'tsalmenu: Let us do a joint project of creating this man." And there are various meanings and explanations for this Na'aseh Adam. And he says the following. He says, Hashem is saying, "I'm creating this man, and all of you, your purpose or existence, mountains and trees and animal life, your purpose of existence is to enable this man which I'm creating, this human, that he should be able to carry out his tachlis, his Neshama b'guf purpose. And all of you are being crea-- have been created to

07:42 Speaker 1 facilitate hi-him carrying out his tachlis." So that's the Na'aseh Adam. It's-- Um, Hashem says, "Um, you're also part of the team to create this Adam because you're dedicated and committed, uh, with a- with all these details, um, for this." So that is the justification for the fact that we use animal li- uh, life for the, for human benefit, whether it is for eating, whether it is for, uh, for clothing, et cetera, because they were created for the Na-- for the Adam. Once they are no longer able to provide whatever the Adam needs from them, then they're, they're, they're not fulfilling a tachlis. And that would justify putting the pet to sleep because of its, uh, frail condition. That's just my, how you say, Hashkafa, uh, approach. But I did see numerous contemporary writers who said it is okay. And, um, okay. Let's move on. So here... Good. Here's a question. Last Shabbos, when I was in London, someone came over to me, and he said that he put up the Shabbos kettle, the Shabbos urn. He put it up with cold water very close to Shabbos. And into Shabbos, so it, it boiled. And he asked was that okay, and was he allowed to have the, the water from it. So let's explain. Why do we need a blech? The blech is to an allow to, to, um, two things. Either the blech allows you to take food off and put it back again, called chazar. That's one benefit we have of a blech. If

09:42 Speaker 1 you have the fire covered, you can take up the cholent Friday night and serve some potatoes, and then put back the cholent. Well, then the various conditions which we just, I think, touched on last week. You have to hold it in your hand, it has to be having in mind, et cetera. That's what the one thing. The other thing is the blech allows you to put up raw food before Shabbos. Again, because it's a reminder deterrent, so you can put up raw food before Shabbos, provided you have a blech. If you don't have a blech, you're not allowed to put up raw food. And that's the, uh, the answer here. In the electric urn, there is no blech. There's no practical way of making a blech in an, in a electrical, um, appliance like an urn, and therefore, you're not allowed to put up cold water, uh, just before the Sh- just before Shabbos comes in. Um, as in a crock pot or a slow cooker, whatever you wanna call it, there would be the similar thing. But there, there you have a eitzah. There you have a solution. You could put a layer of silver foil inside the outer housing, and then you put the ceramic insert in there. So then you've created some kind of blech situation. If you're talking already about a, a, a cholent with a, a crock pot, there's another solution, which instead of having a blech, if you put in a piece of raw meat, then the Gemara says

11:12 Speaker 1 that is also okay. Because the concern which they had that you might be tempted to poke the fire, that it should be ready for supper. But by putting a piece of raw meat, that in itself is a statement it's not gonna be ready for supper in any case. And therefore, uh, that's an alternative. You could have-- You don't-- You, you-- If you put in a piece of raw meat just before Shabbos into the, into the cholent or whatever, so then that would-- then you would not need to have a blech. That's alternative. Okay. So the next one is gonna be a little bit complicated. And it was-- For me, it was a bit of a surprise. And that is, if a, a Jewish woman conceives a child from a non-Jewish man So that child is Jewish, yeah? We know that the Halakha is if your fa-mother is Jewish, you're Jewish. But that child is pogum lekahuna. So this you have in front on the screen from Even Haezer, Siman Dalet, that a, if, um, echad meilu bo al bas Israel. So I referred to a goy earlier on in the Siman. If a goy has relations with a bas Israel, havlad kosher, elo shepogum lekahuna. But that child is-- It has a defect in regards to kahuna. Which means that lchatchilah, the child born from a non-Jewish father and a Jewish mother, that girl should not get married to a... A Kohen shouldn't marry her because there is some defect, so to speak. Now, the,

13:00 Speaker 1 as you see just beneath that, we have a quote. The, um, we have the second quote beneath. That's from the Ba'er Hetev. Bedieved ein motzi'in im nisa is lekoyen achareinem. So the Ba'er Hetev quotes from Kol Kos Mechokek and others, Rabbi Chaim Ben Samuel, that bedieved, if this young woman whose father is not Jewish, and she did get married to a Kohen, so they are allowed to remain married. Okay. Above that, the middle quote, that's from the Beer HaGoel. He says they shouldn't-- They wouldn't be allowed to stay married. But the Halakha is generally accepted like the, as the Ba'er Hetev says, that they, if they were already married, they could, they could stay married. And even more, in the Nesivim B'sei Halachas, I quoted from Rav Mossas in his, uh, Sefer Sha'alas u-Tshuvias. He was a Rav, Rav, Sfas Emes of Yerushalayim. And he said, even if they are already in a very strong relationship, he would also allow the, the, uh, Kohen to marry this girl whose father isn't Jewish. Okay. The question now is, if this Kohen marries this girl, and they have a daughter, does that daughter carry the defect, the pagam, which the mother and the, the marriage or her parents had? That's-- So what we're seeing here on the left, you have a quote from, I think, the, uh, Avnei Nezer, was it? That it's-- If, if they have a son, that's-- So, um, if the Kohen marries a, a, um, this, this woman, if they have a son,

14:53 Speaker 1 he's a Kosher, a Kohen. But if they have a daughter, so it looks like the, the, the, the, uh, the pagam goes over to the next generation. Uh, so the ne-the, their daughter would also not be eligible to a Kohen. So if until now I was under the impression, okay, they're not allowed to get married, but if they got married, they're allowed to stay married. I never was aware that there could be repercussions in the next generation. The, the way I'm looking at it now, at, um... Particularly, I was looking at Otzar HaPoskim, and it looks like that the, the Halakha would be that the pagam would go to the next generation, that the, their daughter shouldn't be allowed to m-get married to a Kohen. Let's move on to the next question. Like, that is, people ask, have asked me, there are several instances in the Al Trebe's siddur, in Chabad siddur, where it has two nusachois, two, two versions. It's asking what's the purpose of that? What's the, what's-- How do, how do we deal with that? Now, I'm just gonna look at the chats. There's a couple of questions here. Uh, okay. Um, so the, and what I, um, at random, kind of, I, I came up with three places where we have nusach Nun Alef, which stands for Nusach Acher in the Al Trebe siddur. What you have on the screen is from what we believe to be the earliest print, Schklov, Taf Kof Samech Gimel. And so the more familiar might

16:36 Speaker 1 be the one in Maariv. V'Ahavas khol osor or Al Tosir. Nusach Acher, Al Tosir. Now, what's the difference? Al Tosir is a, is a plea. Your love, do not remove your plo-- your love from us evermore. V'chol osor is a statement to say it will not be, um, be removed from us forever. So the V'chol osor is a stronger statement than the Al Tosir, which is a plea. So why the Al Trebe put both? And my suggestion is, which I don't have a source for, is it's similar to the idea of Krik Siv, where we have in the Torah many words which are written one way, and they're pronounced slightly different or very different. And whenever you have such a situation, you're meant to have in mind both. As when you have Yud Hei Vav Hei, and you pronounce it Adni, so it says in Shachnor, Siman He, you should have in, in mind both kavanot. You should have in mind Yud Hei Vav Hei, means Hashem was, is, uh, and will be. And you should have in mind Adni, which is the master of the universe. So I'm suggesting that when the Al Trebe gives two kavanot, so two, two, uh, an alternative wording, that you should have in mind the other one too. Um, possibly that's the same with the Noavo and the Naavo. Uh, in the siddur I brought on the word Naavo several Perushim, whether it's a lotion of a dwelling or whether it's a lotion, um- A lotion of desire,

18:14 Speaker 1 possibly a third Pirush, uh, also. But the, the one which I, I think is, uh, worth discussing is in Rabbi Shmuel Oimer. So you've got the thirteen Midrash HaTorah Nedreches Pohen, and we have the Cheshne Gesufim Hamachachishim. I might have discussed this in this year some time back. I didn't check up now. But the, the, uh, this Brais of Rabbi Shmuel is the introduction to the Sefer Torah Zkuranim, the Braisa according to the sequence of Sefer Vayikra, otherwise known as Sifro or Sifro D'vara. So at the beginning of that Sefer, it has the thirteen Midrash HaTorah Nedreches Pohen. And there it has Vechan Shne Gesufim. Now, if you remember the Rashi at the end of Parshah Pekudei talks about did Hashem speak to Moshe? Um, was, was he, was, d- was he inside the Ohel Moeda? Did he hear? How did the voice come, um, to Moshe, and why did other people not hear it? A whole discussion in the Rashi. And he says, "Well, this pasuk seems this way. This pasuk seems this way." And then it says a third pasuk, uh, and it brings a pasuk of Vayikra, El MeOhel Moed, and how, how he reconciles. So Vechan Shne Gesufim Hamachachishim Zeh Zeh, about the way Hashem speaks to Moshe, we've got conflicting sources. And Ashere Yoveh Hakosev Hashlishi Yachliv Enaim, the third pasuk, which is the beginning of Vayikra, reconciles this, this conflict. So since the Brais is the beginning of Vayikra, as I said, it's the Brais on Vayikra. Vechan Shne

20:05 Speaker 1 Gesufim Hamachachishim Zeh Zeh. It's here where you have two pesukim, where we have an instance of two pesukim which have been in conflict, and there's a Kosev Hashlishi which resolves the conflict. So in the Braisa, in the source, in the beginning of Torah Zkuranim, beginning of Sefer Vayikra, Vechan is absolutely correct. But when you take that Braisa and you put it in the beginning of Davening or just before Hoidu, Vechan Shne Gesufim does not fit anymore. So therefore, it's makes more sense for the reader in the Sidda to read Vechehen Shne Gesufim because, yeah, all right, we've had thir-twelve points this far, and this is the thirteenth point. Why do you need to have Vechehen? Why couldn't it just be Shne Gesufim like all the rest without a Vechehen? So all right, so just to make it smoother for the reader, it's been modified from Vechan to Vechehen. Just, um, fairly simple. Once you know what the background, the, uh, the, uh, the explanation is fairly simple. Okay. So having dealt with that, now we're going to go to something more complicated. And that is someone asks me in the word, um, in the Shira, we have the word Tsololu. Is it with a Chatof Pasach or is it, is it with a Sheva? Now, as you can see on the screen, the top line, the top, um, top, uh, quote is from the Shklov print, and there it's Tsololu with a Sheva. In the middle quote, it's from the Torah Or Siddur at Shachris

21:52 Speaker 1 Shel Chail, and there it's got a Chatof Pasach. And then in the Torah Or Siddur, in Shachris of Shabbos, it's got a Sheva again. No, no, sorry. It's not so clear. Not so clear. Well, it doesn't matter. All right. It's, it's, it's... Okay. So I want to explain what's going on here. And that is that, that first of all, there's a difference between a Shevo Na and a Shevo Nach. A Shevo Nach is inaudible. It's not, not articulated, and a Shevo Na is, is articulated. There are four letters. S- um, sorry, before we get to the four letters. When you've got the same letter twice, one after the other, so the first of the two has to be audible. Otherwise, it would be non-existent. Um, if you wouldn't have a Shevo Na, it would be Tsolu. So to make it a double Lamed, it has to be Tsololu. And the same thing, Ranu Nutzadikim. If it'd be, uh, if it'd be a Shevo Nach, it would be Ranu. So you have to have when there's two of the same letter one after the other. So the first one has to be a Shevo Na, uh, otherwise it would be non-existent. So in the word Tsololu, the, the Sheva under let's-- a-and it's assuming it's a Sheva. So then it has to be a Shevo Na, not a Shevo Nach. That's, that's a Dvara Prashit. Now, then another Klal. Someone's pointing out Kohe Feris or Kai Feris. Okay. Let's leave that for another time. Now, there

23:51 Speaker 1 are four letters which cannot handle a Sheva Na. And they are the guttural letters, Alef, Ches, He, Ayin. Those letters can't handle the A sound. That's too weak. And therefore, they need to have a stronger sound. They need to be broadened a bit. And therefore, the Chatafin are created. I'm using word created. Um, who made these rules? If they are Halacha Moshe m'Sinai, I'm not going into that one. Just saying the need for them in, in, in Chochma Sadikton. So Alef, Ches, He, Ayin, when it ought to have been a Sheva, it can't handle a Sheva. Therefore, there we have the developments of the Chatafin. And so you'll have, um, a Chatof Segol, Chatof Pasach, or Chatof Komets. Usually, it's, uh, influenced by the letter which is next to it, like V'ne'emar. So because the Na-Nun is a Segol, so then V'ne'emar, the Alef also is a Chatof Segol, um, and, and so on. Ma'amar. So, uh, Ahavo. So the He is a Chatof Pasach. So it's influenced by the Cha- the Pasach of the Alef. So then the Chatof on the He becomes a, uh, is a, a Chatof Pasach rather than anotherchataf. Okay. So that's the rule. The real chataf, the real chatafin only belong under the four letters, alef, khet, hey, ayin. There's no need and no place for chatafin in any other letter. So then if you see a siddur or a Chumash borachu, um, it's got... The Aesop says to his father, "Havar cha'ach as hircho ovi," and, "Usandei

25:46 Speaker 1 migrash orehem," and so on. Those are not genuine chatafin. They don't really... They shouldn't be pronounced as chataf. So why are they there? Why am I arguing with the whole world now? Uh, we've got all of these places, as I say, rananu, et cetera. Um, just to... As a side comment, I gave a coup- I gave a, uh, a, a couple of talks here about the new siddur. Just going through the history, um, the Rebbe, our Rebbe, arrived in America, 27 Kislev, Tishri Alef. The new Torah siddur was published by Rosh Hashanah of Tishri Beis. So he got off the boat and got straight to work on getting that siddur ready for print. And we have, about t-t-ten, twelve years ago, was published the notes of the Rebbe, which he wrote for himself to ask the previous Rebbe or to look into himself, uh, when he was editing those siddurim. And so there are a lot of questions of the Rebbe, like on the word rananu, rana-rananu, borachu, borachu, and so on. A lot of these chatafin, which are not under the letters ah, ha, alef, khet, hey, ayin, and the Rebbe questions them. So I'm just telling you according to generally accepted dikduk rules, they don't belong there. What's... Why are they there? So the answer is that they are there to tell you that this is not a shvor nach, but a shvor na. So the... Looking at the word salalu over here, that chataf is really a shvor na. So why do

27:32 Speaker 1 they put a chataf there? Well, that was before, you know, the printer in, in Vilna invented to put a star, an asterisk, on top of the letter. Now, what I found, though, fascinating is that even back, going back to the Radak, et cetera, in that, that time, going back hundreds of years, it looks like that the shvo in... The, the, the, the shvo na wasn't unifor-- pronounced in a uniform way. In sometimes the shvo na was closer to a pasech, sometimes it was closer to a segol, uh, et cetera. The sh... This again, the sh... When, when it has to be a shvo na, it wasn't always the same 'uh' sound as we do it. It was, it was a, it was a variety. And it was for this reason that some of the copyists, et cetera, when they wrote o-over text, they wanted to indicate which type of shvo na, shvo na is it going to be. Is it, you know, gonna be a more, uh, 'ah' sound or more a 'uh' sound or more 'eh' sound? And therefore, they added to... Not just a shvo, they expanded it. It's this type of shvo na. Nowadays, we don't have that difference. All shvo in nayin we pronounce just 'uh,' and therefore, this is... Becomes really, um, misleading, um, m-more than just obsolete. It's, it's much, much misleading. Now, how do I get all of this amazing information? So, uh, well, it's called outsourcing. I have my, uh, dikduk consultant, and he... I asked him

29:17 Speaker 1 for some sources about this, and he sends me... This is part of an article. Let's try to get something out of it. Now, what have, what have I told you now? I've told you that the real shvo... The real chatafin are only on the guttural letters, and anything else is not a real chataf. That's what I've... Yeah. I've dismissed the, uh, the validity of the chatafin on non-guttural letters. That's what I've done. So now I'm, I'm showing you here on the screen where he shows the following. To prove this point, to support this point. Fascinating. And he's saying the following. You see that the, uh, the letter before the guttural letter will influence the sh- the chataf which follows it. So you have, let's say, ba'asher. So the pasech of the beis influences the alef to be a chataf pasech. And then we have, um, let's say a per-- word onios, which is, uh, uh, boats or ships. Bo-onios. So why is it a chataf komets? Because it's preceded by a chataf beis. So it's bo-bo-onios, co-onios, et cetera. That's because the, the, the guttural letters, the... That chataf is influenced by the letter before it. But let's take a look at the other non-guttural letters which have al- als- ostensibly a chataf. Uzahav ho'oret zahito. Usadei migrash orem. Usamo. Usagoy. Um, now, there you see that the, the preceding wow is, is a 'oo' sound, and it's followed by a, a epach chataf. There seems to be no influence of one over the other.

31:09 Speaker 1 The answer is because it's not a real chatav, it's just a shevu. Um, that's basically the theory which is, uh, presenting or the proof which is pr-presenting. So bekitzer, um, having said what I've just said, it remains that it should be solalu, not solalu, and, and so on. Rananu, not rananu, and boruchu, not borachhu, and so on. Right. Um, so that-- I hope that's come across as clear. That's the best I could do. Um, okay. So here we have... Looks like we're gonna have a shorter shiur tonight, but that's okay. It's, uh, quite late here in Yerushalayim. So someone-- A woman washed Netilat Yadayim, and only afterwards did she realize that she had forgotten to remove her ring. So does she have to wash Netilat Yadayim again? And then the next question is, if yes, does she need to make a bracha? So the concept of chatzitza, I know it's gonna be a little bit dangerous this, but okay, Baruch Hashem, we're learning and we... It's okay to. So, uh, the concept of chatzitza means it's an undesired presence, and therefore it's an interruption between the water and the skin. If it's a desired presence, then it's not really a chatzitza. So now, um, why is a ring, why was a woman's ring considered an undesired presence and therefore chatzitza? She wants to wear the ring. So one, the... Generally, the way it's brought in Poskim, and I think it's even in the Gemara, that when a woman kneads dough, besides asking for her husband,

33:04 Speaker 1 and she shouldn't do that amotzei Shabbos. Um, so when she's making her challah, she would slip off her ring and work with her hands without her getting her ring covered with dough. Nowadays, it's probably true to say that most women don't do that kind of stuff, um, working with... Kneading dough with their, with their hands. Even those who do make challah, Baruch Hashem, a lot of us, uh, have these, um, mixing machines which will make the dough for you. And the whole avodah of, you know, of with clenching your fists and pushing into the, the dough has become, um, more a minority than a majority of women. And especially, you know, nowadays we have-- things are available to buy, et cetera. So the whole concept of a woman regularly kneading dough is, is not s-- no, it's not, certainly not a rov. It's a, uh, it's quite a miut today. And then because of that, there's more-- there's room to say that the leaving the ring in place is not a chatzitza. Bedieved, we don't talk l'chatchila, l'chatchila for sure one must take off her ring, but bedieved it is not a chatzitza, and therefore the Netilat Yadayim was valid. There's a little bit of an, uh, a question here, though, and we, we have discussed this in the past. What's the story if a person is wearing a bandage or a plaster in regarding Netilat Yadayim? So here's where the problem arises. There's this... We have a minimum of Mayim Rishonim and Mayim Sheniim.

34:45 Speaker 1 What Chabad do is a third netilah, a third washing. That's, that's, uh, that's a l'finchima sh'eloshadim. But there is Mayim Rishonim amataher the hand, but those, that water remains tameh. You wash a second time, the Mayim Sheniim amataher the Mayim Rishon. Only the Mayim Rishonim which are on the hand, but not Mayim Rishonim anywhere else. So when you wash Mayim Rishonim and some of it spilled onto the bandage, then you do Mayim Sheniim, and the Mayim Sheniim are not mataher the residue of water which is on the plaster because it's not al yad, so it can't be... Then the water which is on the plaster trickles back to the hands. It's mayim to mayim. It's being mataher the hand again. So that's where we have a problem, and the same thing with the ring. The, the Mayim Rishonim will have made their way onto the ring, and then the Mayim Sheniim are not mataher that bit of water which is on the, uh, on the ring. So what's, what's the way around with it? So in Shulchan Aruch has brought an etza that it's true we have this problem of water becoming tameh, but if you use a reviit of water, then it's gonna be immune to tumah. So when you pour Netilat Yadayim with a generous amount of a reviit, which is not huge, you know. So then the water doesn't become tameh, and then this whole business of the Mayim Rishonim, Mayim Sheniim, et cetera, becomes a non-issue. This is Machloket Tana'im. In

36:26 Speaker 1 the Alt Rebe's Siddur, he quotes Rabbi Yossi, who holds that a reviit also becomes tameh. And according to that, a bandage situation will not have a simple solution, and the same thing with the case with the ring. It would, it would... Even bedieved would be a problem. But that's the... Really, the Halakha is like Rabbi Yehuda, who says a reviit doesn't become tameh. It's only that we are machmir l'chatchila like Rabbi Yossi, uh, that even a reviit doesn't... Um, e-even a reviit is not immune to tumah. So coming back to our question, she washed Ne-um, Netilat Yadayim with a ring in pr-in place, and assuming that she used a generous amount of water. So then Netilat Yadayim is valid according to Rabbi Yehuda, according to Rabbi Yossi it's not. But bedieved, we're going to rely on the ikar hadin like Rabbi Yehuda, and so the netilah is valid. If she wants to wash again, um, you know, tov u'leha bracha, but she certainly should not make a, a, uh- Brocha on the washing again because the first one was also valid. Let's go on to a question which came up just, um, very close to Shabbos, on the Friday, perhaps Thursday. And that is that a sh- shliach says the following. There's a, a young lad who's turning bar mitzvah, and the... whoever prepared him for his bar mitzvah, and when they were preparing the celebration of the bar mitzvah, they miscalculated, and he's actually gonna be bar mitzvah three days after the day where

38:06 Speaker 1 the-- what says on the invitations, where he's gonna be reading the parasha in shul. And typically, it's the kind of child you can't really at the last minute now start teaching another parasha. The invitations have been sent out, the date of Where, where in this the relevant point, I have a note that back in Tov Kuf Lamed Dalet, when it was the Yortz-- the first Yortzeit of the Mizrachi Maggid, and several of the Talmidim came together in Mizrachi, and it describes there how they-- some, this one was the chazan for Kabbalat Shabbos, and this one chazan, uh, Eit Rait. Then after that, this one was the chazan for, for Maariv. And so it was done there. Occasionally, it looks like, um, this... Uh, so, uh, it looks like sometimes it was done also by the Rebbe Rashab. And that's-- this is-- but this was the question. Um, why generally was the Seder in Lubav-- This now, what you have on the screen, after I heard this from Rabbi Liu, I thought, well, that's amazing stuff. But then actually there's a volume called Ha'Orchos Menachem, which is a precursor to the Halichos Menachem. Halichos Menachem, it covers the, uh, Seder of, from, uh, the, uh, uh, first part of Eretz Yisrael on the day-to-day thing. It doesn't cover for Shabbos. But the Orchos Menachem has a section of the Rebbe's Minhagim over Shabbos. So he quotes this thing. And now there, the editor says that is-- that the fact that the Ma'amar was said between Kabbalat

44:55 Speaker 1 Shabbos and Maariv before Kagavnu, but earlier he had quoted from the Rav Chaim Noah in Shulchan, where he had around Tov Reish Ay in something. He had visited from Eretz Yisrael to Lubavitch in Russia, and he describes how the Rebbe Rashab said the Ma'amar after Mincha, before Kabbalat Shabbos. And so it looks like the Rebbe Rashab did not have this interrupting between Kabbalat Shabbos and Maariv. He would say the Ma'amar after Mincha, and then the Rebbe Rashab would say a Ma'amar for an hour and an hour and a half. Um, the Rebbe would say the Ma'amar very, in a loud voice, a very commanding voice, and the Friedike Rebbe also. That's how I heard from people. Um, but anyway, it was, it was before Kabbalat Shabbos. It is a bit questionable why you're doing Kabbalat Shabbos two hours into Shabbos. That's a sep- si-side issue. That was done. So why here did the Rebbe say the Ma'amar after Kabbalat Shabbos before Maariv? That was the-- my question. So my suggestion to this is the following. That when there's a Yortzeit on a Friday, so you can see at the bottom, there's a quote here from Sefer HaMinhagim, that when someone has a Yortzeit on a Friday, he should say the Kaddish after Mizmor Shir LeYom HaShabbos. The Kaddish before Kagavnu is said by the Yortzeit man from Friday. So what that means is that the, the Friday is still continuing until Kagavnu, so to speak. It still belongs to the Friday. Of course, the source

46:36 Speaker 1 is because people used to do Kabbalat Shabbos earlier, but that remains the minute that the Kaddish of after Mizmor Shir before Kagavnu is-- belongs or is said by whoever had a Yortzeit on Friday. If that's the case, uh, my s- my suggestion is if-- although the Re-- generally, the Rebbe Rashab said the Ma'amar before Kabbalat Shabbos, but here, Yud Shevat, which is the Yortzeit of Friedike Rebbe, is on a Friday, and the Rebbe wants to chap a line to say the Ma'amar, um, and the, and the Kaddish, et cetera. To say, to, to say the Kaddish, sorry. To say the Kaddish, uh, which is relating to the Yortzeit. To say it as close to the Yortzeit as possible. And therefore, as soon as, uh, possible, they say the Haneiranu until Mizmor Shir. He says the Kaddish close after the Shabbos has come in, and that Kaddish belongs to the Friday. And then he says the Ma'amar, which also belongs to the Friday. And then he goes into, uh, after that, they resume to say, um, Kagavnu and go into Maariv. Um, someone's pointing out that in Ger there is-- I knew that, that in Ger they have this minute every Shabbos. They have a pause, uh, for learning between Kabbalat Shabbos and Kagavnu. Uh, okay. Each, each Rebbe introduces what's appropriate for his Kehillah. Um, so that's what I have to share with you this evening. And I wish you a Gut Voch, and we should hear Sod Yesh Toves. Uh, here at the Olam

48:12 Speaker 1 where on Friday morning where Molie his Pilus, the Grace of Nissim, I'm sure you heard about the, uh, buses which were-- had, had, uh, explosives in them, and they exploded without any... Well, um, I don't know, so to speak, in the right time when there's no passengers there. And, uh, tremendous Chatzalah. There's a-- so you've seen Grace of Nissim. At the same time, we, we're waiting for another Grace of Nissim. We should see a, uh, the Friedike Rebbe would say, "Ein Yeshua Ad Abarechta." We should see a Geulah Shlema, the Mashiach Tzidkeinu, and Nina Sekhazena. Cha'ov Tov.

48:51 Speaker 2 Cha'ov Tov.

48:51 Speaker 1 Cha'ov Tov. Cha'ov Tov.

48:59 Speaker 2 Good Voch.