מטות–מסעי תשפ״ה

00:07 Good evening. Welcome to tonight's Shiur. It is Thursday of Parshas Matos-Masei, Chazak. Today's Shiur is dedicated in honor of the Yahrtzeit of Rus Zisel bas Yitzchak alav hashalom. The-- Sponsored by her brother, tzilul yikar, Rabbi Tzvi Mitz. So thank you for your sponsorship. And if anyone else wants to sponsor, uh, the email is diane@thebavitzuk.com. And, uh, if you want to be in touch, it's fifty pounds a week. That pays for the, uh, uploading to Remezach and many other people. So here we go. We're gonna go in the first question which we have for tonight, and that is: Why do we say Hodu before Boré Shomar, unlike Nusach Ashkenaz, which have Boré Shomar first and then Hodu comes after? And after, I mean, after all, Hodu is Tehillim largely. I know it's from Dirayomi, but it's Tehillim style. So wouldn't it make more sense that it's going to be together with the Psukim DeZimra after Boré Shomar? So here we have on the screen from the Shara Koilul who writes... This is Perek He. He writes that we do, uh, Mizmer-- Hodu Mizmer Shir Chanukah, Hashem melech hoshi'enu. And he says these should be said before Boré Shomar. Now, look at that. Mistamah lefii ho-Ariza"l that mist-- He's assuming, he's assuming that according to the Ariza"l, that they were instituted after the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah. Yeah. So here's a, a historical fact. W-who instituted saying Hodu every day? So he's making an assumption that it's post Anshei Knesset HaGedolah according to the Ariza"l, and therefore, there's

02:26 a problem of Hefsek with stuff which doesn't... It's not from the original Takkana because between Boré Shomar and Yishtabach, you're not allowed to interrupt with things which were not... Only, only, you're only allowed to int-- p-put, say stuff which was, uh, instituted by Anshei Knesset HaGedolah 'cause of the Bracha Sheina, Bracha Chaine. So he's, he's making two points here, if I may say. First of all, he's asserting that Psukim... That Hodu is not an institution of the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah. Once it has that, then he says, "Well, then it becomes a problem of Hefsek between Boré Shomar and Yishtabach, and therefore, say Hodu before." So someone brought it to my attention this week. And a-actually, in the siddur, I quoted this Shara Koilal, and I've always been under the impression the reason why we don't say Hodu be-um, after Boré Shomar, because it's, it's a later innovation and it, it introduced later, there would be a problem of Hefsek. So someone sent me, my... Actually, it's my brother-in-law, Rabbi Yossi Alperovitch, who's published ten volumes of... Ca-called Ohr HaTefillah, where he's collated from all siddur Chabad comments and explanations on, on the davening. And his... The tenth volume is somewhere around for Chayyei Shmuel Shacharis or something like that. Um, but meanwhile, he's, he's looking i-into this, and he sees a loshon of the Alter Rebbe in a maima. You can see it's a Maimon Tov Kov Samach Gimmel, which actually is remarkable that this is, uh, the year when the siddur officially was published

04:09 by the Alter Rebbe, Tov Kov Samach Gimmel. And he says the following, "Hodu lashem ki rabbehu v'shemo. Pirush Vayina shoseh sh'sidru Anshei Knesset HaGedolah lo mar Hodu tchilo v'chakeh psukim dezimra." So here there's a maima, news, that saying Hodu was instituted by Anshei Knesset HaGedolah, and they instituted to say it before Psukim DeZimra. So unlike what the Shara Koilal, Rav Lavut, who had said it's a later innovation, the Alter Rebbe here in this maima is saying that actually it was Anshei Knesset HaGedolah. And heim omeru to say it before Boré Shomar, which we're going to hopefully have some explanation for that. But meanwhile, his whole assertion that the reason why we don't say Hodu after Boré Shomar is because it's a late innovation, and it's a challenge of Hefsek, all of that, l'chaira falls away. Now, just in case you think it's, uh, you know, a one, a one-off mention, you say, how muggy is the maima. Here we have from the Mitteler Rebbe, Alter Rebbe's son, and we have here in Toras Chayim where he writes this similar loshon, says a similar... And this is written, uh, mech... It's written by Rishmaalsoy, if I think, but okay. "Hine lo zos tiknu Anshei Knesset HaGedolah b'Hodu. Posik v'huranah. V'al kein tiknu kod- Hodu kodem Boré Shomar lifni Nusach Ariza"l." So we have here two sources, at least, in Chabad Hasidus, which are attributing Hodu to Anshei Knesset HaGedolah and the placement of it before Boré Shomar also from Anshei Knesset HaGedolah, contrary to what the

06:01 Shara Koilal had said. Now, I'm going to show you- Another comment of the Shaar Hahakhel, because what we have is on the weekday, we have Chaydu and a couple of other bits and pieces. On Shabbos, we have a whole, uh, ten... We have, um, Hashabaim Mesaprim, and Radim and Tzadikim, and Dovid Shanoisoi, and Tehillah Lemoshe, and Yeishiv Veseiser. And, uh, and then you have Mizrachi El Hashem, Mizrachi Chodosh, and then four Shomales, and then Haleluka. And then, and then this, uh, Choidosh of Ketav Kilochastit. I didn't keep count. It's about twelve Mizmorim or whatever. So we've got a whole list. And again, here, Ashkenaz say first Boruch Shomar, and most of that list is said after Boruch Shomar, with exception, I think, Mizrachi Chanukah, as we said before. And by us, by, and Nusach Sfarad, as I say, all of those before Boruch Shomar. So in Peyich Yutes in Shaar Hakhel, he's a-addressing the Shabbos Seder. And here, he writes the following. That there is... This question depends on the two Leshonos in Zohar, in Pa- in Parashat Trumak, Kuf Lamed Zain, Lamed Beis. Now, read those words carefully. "Ve'askinu chavrayot sheirusot de tushbachot." The chavrayot, the colleagues, instituted a beginning of, um, sheirusot can mean the beginning of, uh, introduction to, to praises of a Chaim Mesaprim. "Tzvorim acherim va'askinú Knesset Hagdolah ken, be sidura de tushbachot." That this institution of saying Hashamaim Mesaprim on Shabbos is the institution of Anshei Knesset Hagdolah. So we've got two Leshonos in the Zohar. Who instituted Hashamaim

07:57 Mesaprim? Chavrayot, Anshei Knesset Hagdolah. Okay. So now we've got to... We'll see that in a moment in more, more detail. We are dua that the Zifrei HaZohar w-was hand, um, uh, copied out by hand, and the Arizal, ma-was magiya. He checked them over. "Ve'im ken nira de't Arizal kiym es hagirsa." It was the Arizal who approved the girsa to say, "Ve'in, ve, ve askinu chavrayot." That they are instituted by the chavrayot, not by the Anshei Knesset Hagdolah. And therefore, they should be said before Boruch Shomar. This is all his because of a hefetz. Now, I wanna share with you. I know this is not regular kind of reading material. The Zohar was printed in, in, in two cities in Italy, close to one another, Cremona and Mantua. The, the one printed in Cremona is very tall, like ledger type of, uh, print. And the one printed in Mantua is more, more like the kind of Sefer Torah which we're more familiar, the smaller, like a Seder size. But one was in Shin Yud Tes in Cremona. This is before the Arizal was born. And the one in, in, uh, Mantua, as you can see, is Shin Yud Ches. So approximately the same time. So here we have, "Ve'askinú chavrayot sheirusot de tushbachot," uh, "Hashamaim." And both, both have the same Lashon. "Ve'askinú chavrayot sheirusot de tushbachot miyin hamtushbachot Dovid d'Hashamaim." Okay, very good. So this is an institution. I'm gonna look at the chats in a moment. So this is institution. This is written in

09:41 the Zohar. It's an institution from, um, from, uh, chavrayot. Now, here's the Zohar which I use regularly, published with the comments of Rebbe Reuven Margolis by, by Moshe Rav Kuluk. And it has the following. Look at, here we have, "Ve'askinú." Then it goes, "Anshei Knesset Hagdolah. Tzorim acherim Knesset Hagdolah de tushbachot." And we have, "Or chavrayot." So you've got the two Girsot. And that's what Rav Lavut is seeing. He sees there's two versions in the Zohar. He jumps to the conclusion that it was the Arizal who said to say, "Hashamaim Mesaprim" before Boruch Shomar, by the girsa of, "Ve'askinú chavrayot." So I'm, I'm absolutely curious here. So I find an earlier Zohar in between. A Zohar printed in Amsterdam, Toch Ein Hey. This is approximately, um, a hundred and fifty years after the Arizal. And here you can see where the correction was institu-- in-inserted. As you can see, in the main text, it says, "Ve'askinú chavrayot sheirusot." That is the same Lashon as it was in the earlier one from a hundred and fifty years earlier. And then we've got on the margin, "Anshei Knesset Hagdolah. Ve'askinú Anshei Knesset Hagdolah." See, here we've got a change. Yeah, Seven B'reiut Agvis. So I looked at the beginning of this Zohar, Tfus Amsterdam, to trace who is responsible for making those notes. And it says that they are from the Arizal. It's a Sefer called Derech Emes, printed in Venice in the year Tov, Tov, huh? Tov Chaf Gimel. Yeah, is that right? Ches and Hey

11:38 is thirteen. So yeah, it says Tov Chaf Gimel. Just about ninety years after the Arizal is printed a small volume called Derech Emes, and it's got commentaries of the Arizal corrections to the Zohar. And here we see in the Derech Emes, "Ve'askinú Anshei Knesset Hagdolah sidura." Ah, so who is responsible for that note is actually the Arizal. So just the opposite of what Rav Lavut was saying, that the Arizal subscribed to the Now we're seeing that the Arizal actually changes in the Zohar and he says, "No. is the institution of . Okay. Uh, why is it before Bor Shomer? It's a different story. In other words, uh, Rav Lavut had put... had made an ass- two assumptions, and come to a conclusion. Um, I, m- I, you know, I beg to differ that you can see clearly that the Arizal attributes them to an , and that will be for Shabbos, and I'm assuming also for the weekday, for Hoidu. As you can see in the Alter Rebbe's Maamar, that Hoidu is institution of the . And yet it has to be before Psukey D'Zimrah. Why? Another, another question. But not because of a Hefsek, because it's a later innovation. No, it's actually ear-- it's from . In case you have any doubt about that, so my brother-in-law sent me also today that you have Maseches Sofrim, but it's a little bit not so straightforward. Both texts are the same. Um, by the way, if you can see here, Ksei Rachamim, I always, you know,

13:24 like to throw in this, this, uh, side information. Ksei Rachamim is a, is a work of the Hida, as you can see. And he wrote a volume on Maseches Kaloh, Maseches Sofrim, and on Ovos DeRab Nassan. So that's the Ksei. Kaloh, Sofrim, Ovos. So he-- In that, in that volume. And that's called Ksei Rachamim, but this is another vo-- another, uh, the, uh, same, same nusach, bearach. The has a change on it, but fine. You should say means Ashrei through the Halleluka till the end of Hallel, till the end of Tillim. Well, so you have here already in the Maseches Sofrim, which is the time of the Gemora approximately. We have the idea of saying Hoidu. Um, but you're gonna ask. It say- it says after . It's not, it's not the same which we have, admitted. But the concept of saying Hoidu on a daily basis is already mentioned in Maseches Sofrim. Fine. Um, just if I'm keeping you in suspense, okay. That's part of the fun, isn't it? Um, so now let's take a look at Shulchan Aruch. Here in Shulchan Aruch says, It's an early takanah. And that's in the weekday. Then come to Shabbos. Well, well, all I can say is the way it's written in Shulchan Aruch, that's according to the girsa in the Zohar of, uh, uh, . It's a later innovation, and that's a noi agin, pos-possibly. But according to the girsa of , so these are earlier takanahs from . Okay. But that, that's, uh, um... So

15:35 we're seeing here two historical sources which are not necessarily, um, you know, the same. Fine. That's okay. Then we're asking the question, if it's takem of Bor Sh- that Hoidu was instituted by , why before Bor Shomer went after Bor Shomer? So then really you have to go back a little bit. Why are you saying Hoidu every day? What, where, who instituted Hoidu? It's-- I know it's, um, i-it's got a very similar chapter in Tillim where it kuv- kuvvav around there, kufe, somewhere around there. But it's actually from Devarim. And the way it's written in, in Chazal is that this Mizmor was instituted by David HaMelech to be said in the presence of the Mizbeach when... or Korban Olah or Korban Tamid. And the first part, till , I think, was to be said with the Tamid Shel Shachar. And from till the end was ins- was to be said in the, the Tamid Shel Bein Ha'arbayim. So this was instituted do-do, by David HaMelech. But that was for his time, for the forty-three years until the Beis Hamikdash was built. Uh, it may not have been necessarily carried on later. But the Hoidu Lashem Ki G'vaismech which we have is associated with the Korbanos. Now, the pre-Shacharis, that section, we call Korbanos. Then we've got Psukey D'Zimrah, which are praises of Hashem. Now we've got a praise which has got to do with Korbanos. Where does it belong? Does it belong with Korbanos, or does it belong with Psukey D'Zimrah? It's somewhere in between.

17:22 And therefore, it's after the Kaddish DeRabonon. It's already part of Psukey D'Zimrah, but it's before Bor Shomer because it's got association with Korbanos. Now, I'm just saying that on very simple language. Um, let me just come back a second. Right. Let's not get too complicated. Here we have on the screen from the sources in the Arizal in Pri Etz Chaim, two places, which actually Rav Lavut refers to. And in these two places, it's explaining how you've got the four olamos. Of Assiah, and then Yitzirah, and then Beriah, and then Atzilus. Korbanos until Hoidu is related to Olam HaAssiah. Psukim de Zimra related to Olam HaYetsirah. Kirshama is related to Olam HaBriyah, and Shemoneh Esreh related to Olam HaAtzilus. I'm not going to go too much about this. We can perhaps discuss it... We have discussed it before. There is a, there's a sulam, there's the ladder going up. Sulam is... Tilla is a sulam, is a ladder. And the way it's explained in the, uh, in the Kisvei HaAriza"l is that the Tikkunim, that which needed to be accomplished in Korbanos is not complete. There's some aspects which are still, are incomplete, and those are completed by, by Hodu. And therefore, Hodu is kind of... It's still in a way kind of finishing off the business of Olam Assiah, yet it is connected to the Zemiros of Psukim de Zimra. Because of this, it's got this interesting position. It's before Borchu, but it is, uh, it's part of Psukim de Zimra, and yet it's also

19:22 part of, of, of Korbanos. Now, so if you want to read up more in Kabbalah, Kabbalah language, it's there. But so it's got nothing to do with Hafchazot, with Hefsek. It's got to do with mu-much more on a Kabbalistic level why we're saying this part, um, as, um, before Borchu because it's still as-associated to, to Korbanot to some degree. I'm gonna now look at the chats. I hope I can handle it. Someone says, "Anyone got audio?" I hope that's been resolved. Um, what about all of Psukim following the Tehillim of Psukim de Zimra, all later Psukim de Zimra is after the close of the Gemara. Tehillat Hashecher. Okay. Um, Sefer Sofrim is from after the Gemara. Okay. Okay. Right. Let's move on. Fine. So, so meanwhile, so coming back to our original question, why do we say Hodu before Borchu? So the answer is, according to yours truly, not to do with Hefsek. It's got to do with a more Kabbalistic, um, association. Practical consequence of this. If you are a Levaya Chachamim, and you are a Hazan or a ra- a rabbi in a, in a Ashkenaz community, and you are davening at the omit, that may be part of your job. Do you have to be concerned about Hefsek? I would say no. What... If you wanted to davka keep to the, uh, the say of the Ariza, you could say Hodu quietly before. You could say Hodu and, or Shamayim Yesapar and all those three, you could say before. And then afterwards,

21:13 you could say Borchu with it as a beginning of the formal davening. And if you say those other kapitalach afterwards, it's not a concern of Hefsek. Uh, now to say that, and this whole thing that it's a concern of Hefsek because not a concern Ashkenaz Segdola. Well, certainly Krish... Um, sorry, Nishmas is not from Ashkenaz Segdola. It's associated to, there's a s- those who say it's written by someone called Shimon. Some say Shimon Mesharthak, some say another Shimon. At any rate, it's not, uh, clear that it was from Ashkenaz Segdola, and yet it's there. Uh, Sh- Oz Yoshir. According to the Rambam, Oz Yoshir was, is to be said after Yushtabach. Uh, we say before Yushtabach. It's not, uh, a Takana, Takana Ashkenaz Segdola to say it, um, before Yushtabach. And we say it, and, and we don't see it as a Hefsek. We're not so, uh, concerned about it. Okay. Um, all right. And by the way, just throwing in another thing. has got to do with clearly with the Aseret HaRogim Al-HaMalchus, the 10 Tana'im who were killed, which is much later than Ashkenaz Segdola. This period le- yeah, towards the end of the, the period of the Mishnah. And they are in pa- in Hodu. Uh, no one's debating. It's, uh, it was... It's, it's added later, and yet it's not a problem. For Ashkenaz, they're not saying it was done Ashkenaz, Ashkenaz Segdola, and they still say it. Yeah. Okay. Let's move on. Okay. Um, so much for all of that,

22:48 uh, history. Let's move on. Next question. Someone asked a practical question. I'm running a bit late, and so I'm holding by Psukim de Zimra, and the Hazan and the Tzibur are saying, "Hashem, Hashem, ki olam rachamav." Should I join in with them or not? So this question is addressed in the Sefer Hillul David, Rav Pardeshev, from about hundred and eighty years ago, approximately, let's say, Rav Pardeshev Urtenburg. And he says, on the one hand, we have the idea that when the Tzibur is saying, "Yud giymel tzarachim," you should be joining in, and you have the idea that you can't say it on your own. The, the idea of saying Yud giymel tzarachim, to be me'orei rachamim, to arouse Divine Mercy, is only to be said with the Tzibur. Therefore, if you're davening b'yochid, if you're davening b'yechidus, so you have two choices. One choice is... One, one choice is to not say it. The other choice is to say it in a tune as if it were reading Betoyrah. The way... That's the way it's written in Shekanach and Tav Kof Sameche. Uh, that if you wanna s- if you wanna say, "Hashem, Hashem" on your own, k'koyna Betoyrah. But the idea of, of, of as a tefillah, as, as arousing Yud giymel tzarachim, that is davka betzibur. Now, the rule for interrupting Psukim de Zimra and even Birchat Keriat Shema, if something is called a doversha b'kedusha, an element of tefillah which is only done with a minyan, like Borchu, like Kedusha, like Kaddish.

24:30 So those things you are allowed to interrupt, even Birchat Keriat Shema and certainly Psukim de Zimra. On that basis, you should be allowed to respond and join in with Yud giymel tzarachim. But then he backtracks on that, and he says he doesn't see it as... Although that is the common minhag, he sees it more on the level of minhag and not a chiyuv. That, that... And, and secondly, he says... Secondly, he says that possibly by Yud giymel tzarachim, the main thing is that the Hazan should say it. The fact that the Tzibur should join in is not so essential. Not like Kedusha and Borchu, which it's responsive. The Hazan kind of prompts everyone, everyone joins it. So it's a different structure. Bottom line is, he says, "You're not mafsik. You don't- you don't-- You're not mafsik in middle of Sukkat DeZimra to respond to Yud-Gimmel Zechorachim." So that remains the bottom line. I'm going to go on to our next question. So one of our dedicated listeners has asked me for a while to weigh into the story about opening containers, uh, uh, drink cartons, et cetera, on Shabbos. And this listener kindly provided me a whole range of cartons which have been opened and unopened, uh, et cetera. So as you can see on the screen, on the right of the screen, we have here a typical carton of a-apple juice. And now you're... on the lower part of the screen, you can see how it looks on the inside before you've twisted the

26:10 cap to tear through and make a, a neat opening. Now, this I've never noticed before. In this particular Popsicle, cranberry juice, whatever it is, inside the white plastic cap, there's another ring, a loose ring, which of transparent plastic. And if you look carefully, it's got teeth. It's got spiky teeth. And as you twist the cap, the, the t-cap has got this, um, slanted diagonal flap. It twists the, this, the, the ring, the lower ring, and that pushes the teeth downwards, and that tears through the plastic or foil, whatever it is, and makes this neat opening. So if you look carefully, you can see this, uh, can you see over there the, the, the, the plastic ring. And if you look carefully, you can see the teeth. That's as, as well as my photography w-w-worked to, um, to even see. So that's a, es- especially designed to be able to create a neat opening. For that matter, we have the more common types of cartons where you will have a flap, where you lift one end up, and the other end of the flap, uh, is on a hinge, a swivel. It swivels down, and that rips through the carton and the foil plastic, et cetera. It creates... Or, and then we've got the, the other type, which this one I... This which you can see on towards the left on the screen. I'm not sure how tight that is o-originally. Are you tearing through a new opening, or is it just it's sealed well? I

27:58 don't know about that. I, I didn't manage to work that out. One more thing before then weighing into the Halakha. Someone, a, Rabbi Yosef Lando, who goes, uh, regularly to the Coca-Cola plant in Ireland, he once brought me this, this, this lid of a Coca-Cola can before... which has never been used. And as you can see, what's, what's significant is the following. We all know Co-Coca-Cola cans, you've got this ring which you lift, and that pushes down the flap on the other end of the lid, and it creates, uh, an opening. Now, if you look on the inside to the left of the screen, you'll see that there's never been an opening there before. What's happening is the, in the, in the factory, they score the metal. They make a, uh, make it, they, they, uh, make it thinner. And so when you lift the, the ring on the outside, so the least resistance is gonna be where the metal is, is being scored, and that's why it makes that opening. Okay, so, so much for the metzius, the fact what we... Now then let's read in Shulchan Aruch, in Siman shin yud daled about Binyan Ostira Bekele. So we have... It says in the Gemara, in the Mishnah, actually, Chovis Shel Cheres. You've got a, an earthen, a clay barrel. It's not a big one. It doesn't contain forty saw. It's smaller. And it was once broken, and it was then repaired with some kind of resin. It's been stuck together. So that's in

29:47 the language, and the Alter Rebbe doesn't bring this word, but in earlier Poskim, they called it the word, Tosfos used the word mustiki, from the word of mastic. It was cracked and then stuck together. Such a unimportant barrel. Mutar Leshovro BeShabbos. So the law of the Mishnah is, Shover Odom Chovis. You are allowed to break a barrel to get, get the contents out. So Tosfos says, "Well, break a barrel. Making a barrel is ma- is boinas. It's demolishing a barrel. It's so, how can you break a barrel?" So says Tosfos, it's talking about a mustiki. It's talking about a barrel which is not so, so solid. It's been broken, stuck together. Such a barrel, you're allowed to break open on Shabbos by hand with a tool in order to get the contents. And why is that allowed? Sheaino Binyan Gamer. So when the Mishnah says, Shover Odom Chovis, it means a weak type of barrel that you're allowed to break. Even so, the Mishnah says, „Ubilvad Shelo Yechaya Izkaven Lenakvo Yanekev Yafa Sheyehei Lo Lepesach Noor." So it says, the law of the Mishnah is Shelo Yechaven Laasos Lo Peh. When you're breaking open this cru- this, uh, mustiki barrel, you shouldn't break it in a neat way to be, to make, uh, a neat opening. So you're allowed to break a mustiki, but you mustn't make a neat opening. In understanding this mustiki, there is a debate in contemporary poskim. Is the mustiki's unimportance because of its value or because of the, its, its,

31:27 uh, its, uh, its strength, its, its, its, um, its rigidity, its, its, uh, how long it will survive? And this is where there's debate, debate about an, a, a can, a metal tin. If you say that the heter of mustiki is because it's, it's not important, okay, then the can is also not important. Nowadays, open a can, you throw it out. If you say that the, the, uh, it's more objective, that the mustiki is ein of binyon gamur, it's a weak structure. So then that doesn't help you for a can because a can is not a weak structure. It's a long, a strong structure. There are different levels of strength of cans, but it's something which can last for years. And it, it, it, so on that basis, exactly the same hillul ha'dovid objects to the opening of cans on Shabbos. So does Rav Zalman Shimin, alav hashalom, and I was mekabbal the same thing from Rav Heller, says the selangayor, not to open cans on Shabbos. The only way you can do, sorry about the pun, is with, uh, asking a guy. But there are those who are meikel, and they say that a can also falls into the gadol of mustiki because it's a throwaway. But you still have, shalom, you have an aslah pesach noi. You shouldn't make a neat opening. So now you've got a Coca-Cola can and, or these other cartons. Now with the cartons, I'm more comfortable to say that they're not so durable, and therefore I would say

33:07 there's a mustiki. But again, we still have a problem, shalom, you have an aslah pesach noi, not to cut a neat opening. So we have a problem with using any of these methods which are going to make a neat opening because it's shalom, you have an aslah pesach noi, making a neat opening. I would say at this point that the small cartons where you put a straw through a little, uh, window of silver foil and you drink with a straw, I would be happy to say that there you're not making a pair. You're not making a neat opening. You don't care. The straw goes in whether it's this way or that. But, um, with these cartons where you are making a neat opening, you, that is, it is important to the user because you don't want it pouring all over. So therefore, you shouldn't be opening them in a way that's tearing a new opening. It's not like opening a milk, opening a bottle where you are opening, you're not making a new opening. You're taking off a lid where the opening was there before. Here you are creating a new opening. Therefore, it is a concern. And what you've seen here is the person has done a cut on the side. You can make a crude opening. That you can be meikel, but to make a neat opening is a problem. Now, coming back to the cans, even if there was no meikel, there's a difference if you are drinking from the can or

34:31 if you're pouring from the can into straight state, um, pouring it away right away. You could argue and say, if you're drinking from the can, then you want to have a neat opening. If you are pouring out the contents right away, you're not having any benefits, ongoing benefit from the can, then more reason to be, to, uh, be meikel. Or if you're using a straw also, you're not interested in having a neat opening because it makes no difference to you. So that's so much. So this is what I'm, I'm, I'm leaving you with as far as the, these cartons of juice to their various, uh, types. So long as you are creating a neat opening, we do have a problem. If, uh, and therefore the solution on Shabbos is just to stab it with a sharp implement, a knife or something like that. And it's not going to make a crude, a neat opening. It's going to get crude opening. Just be careful. Don't cut through like writing. Uh, I can see a QR code. We had a discussion some months ago about tearing QR codes on Shabbos. We're not going to go into that again now. Right. Uh, of course, in a, in a regular home setting, the simple solution is to open them before Shabbos. The question is more in, in, in shuls, kedushim, catering, uh, larger numbers where that's maybe more difficult. All right. Someone's asking, what about hinge tops? Okay. So the, the, similar to what I'm pointing to now with

36:08 the cursor, you have a type where you lift up a flap and then you rip out, there's a foil tab, and then that rips through the plastic. That's the same problem. It's again, making a pesach noi. So I'm not happy about those. Okay. Let's move on. There's a, by the way, there's a spectrum about, uh, from one end to the other about all opening containers. There are those who are very meikel and those who are very machmir. Um, I'm a little bit to the right of the spectrum. Okay. Let's move on. So now this is question number four, and there is someone who, somewhere in London, not in the Hamish area, he's put up a property for sale. And the buyer, he's got a buyer. Uh, the buyer, however, has a che. He says, I want to buy the house. Absolutely. But I have to first sell my current home to be able to have the means to be able to buy for this home. During this delay, another buyer's come forward who's prepared to pay a higher price and to put the money down right away. Cash buyer. And here the question is: If the... Is it wrong for the vendor to drop the first buyer and go for the, the, the second buyer who's offering more money? This is the question. So what you can see, there's been no exchange of contract. There's been a, there's been a, an agreement that we're going to go ahead, but nothing has been legal... There's no

37:48 b- been legally binding contract at all. So here we have on the, uh, screen, we have from the Alter Rebbe Shulchan Aruch. Just verbal agreement does not bind a, a, uh, transaction, and after that you are allowed to retract. And then there's something called a Mishapara. Mishapara is if you've made an agreement to buy and you've put down the money, there hasn't been a kinyan which is binding Halacha, but you've put down money. Then if either party retracts, then there is something called a Mishapara. There's a, be a curse for someone who doesn't keep his word. But there's less than that. There's been no kinyan. There has been no exchange of money either. It's just been a verbal commitment. One who retracts from such a commitment, is considered not so trustworthy, not so honest. It's something which is looked in, in, uh, the Chacham would frown upon, 'cause a person should honor his word. It says, . So this here, this is the level we're talking about. We're not talking about anything binding other than honor your word. So now here's the qu- here's our question. I've given my word to sell the property to, to Robert for, for one million, but Robert's not ready to buy it yet because he has to sell his house. Comes along Chris, and he's ready, offered to... He's offering me, uh, one point two million. Am I allowed to drop the first one? Now, I just want also to add here, there's a term in English on American

39:51 called gazumping. These are... This is a separate shailah. There's a concept called . There's a loaf of bread, and there's a poor person who's hungry and is reaching out with his hand to pick up that piece of bread, and he hasn't picked it up yet, and you snatch it out from under his fingers. And so that means a person's gravitating towards an opportunity. He hasn't managed to get there, and you pull it away. That's, that's called honi-- That question of . And there are some terms... Now, let's say you know what? He's desperately hungry. I'm also desperately hungry. Is there justification to pull it out? Is... Why is he, his hunger more deserving than my hunger? Because that's, that's another s-issue. Here we have a question on, on... That's as far as the customers, one pulling away from the other. Here we're dealing with the vendor. Is he allowed to change his mind and say, "You know what? I'm going to the other customer." So here what you have on the screen is... And this is from the Piskei Teshuva from Rav Bloi, um, contemporary, passed away a few years ago. We want to have guidance in the moral level. He says, oh, you're not, you're not keeping with when things are final. Now, it is a little bit debatable, but I think the fact that someone does not have the money now until he has a buyer who's gonna come buy his property, I feel that that's not considered gamru. He doesn't have the

41:33 money yet. It's still pending. The agreement of his is, is confident. You know, he- he's going to sell it, but it's all... Meanwhile, it's in the air. I don't think that's called gamru b'neihem if he hasn't got the funds ready to s- to, to give right away. On that basis, I, I told the questioner that the, the vendor is allowed to go to the other, to the second buyer because the first buyer isn't ready to go right away. That was my understanding. Hopefully, I got it right. Okay. Let's move on. So someone told me today there was someone actually who lived on my street, Lubavitcher, um, which about f-f-forty-five years ago, and he's, he was selling it, his house. He's moving to another house. Sold it to a Lubavitch, another Lubavitcher for twenty thousand pounds. And, uh, before the fella completed, someone else offered him twenty-two thousand pounds, and he declined. He says it's, it's already committed to sell to this other fella. Uh, I don't know what the terms were, but Halacha, if the per- if the, if the twenty thousand buyer didn't have the money ready, he would be entitled to take the higher, the higher offer. Let's move on. So I got here a, what I thought was an innocuous question, and he's asking the word sukkot in Tehillim. In Tehillim, Ayin Vav. is sukkot spelt with a Vav or without a Vav? And because in the Chabad Tehillim, you know, the regular Tehillim which we use, it's spelt without a Vav,

43:13 and he's asking how, how authentic is it With a vav, without a vav. I wasn't s-sure that it's s-such a significant thing because I think the printers may not see it so significant, with a vav, without a vav. Although I'll throw at you that... It's okay, it's safe because it's in the middle of a Zoom and you can't, if I throw something, you can't catch it. Um, that in the word, in Te-Tehillim kuf zayin, Ɣhodu lashem ki tov ki l'olam chasdo, the beginning of, of course, zayin. Ɣhodu is spelled without a vav. Heh dalet vav. And the Rebbe's father says that's got to do with Sefer HaChod. It's the beginning of the fifth volume of Tehillim, that's corresponding to Ɣhod, and therefore it starts off with heh dalet vav, rather heh vav dalet vav. It's the only time it's in the... Ɣhod probably comes up fifteen times, twenty times. The only time it's spelled without a vav. Okay. So there are, there is significance by whether this printer was sensitive. So here you can see the two prints, both the Tehillim, which we use regularly. Then we've got the Tehillim with the Metzedek's commentary, Yaaleh. Also there, it's got just with a shuruk. And then we've got another two ancient Tehillims. One is from Reish ein chet, and there it's spit- spelt without a vav. On the margins, got a correction with a vav. And then we've got another one from reish peh heh, and there it's spelt with a vav. So it doesn't seem

44:35 to be so, so, uh, clear. Where would we get clarity on this? So we've got something called the Minchat Shai. Forgot what his first name was. Shmuel Nuretzi. Lived in Italy, uh, about four hundred years ago, and he really took to town on getting every such kind of dilemma addressed. And he says, that's on the top of the screen. And that is also, first of all, he says that in many more authentic, uh, sources, it's with a vav. Then in the Sohra, in Yirmeyah, as there another word, the word Yirmeyah, sukkat comes up there also. Uh, also and there it's spelt without a vav, and it says something, it, it, it says, We have the same word. That's what the Sohra does, compares the same word elsewhere. And he says, similarly it's written elsewhere, sukkat. And so when he uses the word , so then he says it's similar but not identical. So in Yirmeyah, it's written sukkat without a vav, and in Tehillim it's with a vav. What you have on the left of the screen is from, uh, the safer from Rabbi Shmuel Heber, Zal angesund. I've mentioned this many times before. It's gonna be volume of seven Tehillim called, Yashmia called, Yashmia called Tehillos. And he brings the, from the Minchat Shai, how it's with a vav is more correct. So far, it seems to be just, you know, with a vav, without a vav, what's the big deal? So I was, I was curious. Why are you so intrigued with a

46:10 vav, without a vav? So look at this. So he, he tells me there's a, say there's a Now, I asked him, it's . There's, you know, in Yoreh De'ah we got about fifty . But this is the, at the back of the Vilna Shas. You've got all of those Hagahos from various, uh, Gedolei Yisroel. So this, uh, Shloimo was a Rav of, of Vilna at some period. And he, at the beginning of Sukkah or Gemara Sukkah, he's addressing why is it in the Shas, Sukkah is spelled with a vav? Whereas in Tanakh, it's, Chumash is spelled without a vav. And you know, you've got basukkas, basukkas, basukkot, but that's, that's the end. But the, the sukkat, sukkot is spit- spelt samek kuf vav tov. Why do they, in Chazal, why do they use it with a vav? Then he goes further, I have a problem. If it's not just, you know, printers. In the Ari Z"L's writings in Pri Etz Chaim, he says, "Sukkah with samek kuf hei," samek is s-sixty, kuf is twenty, that's eighty, plus vav and hei is, um, six and five, brings it to ninety-one. So that's Gematria Tzadik Aleph, and that is Gematria of, of, uh, twenty-six plus sixty-five. Yud kei, um, vav kei is twenty-six. Aleph dalet nun yud is sixty-five. Sixty-five and twenty-six equals ninety-one. So the Ari Z"L has got a Gematria. So the vav is not just, uh, you know, he, So he says, "Where?" And he says, "I saw this," and, "Where do you have

47:41 Sukkah written with a vav? And then I saw, ah, in Tehillim, I have vav. Sukkah is written by, Ibe Shalem, Sukkah is written with a vav." Ah, now he goes into a fascinating Svara. And you have the idea that it says in, uh, in Chumash with the pa- battle with Amalek, That, "Hashem has sworn at the moment his name is incomplete, the, the throne is incomplete." will be Hashem Shalem, Hakise Shalem. So now look at this. So he says the following: There'll be a time where I'll be, uh, greatness, his name will be great. with a vav, then Hashem's name will be complete. So when sukkat, Sukkah... Yeah, I know it hits with a vo- two vavs. But whe-when Hashem's name is spelt samech vav... Sorry. When Sukkah is spelt samech vav kuf hei, then it's Hashem Shalem. Then it's Gematria Havay Adni. At the moment, it's spelt samech kuf hei, so it's Ein Hashem Shalem. So therefore, generally in Tanakh, in Chumash, uh, we're not yet there. Ein Hashem Shalem. Therefore, Sukkah is spit- spelt without the vav. But when it will be there will be Hashem Shalem, and then Sukkah will be spelt samech vav kuf hei. That's his fascinating Drush over here. Uh, that's from this Cheshik Shlemer. Um, then he also connects with when we say which we say by Ma'ariv. So, so again, so we, we're looking forward to the time where we, with Sukkah will be Shalem, will be will be in, uh, complete, and that will be samech

49:36 vav kuf hei. Um, then he also refers me to a, the same writer, he refers me to a very much contemporary Sefer, which goes into much more detail about this and on, but on the same th-theme. The idea of at the moment, Sukkah is Hashem's name, but it's incomplete, and will be complete and, um, that's... Okay. So much for that. So fascinating stuff. By the way, he also throws in how a Malach, the word Malach is also ninety-one. But he also, he says, um, on one Shabbos, it was Shabbos Um, so he was, by, by Birkat HaChodesh when we say, um, , he has in his, uh, girsa. So it should be, the geulah should be that it should be amen, that there shall be, uh, Sukkah will be spelt with a vav hei. And it will be Hashem sholem. But the v'nomar amen will be the ninety-one because that's the gematria of Havaya Adni coming together. All right. Um, let's move on. So now, don't know how much time we have, but here we have another davening question. And that is, I've, I mentioned this a while ago. I, I can look at my index. It was a good few years ago, and we had the discussion, why do we have Chazarat Hashatz? And you l- read the Gemara Rosh Hashanah at the end, it talks about, oh, it's . Chazarat Hashatz... No, sorry. It's . He has the, the chazzan says a quiet shemoneh esreh to kind of rehearse, and the loud shemoneh

51:14 esreh is for the anyeboki. So we've, we have in every Frum community, we have every day Chazarat Hashatz twice, and that's only because years ago, there were those illiterate people who were able to understand Hebrew but not able to daven. So we have Chazarat Hashatz to be made to them. They're not here anymore. Uh, the i- the illiterate people are not there altogether in shul. And even if they are in shul, they don't understand Hebrew. They're not yotze in any case. But we do a Chazarat Hashatz to be made to them. It's a little bit difficult to accept. And, and, and then also we have the emphasis of, you know, following along and, uh, what's, what's it all about? So that... And it's something which has bothered me for years. And in passing, I was looking for something else, and I found in the Siddur Sha'ar, he has, . Why does the chazzan have to repeat the davening? And he brings from Ramah HaKohelet Devarah, whose, uh, his commentary on, on, um, on, on Siddur. There's a Siddur Tehillat LaMoshe. And he discusses this, and he, how... It says how the tefillat hayachid is a yichud, but it's incomplete. And the com- the yichud which is needed is only gonna be completed when you've got also the Chazarat Hashatz. And he talks about, uh, hamshacha upwards and hamshacha downwards, and these are coming together through the tefillat hayachid and the Chazarat Hashatz. That brings the y- the yichud in a more complete way. I know

52:33 it's Kabbalah language. That's okay. All we... Well, as he says in HaYom Yom. And you know that there are things that you're learning. In Nigla, you know that it's got a much... In, in, in, in, in, in Gan Eden, it's been lear- learned with much greater depth. But there's one other thing which I want to just share with you. And he talks about the eighteen berachos of tefillah, and he connects it with the drapes on the Mishkan. And you've got... It's got here six, or the two sets of drapes. The lower ones were five and five. The upper ones were six and five. And then you've got... So he kind of somehow connects the berachos of tefillah with the, with the drapes, with the number of drapes. And then you've got the hooks, the fifty copper hooks or gold hooks are holding them together. And he somehow connects this, that the Chazarat Hashatz is like the connecting and holding together. Netzach on one side, yes, and hod on the other side, and then yesod is connecting the middle. That's the, y- that's the Chazarat Hashatz. And okay, um, again, it's Kabbalah. But meanwhile, it's just also giving you a- another insight a little bit that the hooks on the drapes of the Mishkan also have got a much deeper kavanah than just, you know, upholstery or drapes, et cetera. Right. Um, so someone asks the question, came up this week, about why do we say why not ? So this is written in the Abudraham

54:11 as a pioneer pi- a birkat tefillah. He quotes Rav Oshaya of Lunel. Lunel is a town in France. And this Rav Oshaya of Lunel was, is mentioned in Tosfos somewhere in Baba Basra. I checked it up in Sefer HaDeyrus. And Rav Oshaya of Lunel asked the question, why other berachos is it borei, and here it's nihya, it came to being. Why not hakol bara, which we actually have by the, uh, Sheva Berachos under the chuppah, yeah, et cetera. And he says because this beracha of shehakol nihya v'dvarai includes food which don't grow from the ground, like animals. And he says, . Animals were not created for eating. That wasn't the original creation. The proof to this is that Adam HaRishon was not allowed to eat meat. So that fascinating thing is saying that animals were created. Well, perhaps oxen were there to plow, sheep were there to give you wool. I don't know what goats are made for. I don't know. Perhaps to mow your gr- mow your lawn, perhaps. I don't know. Uh, I don't know. To give you milk, could be. But he's saying that the reason why we don't say Hashem bara because Hashem created them not for eating. Later, after the Yamabul, Hashem gave Noach the mitz- the heter to eat meat. That's one explanation. That's why it's not She- bara. The second reason is that the beracha of shehakol is also addressed in the Mishnah for vinegar, which is wine which has gone sour, bread which has gone moldy, um,

55:57 and novellas I think that's windfall and fruit, which are not good quality. So things which are not up to s- up to, uh, scratch. So in other words, they, El Haschose ve'Hafsoda Sabria. They are where good things have been, have been ruined. Therefore, we won't say Bore. Hashem doesn't cr- create, um, ruined stuff. So therefore, Nihio, it happened. It developed that way. So these are, these are the, uh, excellent reasons given in the Abudraham that Hashaychol, um, because this is not the purpose of its creation, and therefore we say Nihio. That's how it developed, but that wasn't the original purpose of creation. So I thought I'd share that with you. And we have now just, uh, another couple of minutes, and so I want to share with you someone in the United States sent me this. Probably thinks I've got a certain interest in Siddurim. Wonder why. Um, and he sends me this copy. Have I ever heard of this copy? Seen it? Am I in-interested? So you can see it's printed in Vilna, Ayin Gimel. So that's 1913, I think. And it's called Siddur Slo- Seder Shlosah D'Yisroel. Now, there is a volume published about 20 years ago called Hasidder. It's published in, I think, Taf kuf撒-- Taf Reish Samech Gimel. Wait, sorry, Taf Shin Samech Gimel. It was published as to celebrate the 200 years since the Alter Rebbe published his siddur. And there they have also a, a someone, a librarian, whatever, professor by the name of Yudilov from Yerushalayim,

57:42 and he made a list of, uh, prints of the Alter Rebbe siddur which are unknown from Taf kuf Samech Gimel until 1960, till Taf Shin Chaf. He lists, uh, some 260 or 280 prints from the Alter Rebbe. So, you know, this is more than one print a year in all this time. And during this period, the 1913, you're, you're talking about the, the, the, the Rome printing house. They published several editions of the Arizal siddur. What I'm saying, that list of Yudilov does not have this. He doesn't know about it. So this is a very rare, uh, copy of the, of the, of this, of this print, as far as I know. And you can see it has here a stamp, Yeshivas Temichat Rimin Behalain. Now, after the war, so you have the Lubavitch refugees coming out of Russia with the, with the Echelon and with the smuggling through the border, and they were concentrating basically in two areas. One was a camp, a, a refugee camp in Pocking in Germany. That's my parents were there. And then you had another one in Austria by a place called Halain. Perhaps there were more, but this is Yeshivas Temichat Rimin Behalain. So that's a stamp when, when at some stage whoever owned it put the Yeshiva stamp on it, and then you've got some inscriptions of family yortsayt, et cetera. Uh, the one who sent me this copy, so he says in that siddur, it has Leelo Lo Yosef Akosah Dekore. And he remembers his father

59:16 telling that the word Yesiv rather than Yosef is inaccurate. So that part I can weigh in. In the my s- recently published siddur, there is a comment about that, that in the first print of the Alter Rebbe siddur in Shklov, Taf kuf Samech Gimel, it has actually Lo Yosef with a co- with a sh- comma, with a, with a sh'va. Well, there are other siddurim which are printed indeed with the comments, and you have the pasuk in Daniel where it has the word Yesiv. They say perhaps that was in the past tense, but this is in the, in the c- in, in present tense, therefore, they changed it to Yesiv to Yosef. But okay, um, either way is good. The, the-- my policy is whatever is written in the siddur, you know, just go along with it. Okay. I'll wish you all a wonderful Shabbos, and Yehofku yom eilul sasul simcha, and we should see a geulah shleima, mashiachitzenu, um, and malkenu b'reshenu. Kabal. Amen. Have a good Shabbos. Amen.