פנורמה של הלכה – תזריע–מצורע תשפ״ה

00:08 Thank you for reminding me to record this. Someone pointed out it doesn't look like I was recording. Uh, thank you. Okay. Um, okay, let's move on, though. May you buy... May I buy shares in a company which deals with alcohol, including non-kosher wine? So let's take a look here what we have in Shulchan Aruch, in the dinim of, of, um, goyisha wine. It says here that some say that, um, that if the Goy touches our wine nowadays, it's not asu b'hanuah, only asu to drink. And then he says, "L'chatchilah, you shouldn't buy wine and sell it for profit." Whereas there are those who are lenient in this too. Just to explain, there is a whole siman in Shulchan Aruch of not making, uh, business with non-kosher food. There, Shulchan Aruch differentiates between asu min hatorah and asu midirabbonon. If it's asu min hatorah, you're not allowed to trade with it, um, intent-intentionally, unless it comes your way. You go fishing, you pick up a, a, a, a non-kosher fish, you have to sell it, but l'chatchilah you shouldn't go into business of treif fishes, for example. If it's a rabbonon, you are allowed to trade with it. That's the way it's in Shulchan Aruch. Now, yet when it comes to wine, there seems to be some who are strict. Although it's, it's a rabbonon, there are those who are stricter, that you shouldn't trade with wine, um, and there are those who are lenient. Then we have in the Piskei Teshuva, he quotes from the

01:56 Levush Ish Shrod, who's Malamed Tzchus, that nowadays it's common that people do trade, even do trade with goyisha wine. Now, I remember when I was in, uh... Not talking about whiskey on Pesach, please. We're talking about goyisha wine, yeah. Whiskey on Pesach is a problem of chametz. Um, when I was in Australia, there was a Chassidish Shiite who had a, um, like a, um, a liquor warehouse, and he would sell goyisha wine also, and I asked him about this. He said if he wouldn't sell wine, he, his customers, like the pubs, wouldn't come to him for the, for the, uh, other, for the whiskey and for the vodka either 'cause they want to go to one supplier. So as you say, he was really a Chassidish Shiite, and yet he was relying on the heter of selling wine. Now, we're going... We're step-- We're one step removed from this. We're talking about buying shares in a company. Um, if you buy shares in a company which trades on Shabbos, which trades with ribbis, trades on, on Pe- chametz on Pesach, um, the general view is that if you have only a small amount of shares, not con-controlling interest, then you are allowed to own shares in such a company because you don't have control of what they're doing. So the choices which are made by the company, you're not part of those choices, and therefore, it's okay to own shares in them. So here we, as I say, we're, we're... Buying shares in such a

03:28 company is that much more removed, and therefore, I saw... told the, the, um, question that it is okay to buy shares in the company, even though they are also selling non-kosher wine. Let's move on. So the question we have here in question number four is, if I have non-frum people for a meal, and I have non-mevushal wines at the table, and so they've had some wine, and then they've left some over at the table, and now can I take that same wine and serve it to the same type of population, same type of guests, also not sure, not, not Shomer Shabbos. This is a, a question from a shliach in a small town in Eretz-- a moshav in Eretz Israel. Really, uh, mesira nefesh type of position. Um, and these, these Yidden there are, are not Shomer Shabbos. Uh, and I'm talking about them, not Shomer Shabbos. They will... They'll be driving around with... They're, they're, they're far from it. And, um, so he brings them to his house. Now, the simple answer is use yayin mevushal, which solves the problem. Now, but can you... Uh, is it okay to, to use this wine to, to give it to... So here you have several of the poskim deal with this question, and think of the following scenario. If you are a rabbi, and there's a couple who want you to marry, to, uh, to officiate at their wedding, and you give the cup to the chosson, and he has a sip of wine. Now, he's

05:12 a mechalel Shabbos. He's touched the wine. Then you take the cup of wine, you give it to the kallah, and she should drink also. So now you've given wine which a mechale Shabbos has touched, and you're giving it now to another Yid to drink. So this, again, the simple answer is use yayin mevushal. If you're officiating at a wedding, use yayin mevushal solves the problem. And yet the poskim do find various heterim, uh, if necessary. They say this, um... So let's, let's... He, he... This is from the Tzitz Eliezer. He brings something quite interesting from the Chasam Sofer. Now, what's the big issue with wine? The issue with wine is if a Goy touches wine, and he has a kavana for Avodah Zarah, so he's caused it to be yayin nesech. Now, to say that a Yid who's Mechal Shabbos in public is like a Goy, that's, that's a well-known Halacha when... with, with the limitations on that statement. But to say that he's thinking of Avodah Zarah, that's really, uh, you know, rather creative. Because he's a Mechal Shabbos, therefore he's Avodah, Avodah Zarah. What's one got to do with the other? So indeed, Chasam Sofer writes this. The Lo Chaim Malach, Kirbeino, Mechal Shabbos before Chesed. Although he's a Mumlechel HaTorah, um, he's not el-eligible to tefillin and shechita, however. But when it comes to wine, since we don't know of him worshiping Avodah Zarah, then it's not Yayin Nesech. Let's say he was a Goy who was an atheist, who's not serving

06:59 Avodah Zarah altogether. That wouldn't be reason to call the wine Yayin Nesech. So this is a... There are-- there is room of Limud Zechus that even the Yid who is, uh, brazenly Mechal Shabbos, that, uh... And for other things, he would never use his Srita, et cetera. But as far as Yayin Nesech, which has got to do with an intent of Avodah Zarah, that shouldn't apply. I say this that as a Limud Zechus, um, perhaps I mentioned this before. In the '50s, the Rebbe had a whole battle about the Israeli shipping line, Zim. And the Rebbe, in a letter, response to someone who just wr-wrote to the Rebbe, he was on the, on the ship, and on Shabbos, they had davening, and they had kiddush. And the captain came over, and he, he, um, and he, um, had some wine and made kiddush, whatever. And the Rebbe says, "Do you realize what you're saying? That the captain who's driving the, uh, uh, driving the ship on Shabbos, so he's a Mechal Shabbos. Now, he touched the wine. The wine became oso. When you made a go-- the kiddush, made a brachah piryo adama, not allowed to drink the wine, so it was brachah levatalah." So the Rebbe says like a whole string of things based upon the mecha- that the captain who's driving, um, uh, sailing a ship on Shabbos, who's Jewish, is mecha-- is min hasaych yayin, does contaminate wine. So there are-- there is room for Limud Zechus. In that context, the Rebbe

08:28 felt, um, he, he brought that in as another factor of how wrong it is to travel on a boat which is operated by Yidden on Shabbos. Okay. So here comes another question, question number five, that we have a minyan of ten men, ten men, but only six daveners. Now, the other ones are, should we say, minyan-challenged people, or they have some allergy, or should we say they were thinking chidush, or they were whatever, catching up with... I don't know. But there were only six daveners and ten-- there are ten people in the room. And one of them forgot to say Yalaveh. So now he's gonna have to daven again. So have we lost our minyan because one of the minyan, one of the six crucial m- uh, members of our quorum is, is, uh, out of commission? So this question, um, I thought it was dealt with in, in, in Kitzur Shulchan. But he-- actually, the Kitzur Shulchan is dealing with the other side of it. This fellow who forgot Yalaveh and has to daven again, can he be, um, a, um, metzarif to another minyan? Can he be a sixth for the next minyan? To which he says, by him, his posture, that he is metzarif to the next minyan. But what about the first minyan? So this is, uh, you have, uh, here from Rabbi Menashe Klein in Mishnah Halachas. So he says that the first minyan is safe because although the, one of the members had to daven again, but at the

10:27 beginning when they started davening, there was a minyan. There was a, there was an authentic minyan. The fact that he messed up later, but they started up as a tefillah betzibur, and therefore the first minyan is safe. So I gave this over last night on my Hebrew rehearsals here. And, um, so one of the participants, Rabbi, uh, Shabsi Friedman from Tzfat, wrote to me that Rabbi Wilshansky, alav hashalom, he passed away just a couple of months ago. There was a shiva in Tzfat. At some stage, there was a few bochurim who were asked to go over to Rabbi Moshe Feinstein to learn, talk and learning. I suspect this was at the time Rabbi Feinstein, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein had a secretary called Levin. Forgotten his first name. And when he got married, he was a Lubavitcher. And he, when he got married, he had the chuppah was outside Seven Seventy. And that was one time that Rebbe Moshe came to Seven Seventy. Apparently, he went in to the Rebbe. There's no pictures of that. But at the time, there was encouraged some of the bochurim. There were more learned bochurim who should go over to Rebbe Moshe and talk and learning. And so Rabbi Wilshansky was one of those. And so they asked Rebbe Moshe this very same question, if six had davened and one of them had forgotten to say Yalaveh or similar, and it has therefore to be davened again, is the, is it still called a minyan? And Rebbe Moshe said very much

11:53 the same as what Rav Klein said here in short, but, but, but he did say a bit more detail. That the beginning of the minyan started authentically, and therefore the fact that later there was a mistake and a slip-up doesn't invalidate the status of tefillah betzibur for that minyan. Okay. Um, one of our very regulars asked me the following. It's very interesting. When I'm putting on tefillin in the morning, it's very often that someone next to me is also putting on tefillin. These are people who are not-- who don't have, um, minyan challenge problems. And so I'm in the middle of putting my shiyyad-- Um, I put on my shiyyad, said a bracha, put on a shiyyad, and whilst I'm wrapping my tefillin, the man next to me says, uh, a bracha, and he's putting on tefillin. Do I interrupt to answer? Do I answer amen to his bracha? So here you have... I told him right away, I remembered there was a discussion in Siman Chaf He. And now let's see, the topic is the Ba'er Heitev, and he quotes from the Sefer Devar Shmuel, who was a Rav in, in Amsterdam, uh, about three hundred years ago, more, um, three hundred and fifty years ago. He says to answer amen to someone else's bracha is not okay. On that-that... On your middle of putting on tefillin, to answer amen to someone else's bracha on tefillin, he sees that as a hefsek. Uh, whereas in the Shaarit Shufa, he brings from the Ponevezh Rav,

13:29 Rav Meir Eisenstadt, who came later, and he says you are allowed to answer amen because the-- what's amen is to say I agree with your bracha. Now, acknowledging that someone says an al netilat yadayim tefillin whilst I'm putting on tefillin is not a foreign entity. It's the same topic, and therefore it's not considered an interruption. So here we have two opinions, whether answering amen whilst you're putting on tefillin or between the bracha and putting on tefillin, whether it's a hefsek or not. Um, now, I, I remembered this because I had the, this discussion. Let's see, this is from the siddur, the new siddur. The question is in relation to the bracha on Hallel. When I was a bachur, it was normal that before Hallel and the Shacharit, someone would say to the chazan, it's also my, by, uh, having in mind to be motzi the tzibbur with the bracha. And then, Taf Shin Mem Alef, I think it was Shabbos, I think it was Bolok, Bolok perhaps. The Rebbe says something like... It was like, um, not totally related to the sicha. And the Rebbe says, Chassidim are neuer to chap arein zogen the bracha alein bachor. Chassidim are neuer to chap, chap arein, which is a ambiguous word. It's a Yiddish term to, to, um, to say the bracha them on, on their own rather than listening to the chazan. So all right. So then that became that you do say... And he says, the Rebbe say quietly. So in this article, in the

15:08 siddur, I have this whole discussion, when do you say the bracha on Hallel with a, a, um... And the Rebbe said you say it quietly, arein chapen. So do you say after the chazan, like we do on a regular Yom Tov? That's not really arein chapen. So do you say it before the chazan? So then you have a problem. If you say your bracha before the chazan, so then the chazan says the bracha, do you answer amen or not? So th-that becomes a, an issue. So my, um, suggestion there was that you say the bracha, um, together with the chazan, as you do on Yom Kippur and, uh, by Shehecheyanu, et cetera, by Uva L'tsiyon. You say it together with the chazan, so you don't have to answer amen. But meanwhile, this discussion came up about if you are hearing someone else saying a bracha, and is that a hefsek between your bracha on the same article? So and this discussion comes up about the, the Rebbe used to say, when Megillah used to say the brachas himself. So did he also answer amen to the baal koreh? So there are those who say that the Rebbe, they could see that the Rebbe, having said the bracha on his own, would still answer amen on the brachas of the chazan, on Mikra Megillah, et cetera. In other words, taking the position like the, uh, Ponevezh, that it's not a hefsek, unlike the Devar Shmuel says it is a hefsek. And then this was discussed also

16:36 in some of the journals of Vizhnitz, and Rabbi Eli Landau, zal zei gezunt, says in the name of his father, the late Rabbi Yankel Landau, that in the house of the Rebbe Rashab, it would sometimes be a case you've just made a k- made kiddush, and you haven't drunk the wine, and someone else said hagafen, and they would answer amen to the someone else's bracha, even though it was before they had tasted following their own bracha. So they took the... They were following the lenient opinion. Fine. That was-- So that's the first thing. So do you answer amen? So it does get you into a bit of a machloket. So try to avoid it, but if you, if you do get in that such a position, you should answer amen. Meanwhile, I want to address two other points which Re-- the Ba'er Heitev addresses here. One is if you put on tefillin on Chol Hamoed. And he says, you are allowed to answer, um, between shel yad and shel rosh because there's no bracha, which would be, um, the question of a hefsek. Which we will come to that with a bit, a bit more detail in a, in a moment. The third thing he says, this is the part which I don't understand. He writes the following, "If I'm listening... If I didn't make a bracha on my tefillin, I'm listening to your bracha, and I'm being yoitzet in your bracha, so then I am allowed to answer Kadesh and Kedusha." Now, I really

18:03 don't understand that. I don't see the difference whether I said the bracha myself, and I interrupt before doing the putting on my tefillin, or if I'm yoitzet with your bracha and a mafsik. Before, um, putting on the tefillin. I don't see any difference. But he says, "Kal v'chovin." I guess for some people it is. Kal v'chovin, myself... Um, sorry, I don't understand. But c- talking about interrupting between shel yad and shel rosh. So he said that in Rabbeinu Tam's that you can interrupt to answer Amen. And so this is also from the Alter Rebbe's siddur. He says when he brings in this concept of putting on Rabbeinu Tam's tefillin. Now, just people who talk... Whilst they're putting on Rabbeinu Tam's, they're talking about, you know, um, last year's weather or in total unrelated things, that's def- definitely wrong. One shouldn't be talking between shel yad and shel rosh, even Rabbeinu Tam, because nothing to do with the bracha. The, uh, Baal HaMaor says that we, we learn from a pasuk that there should be a one... Like, an, a continued act of shel yad and shel rosh. Shouldn't be have... Even though they're two mitzvahs, they should be, uh, um, like one right after the other. Having said that, you are allowed to answer Amen. And one's supposed to answer Kaddish and Qaddish and Baruch, the same thing ChAzAL made. So this which, uh, the Shaar HaTshuva, they say, "B'cheit v'rut," that you are allowed to answer and you should answer Amen. Whilst you're putting

19:34 on Rabbeinu Tam's between shel yad and shel rosh, the Alter Rebbe says so, uh, clearly. Okay. So here's a question which I got the other day. Someone has, Baruch Hashem, a few little kids, and, uh, sometimes they wake up before Tatte. And they go over to the fridge, and they pull... or the freezer, and they pull out something from the fridge or the freezer, some cookies or something, and they haven't washed netilat yadayim. So now that Tatte's come down, is it okay to give the kids this, uh... to let the kids have these biscuits which they took out the freezer? Yourself, is it okay to use them? So let's look at this carefully. So this is from Siman dalet in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch. Now, the first four simanim, or first three and a half simanim, there's two versions. This is from the second version, which is printed first. Let's not go into that. Um, so he says the following: As far as netilat yadayim is concerned, when you shouldn't be touching food before having washed, it con- shouldn't contaminate the food. If it's a goy who touches, that's not a problem because the ruach hatumah is only the spirit of t- the impure spirit has only got a lust for a... where there has been kedushah and where there has been a vacuum. So then you have Jew who has kedushah, and when he goes to sleep, there's a vacuum because the neshamah is with Turon, uh, to a large degree. And that's

21:10 where, because there's a vacuum of kedushah, that's where the tumah clings. And when you co- when you wake up, so then the overall s- impure spirit does depart, but it remains on the hands, and that's why we wash netilat yadayim. But it, it, it... So the c- the, the, uh, impurity, the tumah, is only there because of there having been kedushah, and the kedushah has departed to a degree. Um, omitam ze, for this reason, that, that netilat yadayim has got to do with... or the tumat hayadayim got to do with the presence of kedushah and the... and, and having departed. Lo nagu la'hokel b'negias ktanah shel yeladim. It's customary to be lenient about this with regarding contact of children, little children who are less than the age of chinuch, which probably will be applicable in our situation. Why is, why is that? Because the full entry of the neshamah or the nefesh of kedushah would be by a bar mitzvah. Thirteen years old, twelve years old, girl, boy. That's when they have, um, mitzvahs. They are punishable. And so that's the complete entry of the nefesh hakodo- hakodshah. When there's chinuch activities for Torah or mitzvahs, so then they are doing mitzvahs. So because they're doing mitzvahs, then, then they are having... a- acquiring some presence of the nefesh of kedushah. And therefore, when they go to sleep, there's the absence, and therefore the need for netilat yadayim, et cetera. Then the Alter Rebbe adds in the brackets, which is a big chiddush, that even

23:01 if the child, the boy had had a beris, already there's a kedushah on the body, and therefore to be careful about a child touching food from the day of the beris is kodesh yom Tov. That's really a very sacred, pious, holy behavior. So what we're seeing here is that the minhag is to be lenient about the touching of children. Once the age of chinuch, one should be more machmir. Under the age of chinuch, so there is, there's room to be lenient. So what should you do? A ma'aser, for instance. So that's really, uh, uh, uh, your own judgment. Um, the Alter Rebbe says, "Lo nagu la'hokel," to have the children to have to eat the stuff which they touched. I don't think one needs to be so machmir. For yourself to... If you can afford not to use it for yourself, then it's kodesh yom Tov. Uh, it's, it's mentioned in Shulchan Aruch. But, um, if there's n- if there's a need, one can be meikel. I think I've mentioned this story before that in Rostov during the war years, so the Rebbe Rashab was asked, there's two bakeries in Rostov. One is... This is Rav Chaitrik also brings in his, in his, uh, Zichronos, his memoirs. And they asked... There's... There was a, a Jewish baker, and there was a goyische bakery. And so they asked whether they should buy the bread from the Jewish baker who doesn't wash netilat yadayim or the goyische bakery, which, uh, is possibly pas palter, et cetera. And

24:36 the Rebbe Rashab said to buy from the Jewish one. He says, "Buy the Jewish one. It's just a ruach hatumah, not the, the tumah mamash." That was the Rebbe Rashab's take on it. Well, however you work that out. I, m- in my day in, in, uh, Yeshivat Gdoale in Melbourne, we had a, uh, Yugoslavian cook. She wasn't Jewish, and she knew everything. She had been working in, uh, Jewish homes. Very, very knowledgeable. And there was a Russian Jewish lady who used to come in to help her. A simple lady. So the Yugoslavian sh- shiksa would tell the Jewish lady when she comes in, "Go netilat yadayim before you start touching the food." Um, right. There is a little bit of leeway on this. People ask, what do you do when you have, let's say, in a Chabad house, et cetera, and there may be ladies who come into the kitchen and start helping laying, putting out the biscuits on, or the cake, et cetera. So, so others would say that the fact that they've already washed their hands even for hygiene is also to some degree diminishing the, uh, ruach hatumah. I know that in the matzah bakeries when they have non-Frum workers, so they will insist that before they start working with the matzahs, that's what I saw in New York, they make a point that the workers have to wash netilat yadayim. So if you can do that to, uh, to have someone who wants to work in your kitchen as to a

26:04 Jewish person should have to wash netilat yadayim, that's certainly a standard which you should aspire to. If that's not possible, so there's this, there's a little bit of leeway, as I just said. Right. So now we're almost finished our list of questions. Uh, if I leave a few minutes early, that's to be able to haparaain ma'ariv at nine thirty. Um, but here, meanwhile we're here. So now here's a question. Can you boil hot water in order to wash dishes on Yom Tov? So I asked what type of washing. What do you... So the, the question, he sent me this cute picture of a, a old-fashioned kettle. So are you allowed to boil water in order to wash dishes? So in the Alter Rebbe, it comes up in passing in topic of fyud alef. Not allowed to heat up water for bathing on Yom Tov. But he says, "Unless you're boi- boiling water for drinking or for washing dishes which you then want to use for eating." So like you're allowed to cook on Yom Tov, you're also allowed to wash dishes to, uh, eat from them. Although it's like one step removed. It's not you're eating the dishes, you're eating from the dishes. And yet, uh, you might argue that that's called mechshir on nefesh, but the Pual says you are allowed to. So now, there it's in passing. Then I looked up to be a bit more confident about this. I looked up Shmiras Shabbos K'Hilchoso. It's in Shulchan Aruch base. So he says,

27:37 "Well, we shouldn't boil on Yom Tov. We shouldn't be boiling water for washing dishes which were dirty before Yom Tov. You could have washed them before Yom Tov. But you are allowed to boil up water on Yom Tov to wash dishes which became dirty today, if you need those dishes today." Then he goes, "What happens if you could have bought and prepared hot water before Yom Tov?" He goes into some detail. Now, it's interesting. He makes a whole pilpul about this, whether the dishes were, were dirty before or not. Now, he... This is all for a shleima zman, and as is a very large proportion of Shmiras Shabbos K'Hilchoso, sakyov shleima zman, and he brings the raya. Why is it machmir? Well, it says if you shechted a bird on Erev Yom Tov, and you didn't cover the blood, you shouldn't be covering the blood on Yom Tov because it's an effort, and you could have done it before Yom Tov. So the same thing, you got the dirty dishes, you could have done them before Yom Tov, so therefore, you shouldn't be doing it on Yom Tov. So then he, he himself picks, um, a hole in this theory. You can say, um, well, uh, covering the, the blood of the, of the, of the chicken is nothing to do with, with food. You're not eating the blood. Um, here you're washing the dishes, and you're gonna be using, using the dishes, so therefore that should be okay. Um, and then he says another

29:01 point. With the blood, and he also says after Yom Tov, you look kisdam. After Yom Tov. There's no urgency there. So two points. There's no... It's not needed for eating, and there's no urgency. Here, you... So what the dishes were dirty before? Uh, and you need them now, so you're allowed to wash them. So you're allowed to warm up water to wash them. Okay. So it's not so, uh, not so clear. But certainly to, to warm up water to wash dishes which you want to use by beyom, yeah? That's not talking about on the afternoon for the evening. I'm talking about for the same day. In the morning for lunch, et cetera, that would be okay. Okay. Um, just a couple more points. Last week, I had left, uh, this question on... And I wasn't sure. It talks about a flask of wine, and it says if, uh, i- if it's missing, i- if it's not full. "Vehegiu dafanosov zoi im zoi," and the walls of the flask are touching one against the other, and I, I didn't understand what that means. So a shliach in Hawaii, um, obviously heard a recording, and he sent me kindly this picture of a leather wine, whatever it's called, flask. And imagine if this is filled to the top, then the walls are not touching one another. But if you've taken several swigs of the stuff, so then there's more space, and the walls of the flask are touching one against the other, and that's what the Shulchan

30:37 Aruch is talking about. The noid is a leather. A leather, um, must be a proper word for it. A leather flask of some sort, and that even if it's not filled and in a way that the walls at the top are touching one another, nevertheless, you are allowed to drink the wine which is in the flask because touching a b- bottle from the outside or touching a flask from the outside is not derech nishtel. That's not the way it would be done for consecrating wine, um, for Maradizah. The last thing I have to share with you is- That last week, I, we'd spoken about the fellow who on the Shvi'i shel Pesach said Shehecheyanu. And is he allowed to, uh, drink the wine or does he, or does he have to say a new Brocha Hagafen? Because the Shehecheyanu wasn't warranted, and therefore it would be a Hafetz. So I showed how, um, the Shemir... That the, that someone had quoted Rav Shlomo Zalman as saying that it's okay. And then I showed how She- how Nitei Gavriel says it's not okay. So now, this reminds me of a story of a fellow who was learning K' Mishnayos Bechor. And he, uh, he reads there, it says, "Ein Tzor din dogin," that you're not allowed to catch fish. So he started making a whole, um, journey around from town to town, "You're not allowed to catch fish. You're not allowed to catch fish." No one says, "Turn over the page." Ah, Beyontev. Ah, Beyontev. You're

32:12 not allowed to catch fish on Beyontev. Ah. So I didn't turn the page in the Nitei Gavriel. And the following page... Well, on the first page, it says, "You, you're not allowed to... You'd have to say Hagafen again." But Yesh Oimrim, the Ein Sorach Laasot levaya per per Hagafen. There are those who say you don't have to say Hagafen again. And this is Shemiras Shabbos quoting from Rav Shlomo Zalman. He says, and this is what someone has written into me, this Svara midas Atzmoi. Uh, someone has told me to look over the page in the Nitei Gavriel. Another one says the same Svara midas Atzmoi. Two listeners, thank you. That it's not a Hafetz because you have this concept of Govil L'Tura. It says in the Gemara Brocho L'Stam mem that you made a Brocha on bread. And then you said, "Oh, the cows have to be fed." And then you want to eat the bread. So they say that's not a Hafetz. So he, he's, uh... So this is Rav Shlomo Zalman's in, in a quote of the Shemiras Shabbos Kichasa talking about this. He says, "When you made Shehecheyanu, it's like you, you've said, you know, "Feed, feed the ox. Feed the cow." And then afterwards, "Oops, I've already sold the cow. There's no cow to feed." But when you said, yeah, I thought that you have to feed the cow, therefore it's not a Hafetz. Well, then, th- that's what he's saying. You thought you have to say Shehecheyanu. In fact, you

33:38 don't need to say Shehecheyanu, but because you thought you have to make say Shehecheyanu, therefore it's not a Hafetz. The, uh, Shemiras Rav Novut questions Rav Shlomo Zalman's position, and he says that it's not the same because the story about feeding the, the cow is because l'chatchilah one shouldn't be eating before feeding the cow. Therefore, it's, it's, it's related here. Whereas the Shehecheyanu is not invalidating the Kiddush at all. Uh, the absence of Shehecheyanu do say She... So he's, he's not so sure. But at any rate, this is, this is the background to the, the, uh, the Rav Shlomo Zalman's Psak, and you can read it up here. There's a longer note in the, uh, in the Shemiras Shabbos Kichasa. Uh, quite complicated. I'm gonna leave it at that. As I said, I'm gonna try to chap around, get to Ma'ariv on time. And wish you all a Guten Shabbos, and thank you for joining us. And, uh, we should hear Besuras Tovos, Yoshuos Urechamos, VeYikar Moshiach Tzidkeinu, Imhei'ru V'Yomeinu Amech. Amen.