אחרי מות–קדושים תשפ״ו

00:02 Speaker 1 Good evening. Welcome to tonight's share. Today is Thursday of Parshas Achrei Mot. Although it's not Motza'i Shabbos, I wanna share with you a short thing about an, a story with the Rebbe. And as you may know, every week, there is a institution called Vaad Hanochos Belahak, Molasna Kodesh, and they publish sifris, which have been doing since, uh, shortly after Gimel Tammuz, publishing previous, from previous years. And in the last fifteen years, they've been also adding a, an unpublished letter or of the Rebbe or an answer of the Rebbe. So in this week's edition, there's a very short answer of the Rebbe from Dalet Iyar, Taf Shin Mem Alef. That's... Yeah, so see, that's, uh, 1981. And this is the year where the Rebbe had launched the idea of Tzves Hashem at the beginning of the year around Rosh Hashanah time, if I remember correctly. And the, the story here is, as a child who was of a family who was visited regularly by bochurim who went on mitzvoyim. And this child had been injured, vealeinu, in an accident. The child had been already registered in Tzves Hashem, and now was in a worrying condition. And the Rebbe answers, "L'ha'alosoi bedargo vetzves Hashem. V'yes'ale gam b'briyos hakuf." He should promo-- be promoted to an, an higher rank in Tzves Hashem, and in this way, he will also be elevated in his physical health. Az k'ara atzien. I just find it remarkable that the Rebbe had launched this program, a whole, a whole program called Tzves Hashem

02:06 Speaker 1 with ranks, etc. And then here, the Rebbe is using this as a vehicle to bring his bracha to that child to, to have a refuah shleima. Okay. So I'm going to... The first thing we have on our list today is someone asked me a bit of, of for some clarification. We saw at the beginning of the farbrengens. So when the Rebbe would come to his place, I remember more on Shabbos, there was a, the, the silver cup with a silver tray. There was also a squarish tray, which was piled fairly high with cut up sponge cake, very light sponge cake. There were also serviettes or napkins in American. Um, there was also actually a wristwatch, a, which was folded, so they can see the fa-- the strap was folded, and that was sitting on the table. And if he didn't look at the clock at the wall, he would look and that would keep track of time, had this wristwatch on the table. Uh, I remember once that the watch stopped. It was a winter, and the Rebbe was farbrengen well after sunset. And so then eventually, Rebbe Leunig came over between when the Rebbe finished the sicha. He said that the watch has stopped. And the Rebbe went, "Ah," uh, dismissive thing, and he, he wrapped up the farbrengen within five minutes kind of thing. The next week, the farbrengen went on later, so in case you thought that he'd lost track of time. Um, anyway, but coming back. So the one who was

03:49 Speaker 1 responsible for preparing the stuff at the table, I believe was Rebbe Leunig. And the Rebbe would come to his place and take a, a, a serviette, a napkin, and wipe the cup on the inside and the outside. Then he would put it down. And then in the early years, Rabbi Mendlik, later after he passed away, Rabbi Leunig would take the cup and fill it with wine and then bring it back slowly to the Rebbe. So what's this business of the Rebbe wrap-wiping the cup inside and out? So what you have, you have in Siman Kuf Peh Gimel, you have a rinsing and, and wiping. And so what you have over here, uh, is saying that if the cup is already clean, and there's no leftovers there, that's okay. And also, the Mishnah Berurah talks about wiping it with a cloth, that's fine. Then the Piskei Teshuva says from the Zohar, from the Tikunei Zohar, there's a deeper reason for this rinsing of the cup. Mashma, it should be done, like the r- it should be rinsing of the cup, even if it's already clean, still to rinse the cup. And if you don't have water available, then do it with a cl- uh, cloth inside and out. So on the left of the screen, we have the Mishnah of the Zohar, of Tikunei Zohar actually, where it talks about hadacha and shtifa, rinsing the cup on the outside, inside and the outside, and got to do with a tihara v'kidshoi. There's something in it, al

05:36 Speaker 1 pi kabbalah, of rinsing the cup. And if water is not practical, then to use a cloth. So that's what we saw the Rebbe doing. And in the notes, in the Q- in the Piskei Teshuva, he quotes from the Darchei Chaim V'Shalom, where the Munkaczer Rav would also make a point of wiping or, uh, rinsing his cup himself. Rather than just leaving it to other people, he would do it himself. And we do know that the Rebbe had great Respect for the Munkacs Rebbe. He once said, "Ich koch zach in the Munkacs Rebbe." And the Munkacs Rebbe being in his, uh, quite outstanding in his way of combining Halakha and Hasidus and Kabbalah, and so the Rebbe saw him as a, perhaps in a way as a role model. And so, um, we see many of the Hanhogas which are the Sefer Darkei Chaim V'Shalom. It's a Sefer dedicated to re-record and to explain the Minhogim of the Munkacs Rebbe. Uh, there's the Michaseh Lazar, and so it's not surprising the Rebbe made a point of doing so himself. Okay, let's go on to something which is, uh, came up this last week, and I'm going to tell you that this happened in France, not because it did. I don't want you to start probing where it was, et cetera. Now, that's why I've covered over any identifying words in the map. So, but I got this call on last, last Friday, and let's say since, since it's meant to happen in France, so we're going

07:15 Speaker 1 to say there's a fellow who owns a ch- a chateau over here in the south of this lake. And on the north of the lake, he also owns several dwellings which he rents out to guests. And so it's Friday, and these guests, this, this, the, a-at this chateau, he has, um, like a shtickel shul, a sefer Torah, et cetera. And then he has his guests on the other side of the lake, and the plan is that the guests will make... will walk on Shabbos, walk around the lake and come to the chateau and to be there for Shabbos afternoon. The problem is the distance. So we do know there's a concept of mechum Shabbos, which means that we're not allowed to walk more than two thousand amos beyond the built-up area. So for most of us, that never becomes a problem during the m-most of the year. It's only, you know, when people go on holidays, say in the country, that's when it becomes an issue. So from... And looking on the map, it works out from the dwellings, rental dwellings to the chateau. If you walk around the lake, it's three kilometers. Now, the shi of mechum Shabbos is two thousand amos. If you take an amah as forty-eight centimeters, so two thousand times forty-eight centimeters brings you to about nine hundred and sixty meters, little bit less than a kilometer. Now, so the... my first reaction was three kilometers, no chance. Now, there is con- something called Eiruv Techumin, which gives you the

09:00 Speaker 1 opportunity of placing some food beyond your built-up area and the i-it's imagined as if you dwell where your food is, and that gives you now a radius of two thousand amos around that, that food, so you can go from your, your comfortable home to that food and another two thousand amos from there onwards. So you could kind of double your distance from having, uh, permission to go two thousand amos to go four thousand amos, which means to be able to go, um, two kilometers in total. As I said, that from the dwellings until the chateau is three kilometers, so I was under the impression there's nothing to talk about. So o-one of the guests in those dwellings asked, "Could we, if there's a, uh, island in middle of the lake, could we put the Eiruv Techumin in middle of the lake?" So I said, "No, that's not possible." Actually, Gemara, although it doesn't say this in Gemara, Gemara talks about if someone put the Eiruv Techumin food on the t- upper tree. And since... So then he wants to be able to come there and then walk another two thousand amos. But when he comes to the tree, you can't climb a tree on Shabbos. It could also be a question of Rashu Sayochad, Rashu Saravim. And the Gemara says, "Hu bemokom echad ve'eruv bemokom acher." That doesn't work. You have... The Eiruv has to be accessible. Therefore, having an Eiruv floating or sitting on a perch in middle of the lake doesn't, doesn't, uh,

10:46 Speaker 1 solve the problem. So then he came back, and it's a little bit more, uh, helpful, and that is that although on the screen it looks all nice greenery, you... If you go, uh, closer in or you'll go and Google whatever, walk, whatever it's called, you can actually see that there's this road, which I'm pointing to with the arrow, has got a number of houses, and each of those houses has got land, and the land is surrounded with fences. So it's Rashu Sayochads. So... Or Rashu Sayochad, I know. Um, so effectively, you've got here a village. In the north of the lake, there's a village of some sort, and that allows you possibly, so long as they are one after the other without gaps of more than seventy amos, s-gaps of thirty-five meters. Not between the houses, but between the properties, because the, the whole property is considered a unit. So if there's no gaps of thirty-five meters, so then you can consider all of one contiguous village. And so somehow we worked out that that contiguity continues around the, the north of the lake and possibly, um, where pa-part down the, the east side of the lake, which I'm pointing down at now with the arrow, until somewhere where there's greenery Finishes off. But from this point onwards, the most of the eastern side of the lake, there's no dwellings and there's no fences. It's just open land. So that's where you'd have to start measuring your two thousand ammas. Okay. So then that made

12:32 Speaker 1 it a bit more helpful. But it's still, it's more than two thou- more than two thousand ammas or more than a kilometer from that point until the chateau. So then we came up with, all right, we have the eight. So it said put an eiruv trumin. Now, you could put eiruv trumin. You can put bread out there, and you-- and it has to be, uh... it's likely, though, if it's put out in the wild, likely is that some wild animals, rats or weasels might come and enjoy it, and then you don't have an eiruv. So some people instead, it doesn't have to be bread. It can be also something which is eaten with the bread. It can be a jar of jam, a jar of peanut butter. And so you could put your jar of food over there, and it's gonna be safe vis-à-vis the animals. Tuck it away under some bushes, and it'll stay there safely. And that will allow you to go till the eiruv, till the jar of peanut butter, and then another two thousand ammas, another kilometer thereafter. So that was what... how we left it. That, that would be, uh, okay. There were two questions which I'm going to confess I made a mistake with. One question was, and that's why I'm, I'm, I'm clarifying this. One question was, could the eiruv, like it allows, facilitates for the guests to come around the lake to the chateau, could the owner of the chateau use the eiruv to come back and

14:03 Speaker 1 visit his guests in the dwellings? And I'd said, I'd said it works for both ways. It's not exactly correct. And that is that there is a term which I want to u- to use, it's written in Gemara, kol solomi dosoi. His, his measure has run out. And in English, I'm gonna use he's run out of tether. You imagine you have a rope attached to you, and you have... that allows you, you've got two thousand me- um, ammas or, uh, just under a kilometer of rope which is attached to your back. Once you've run out be- the, your nine hundred and sixty ammas, you can't go another inch. So that's what the eiruv allows you. Allows you, but you can't go beyond that. So the people of the town or village, they are allowed to go through their entire village, then beyond the village till the eiruv, and then they can go from the eiruv another, another, another, um, two thousand ammas, which will bring them into the area of the chateau. Mr. Chateau, he's allowed to come to the eiruv and go another two thousand ammas. Well, that will bring him into the village, but not all the way to the, till the dwellings which where he wants to go. He may, um, come to one of the neighbors, but he's running out of tether over there. So just to clarify, the eiruv trumin does not join the two, uh, villages to become one village. It works to give the individual who... the individuals, it

15:43 Speaker 1 gives them another two thousand ammas to walk, but that, that could run out in middle of anywhere, where- wherever, wherever it is, even if it's the middle of Rishon LeZion. So therefore, this eiruv trumin is useful for the, for the guests. But for Mr. Chateau, it's not gonna help him very much. It doesn't allow him to go two thou- more than two thousand ammas north of that, uh, of that eiruv. So that was one mistake. I said it works both ways, which l'maaseh it doesn't work both ways given the current circumstances. The second point which I also, um, made a mistake was the... I was asked if from the eiruv, let's say the chateau has got very expansive grounds. With the-- coming with the benefit of the eiruv trumin, you get into the grounds of the chateau, but you... i-it's gonna be to get to the actual mansion in the ch-- uh, the actual chateau, it's going to be more than two thousand ammas from the eiruv. So I had in, in haste said that the two... that, uh, in eiruvin, the rule is that an enclosed area is counted like dalet ammas. So therefore, I assumed that if you can come from the eiruv trumin into the grounds of the chateau, the entire gra- um, en-enclosure is counted like dalet ammas, and that was wrong. I'm gonna show you where I'm coming from. That's why I'm sharing it with you. That we have here, uh, what I've actually... one of the very helpful seforim

17:33 Speaker 1 in Hilchas Eiruvin, both Eiruv Chatzeres and Eiruv Trumin, there's a sefer called Nesivas Shabbos, where he writes, "If your two thousand ammas run out in middle of a town or even in middle of an enclosure, you cannot go any further." And then he adds on, "It could be even inside a building. You wouldn't be allowed to go further within that building." And going... this is from the Alter Rebe's Shulchan Aruch. Case of a person who had gone beyond the, um, two thousand ammas. He goes to... He's now in another city. He's now got movement only dalet ammas. Even if he is now in a area which has got a fence around it, even in a chutz or even in a bayis, you only have your dalet amos. And we do not use the principle that the entire enclosure is like dalet amos. Right. Um, we're going to move on to the next question, and it was, it was put to me the following, that over Yom Tov, the lights went out in a Chabad house, let's say, and there were lots of guests. Are you allowed to ask a goy to, to switch on the lights? So I responded that on Yom Tov that is okay because switching on a light on Yom Tov, like striking a match on Yom Tov, is an Issur d'Rabonon. And one of our very useful rules is that shvus de'shvus le'torech mitzvah, you are allowed to do a, what's c- I call a double d'Rabonon in the dim- in

21:54 Speaker 1 the mitigating sense. In this case, to ask a goy to do an act. If I would do it, it was an Issur d'Rabonon, so asking a goy amiranoch is, is Issur d'Rabonon. So shvus de'shvus le'torech mitzvah. So to ask a goy to switch on the lights on Yom Tov so that you'll be able to enjoy your Yom Tov. I think it's... as beautiful as candlelight may be, I think we would find it very difficult to cope with just c-candle lighting as, as the way we are used to. So yes, you could ask a goy to switch on the electricity. But I said, "Don't ask me about Shabbos." So of course, he did ask me about Shabbos. He said, "Next thing, what about Shabbos?" So you cannot ask a goy to switch on the lights. There's a famous shtick. You bring a goy into the house, and you say, "It's dark in here." You offer him a drink, and then he switches on the light, so he should enjoy his drink in your house, and then he, uh, goes on his merry way. That might work. But to ask a goy to switch on the lights, even for many guests, that's not gonna help. He started asking me about wh-where perhaps we should say that the electric light is d'Rabonon. I, I really wasn't keen to take that route. We generally look at electricity, switching on electricity, we re-treat it as a Issur m'na Torah. Um, so I didn't want to explore the route of saying

23:18 Speaker 1 that, oh, LEDs, et cetera. But let's come back to a-another question which he asked. Can you take it... So asking a goy, let's say that's out of the picture. Asking a child, a child who's under the age of Chinuch. So then would you be allowed to tell the child, bring the child to the switch to tell the, uh, your darling to press the switch? So now, that brings us very... So I, I looked around, and that brings us to an int- very interesting Halakha. There is something of s- we're not allowed to feed a child treif. So although if a child eats treif, you don't have to stop the child from doing so, but we're not allowed to feed a child treif of food, and that's a Issur m'na Torah. So lo sochelu and lo sachilum. We're not allowed to... The, the Lashon, the Lashon in Gemara is, "Sfineh lo b'yadaim," to feed a child treif is a Issur m'na Torah. Also, in a s-similar context to if a chi- if a little boy is a Kohen, to bring that child in contact with tumas meis is a Issur m'na Torah. If a child goes on their own, it's a different story, but we are not allowed to feed treif to a child. There's a famous Tshuva of Chasam Sofer about a girl who had mental problems, and then she, she needed to be in an institution. And there was a question, there's one institution which is better, but it doesn't have, serve kosher food,

24:53 Speaker 1 and the other institution is not as good, but it has kosher food. And famously, Chasam Sofer says that the non-kosher food would actually impede her, her, uh, recovery. Therefore, he says to send her to the kosher. Fine, but... So even a person who is mentally incompetent, you're still not allowed to give them tray for food. And the same thing is with a child. To feed the child chillul Shabbos is forbidden. So to... And certainly to s-tell the, tell the child, "Press the switch," to, to do a melacha. So this is... You got here two seforim, contemporary seforim. One is a Piskei Teshuva, one is a Orchos Shabbos. That's a pretty good contemporary work. It says it, it addresses Mamish our situation. The lights have gone out, uh, and there's a need for light. He says you can put the child near the switch, and if you know the child's playful, likely would press the switch, that would be okay. By putting the child near the switch, that's not exactly feeding them the melacha. And you're not saying anything. Um, the child... If the child does it, it's just because the child enjoys pressing switches. Um, it's not a question of Chinuch. It's under the age of Chinuch. But then he goes on, "But if the child does understand that it's important for you that he lights this, the, the, the, um... puts the, puts, puts on the lights, that's asur because he, he realizes he's doing a melacha on Shabbos for you. That's not okay."

26:42 Speaker 1 Um, so certainly to tell the child, you know, "Press this switch," that's not okay. To have the child right nearby and the child on their own, by their own volition will press the switch, as children sometimes do, that would be, that would be acceptable. But not, not to instruct and not to in-indicate to the child that this is a desirable thing. Right. Um, I'm just wondering. There is in the context of a goy who switched off the lights, there is a way of saying to the goy, "What are you doing? Why'd you switch the lights?" And, and, and the goy gets all flustered. "Oh, I'll switch it back on, back on again." And that's okay because they... You didn't tell them to switch on the lights, and they just wanna get out of trouble. I'm wondering whether that would be, uh... I'm not going to child abuse for the moment. Just would it be, um, would it be acceptable to tell the child, you know, "What are you do-" Uh, I'm, I'm not so keen here in, in that case to tell the child because then the child's still doing it for you, whereas then the goy is doing it for themselves. Okay, let's move on. Right. Um, case in point, to have some covers on the switches so as to avoid these problems. Right. Now, a young man had a baby chi-- um, ba-um, baby born during the week, and it came Friday, and he was doing, um, averos perech. He was doing the

28:12 Speaker 1 laundry. And came Shabbos, and the laundry is still wet, and he popped it into the dryer and is asking, can he leave the dryer to continue, uh, working into Shabbos? So this is from, again, from the, um, Piskei Teshuva. And he says, "If you have a wash-- a, a washing machine, a d-dryer, dishwasher, computer, printer, uh, other electronic items which are noisy or very visible, one shouldn't allow them to continue functioning into Shabbos." So if you got... You have a... You need to print off three hundred pages, to set the, your printer in motion, and you just, uh, go into Shabbos whilst the printer is printing, he's saying that's not okay. The kind of thing which is normally associated with being done, you do it, and, and, and it happens right away. So then I guess that's a problem of maris ayin. There is a law in the Gemara about a mill continuing to work. A, a mill grinding, uh, your grain. Afsha Millsot, it creates a noise, and people think that you are milling flour on Shabbos. So this is the basis of this, that also a noisy piece of equipment which is to work into Shabbos is something which, which shouldn't be done, and he says, "Unless there's a hefsed meruba." Right. Then let's go on to the next point, and that is, someone asked me this past week about when you say Shema, and we customarily cover our eyes. Do you cover your eyes also for the second passuk of Boruch Shem?

29:55 Speaker 1 So what he told me is that a s- a person... He had heard a story about a, a young boy by the name of Kanichov, forgotten the first name, who had gone in with his parents into Yechidas as a child. And the Rebbe asked him to say Shema, which he did. He lifted his hand up, covered his eyes, and he said, "Shema and Boruch Shem," with his hands on, on his, over his eyes. And the Rebbe commented that for Boruch Shem, it's not necessary to have your eyes covered. Fine. Now, the reason why we cover our eyes is to have greater focus, not to be distracted. And in the Kisvei Ha'Arizal, in Shaar Hakavanos, he does say to have your eyes covered until you're finished the, the second passuk of Boruch Shem. What you have on the screen is from Rav Chaim Noah in the Ksav Sofer in the back of volume Alef. So he writes, "Despite that which is written in Shaar Hakavanos, Lo Ro'isi Noihagin Ken. I haven't seen this to be the practice of people covering their eyes also for Boruch Shem." So, and that is indeed, and that corroborates this, so this story, that generally we're not particular to our ca- keep our eyes covered for Baruch Hashem. And he suggests a Svara, , that people think long about the, uh, significance of Yechud Hashem in the word Echod, and because of that, they do not keep their eyes covered for Baruch Hashem. That's his suggestion. I don't know how widespread

31:42 Speaker 1 that problem is. Um, Halavai. But that indeed is, seems to be the minhag, that we're not particular to cover our eyes also for the next phrase of Baruch Hashem. So the next thing brings us to, I was in New York and someone meets me in Shul, in Empire Shtiebel, and says about I'd written the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, so which I worked on, uh, collating, copying out the Minhagim Chabad. So we've got this, Baruch Hashem, it's been printed, reprinted. In all, there's been five printings of the Sefer, uh, which I'm sure they're not printing them to keep them in storage. So Baruch Hashem. Yeah. So, and in, in, uh... by, by Boruch She'amar, it's customary to take the tzitzit, to hold the two front tzitzit for Boruch She'amar, and I'd written there to hold them in the left hand, and it was a straight quote from Sefer HaMinhagim. However, the Rebbe was not nøg that way, and what you have on the screen is from a recently published volume called the Halichos Menachem, and it says that the Rebbe would hold his tzitzit in his right hand. And in the notes, they quote from various sources. They say, for Or Tzaddikim from Menachem, um, Rabbi Menachem Me'ir Poferis, uh, writes to hold it in your li-- in your right hand. Quotes also from Rabbi Akiv Emden and so on. Now, in contrast to Shema, where we hold our tzitzit indeed in the left hand, well, that's because you need to have your right hand to cover

33:24 Speaker 1 your eyes, and therefore you hold the tzitzit in your left hand. But when it comes to Boruch She'amar, that doesn't, uh, that's not an issue, and therefore one should be holding them in the right hand. So this is interesting thing. And in, in the Sefer HaMinhagim, this line does not have a source where the authors, Rabbi Groner and Rabbi Greenglass, aleihem Shalom, doesn't say where they got it from. But it's interesting that, uh, we saw that, uh, this has been testified that the Rebbe was particular to hold it in the right hand. And, uh, yours truly will have to go through some, uh, retraining to start holding the tzitzit for Boruch She'amar in my right hand. I'm not used to it. Uh, I did mention at a shiur yesterday, I gave a shiur in the Kollel Iyun Tefillah, talked about the touching the tefillin by Yetzer Hara of Erev Chesed. The shiur was in y-- the Berakhah of Yetzer Hara, Birchas Shema. I may have mentioned this in the shiur before, how there is a Kabbalah idea that we've got four rungs of davening, like the sudig- the, the ladder in the dream of Yaakov. So we have the first rung is Olam Ha'asiyah, and that's the... from the beginning of, you know, um, Berakhos perhaps, but until Chayadu. Then Psukah d'Zimra is corresponding to Olam Ha'yetzirah. Uh, Birkat Shema corresponding to Olam Ha'briyah, and Shemoneh Esreh corresponding to Olam Ha'atzilus. And how we have an act which is associated with each of these rungs.

35:01 Speaker 1 So we have an act of mitzvah, netilat yadayim, at the beginning of Olam Ha'asiyah. At the beginning of Olam Ha'yetzirah, we have the act of picking the tzitzit up. That's why we hold the tzitzit for Boruch She'amar. At the be-- Then we have, at the beginning of Birkat Shema, as we touch the tefillin of Yetzer Hara, that's a, that's the, the, the act of mitzvah associated with going to Olam Ha-briyah. And some say, some Kabbalah say to touch the shel rosh, shel rosh. Some say in Kabbalah, we don't do this. Um, we, we touch by Yetzer Hara, ha- the hand tefillin and the head tefillin. Some Kabbalah say that by Yetzer Hara, you should touch the hand tefillin, and by Ga'av Yisrael, you should touch the shel rosh, and that's the idea of having another act of mitzvah associated with Olam Ha-etzilus. So anyway, um, I just brought that in because why are you... why, why is there a point of picking up the tzitzit? Davka by Boruch She'amar. That's the explanation. Why davka two tzitzit? The Alter Rebbe brings in Siman chaf daled, um, that the... e-each of the tzitzit is eight, eight, eight, uh, strands, and five knots, which is thirteen. And thirteen and thirteen equals twenty-six, and that is corresponding to Shem Havayah. So that's the reason for having daf- davka two tzitzit at, uh, at Boruch She'amar. Why davka? You mentioned you have to have a Remez to Shem Havayah at this point. That I'll have to leave for another time,

36:24 Speaker 1 because I didn't research that now. I'm going to go on to the next point, and that is someone, one of our, uh, regular listeners asked about pouring from a kettle onto... using your kettle to pour on milchigs, uh, and fleishigs. Does the kettle become treifed up by using it for pouring of fleishigs and milchigs? So my first... I was traveling and I looked up. There's a contemporary Sefer called Sefer HaKasherus, and he talks about a , which is a modern word for a kettle. It's not recommended to pour with the same kettle directly on meat-y or milk-y. which means an uninterrupted pour. He-- now, in the notes, he goes on and he says, um, "I mean, if you have, let's say, a fleishig soup which is steaming." Or he also says about a frozen chicken to make it, um... How do you say? To, to, uh, to, to, what's the opposite of to melt or to def- to defrost. He says-

37:39 Speaker 2 Hithalech.

37:40 Speaker 1 Hithalech. Thank you. Um, then he goes into an interesting note, which I wanna share with you. The concept of nitzuk. So you have nitzuk means the jet stream. And in... He quotes here from Minchas Yitzchak. This is something which may be, um, in, uh, of interest. To, to pour wine, kosher wine into non-kosher wine. Let's say you've got a, a non-mevushal wine, and you have a goy sitting at your table, and he had some wine, and now you want to pour from your bottle, and there'll be a direct pour from your bottle of kosher wine, and there's going to be a connection with the wine in his glass, which is our soup. That's, that's not allowed. In Shulchan Aruch it says that nitzuk chibur. As far as, uh, goyische wine, that connection could-- is a problem. So now, does that mean that there's a problem with fleishigs and milchigs? So Minchas Yitzchak says no, it's not the same. Because when it comes to, to wine, there is a issue of touching. It doesn't mean that there's a taste being, uh, communicated upstream from the glass up into the bottle, but there is a contact. Lahav-- I don't know, lahav or not, but if you think about electricity, electricity will also find its way upstream too. So there's a contact. Therefore, with wine, that's not okay. But when it comes to treif, kosher, it's more got to do with taste. And the nitzuk, the stream, does not communicate ta-taste upstream. So that's-- he's, he's saying it's

39:32 Speaker 1 not such a problem. And then he quotes, um, from, uh, Branzover, uh, if you pour it not directly into the food, but to the side, that would be okay. So that was my first port of call. But I want to go back to where we have in Shulchan Aruch. This is the end. This is in Siman Kuf Heh in Yoreh De'ah, where it says you're not allowed to pour... If you have a kali which has got, let's say, um, fat or like, uh, oil, you wouldn't be allowed to pour into a lamp which has got non-kosher fat in the, i-in the pa- the lamp. So we're talking in days when people would use animal oils, animal fats. Uh, so you've got a candle burning and the ca-- it's tallow. It's animal, animal fat. So it's treif. To pour kosher schmaltz oil directly into the fat, which is treif. So l’chatchila you should not do so. Not to pour from kosher into treif directly, but de'oraita it's not a problem. So that's what's written in the Ramah in Yoreh De'ah. Now, in the, this, I, I often quote the Piske Teshuvas. There's a parallel Sefer Yoreh De'ah called Psakim Teshuvas, and he talks about this, and I would like to go through this carefully. He says, um, in summation, "Pouring kosher drink into a pot which has got treif, which is hot, or pouring milk into hot meat." So he says the following: "If steam goes up from the lower to the upper," so you're pouring...

41:26 Speaker 1 So then that would make the upper oser. So if you would be pouring from a kosher kettle into a non-kosher soup, and there's steam coming up, that would make your kettle oser. It goes into further, if you poured pareve water, yeah, into a fleishig, uh, pot of, uh, and there's steam coming up. So then if it's close enough that the steam from the soup is gonna come into contact with your kettle, then that would make your kettle fleishig. If the steam, by the time it comes to your pot, is not so hot, then your pot will, your kettle will remain pareve. So it's, it's not something to be dismissed totally. It is an issue. If you pour close enough, if you're pouring hot water into your cholent, and it's close enough for the steam of the fleishig cholent to come up to your kettle whilst the steam is still hot, that would be an issue of making your kettle, um, fleishig. It, it doesn't mean that the water of the kettle would be, uh, become fleishig, but it's something which to, to be avoided l’chatchila. Why do I say that last point? If you boiled the water in a pareve pot... Sorry, if you boiled the water in a fleishig pot, but it's more, say, more than twenty-four hours after it was used for fleish, that water would still be pareve with the concept of benon. So it's, it's, it's, uh, it is an issue, but not, uh, yeah, not so extreme. Okay. So now,

43:15 Speaker 1 um, it's just behashgacha protis. Some were told, and we're talking, I was talking with someone, he said in a particular yeshiva, the very strident Rosh Yeshiva And you have this, uh, nightmare. It comes after Pesach, and a bocher comes, and he hasn't had a haircut since Yotzerat or something. And, you know, Rebbe says, "You're not allowed to have a haircut in, in, in, in, in the Sfiat Zemer." So you're the Rosh Yeshiva, and you've got this boy which is-- that looks to-looks totally unsuitable for a bocher yeshiva. And he, "Yeah, no, Shakhno, you know, frumkeit." So this Rosh Yeshiva says, "Go get your whole haircut." "Well, you know, Sfiat, I know, I know how, I know how Shakhno better than you," he says. Tells the boy, "Go get a haircut." So someone asked me this question this morning, and predictably, it's the same story in a different, a different yeshiva. He has a boy come back after Ben Hazmanim, after Pesach, and he does not look like a Hasida Shabacha, uh, with his haircut, and he's got a... So I told him the same story and decided to look it up. So this is from the Nittei Gavriel, and he says if a person has a beloris, person's got a-- what we call in Yiddish a chup, a la-- a, um, a big fringe, he's allowed to cut it off. They like to have it hair-his hair cut. Tzolek mitzvah. So Tzolek mitzvah to take it off. Now, interesting, this week I had two other

44:45 Speaker 1 questions. I'll come back to this in a moment. One was, never had this before. A young lady's going out for a shidduch, and normally she wears her hair in a to-in a ponytail. For a shidduch, it looks like the minig is that you have to wear it without a ponytail. And for this, her hair is a bit too long, so she wanted to have her hair cut for shidduch. So I looked into it. I said, "Yes, it's okay." Um, and then, which obviously he's, he does mention this in Nittei Gavriel. The other one was actually a fellow who's unfortunately in prison, and he is going to face, uh, face the court. And he was asking could he have a haircut be-before he goes to court, that he should look more respectable. And I said that that is okay. Uh, although I'm not so sure, but I felt it is okay in the circumstances. Uh, if a person comes out of prison, Chol HaMoed, he's allowed to have a haircut. So if you're allowed to have a haircut once you were released, so in order to facilitate your release, I felt it was also okay. But I'm not, I'm not saying this is a Heror LeRabim because the Rabim tell them keep out of prison. Um, now coming back to this bocher. So he says, uh, the Nittei Gavriel says, "Send him to the barber, you know, and have a haircut." And he quotes here from the-- one of the Belzer Rebbes that someone who would

46:13 Speaker 1 make a point of having, uh, leaving a, leaving a, a chup of sorts. He would tell him that he's allowed to have a haircut even Ben Hametzarim, even in three weeks. And he compares this indeed to the Rama in, in Hilchas Chol HaMoed, where he talks about, um, the Tzolek Mitzvah having a haircut, uh, even Chol HaMoed. And then he qu-about this business of having a chup. He refers to the Kedushas Levi from the Barditchover in Partiyos Yisroel, where he talks about the disgrace of having long hair, where it's, uh, inviting the Sitra Achra to be, to cling. And in addition, let's say I, I did not look up this Kedushas Levi. Um, unfortunately, the people who have this problem don't necessarily ask shailas about it. It's only the mashgiach has to, uh, unfortunately deal with it. Um, the other thing is, he says also having long hair does become a issue for your tefillin that if you... A Nazir's allowed to wear tefillin, yeah, that's fine. But if you make a whole big do over your hair, then you make it a dover chasiv, and then that becomes a question also of chatzitze for tefillin. Um, I'm looking here at a few of the questions here. Does Lifty do it in, do in left? That's possibly about holding... Sure. That's going back to the Becher. I don't remember. Right. Right. So as I say, the, the issue of chatzitza is because you're making it into a dover chasiv. The, the long hair is, per

47:56 Speaker 1 se, is not the problem for, for, uh, tefillin, but it is when you've made it into a chasive entity, then that's where, that's the... I think the Mach Shashekel is the one who goes to town about it. Right. Let's go on to our next point, and that is I was, uh, having rest this afternoon, and I got woken up with a call. What's the, uh, are you-- what's the bracha on sandwich ice cream? So for those who are, are unfamiliar, it's, I guess, two biscuits, and in between there's a layer of ice cream. And so it's similar to the question of you have, uh, ice cream in a cone. And I told him, uh, half asleep that you make two brachos. And so afterwards, I felt a little bit guilty asking him when I'm half asleep, but I looked it up. So here we have... This is, uh, from the Sefer Shaarei HaBracha, contemporary Sefer, and it's written in Hebrew, obviously. And so it looks like what I'm, I've just described is called casta or cassata in Hebrew. And he describes it, shchi- uh, a layer of glida, that's ice cream, which is between two biscuits. So he says you should break off, separate the two species, um, before the bracha. And on a bit of the biscuit, you'll make a bracha mezonos, and a separate bracha on the ice cream shehakol. The reason being, we know that in a combination, uh, of two foods, mezonos always comes up. The most important one becomes a

49:36 Speaker 1 dominant factor. It's still, it's still difficult to accept that when the whole purpose here is clearly the ice cream, and the biscuits are basically to hold it. Uh, so as... And the, the, the poskim do, contemporary poskim differentiate whether the co-the cone for the ice cream has got a bit of a sweet taste to it or is just totally bland. It's mamish just a holder. But so to say that the, that the biscuit is the ikar and the ice cream is, is, is just tofel, that's difficult to accept. On the, uh, other hand, to ignore the biscuit and just say is also difficult to accept. And that's where you have the advice of the Poskim to break off a little bit of the, of the, uh, pastry, make a brachah mezonos, and then to say a separate brachah on the ice cream of Shehakol. Bracha achronah, the likelihood is that the two biscuits will be less than a kazais, therefore they wouldn't warrant a Bracha achronah. The ice cream, assuming, uh, it's, it's got a kazais, so then you'd say a Bracha achronah on the ice cream. There is a lot of discussion in, in contemporary Poskim about ice cream. What bro... What is... Is ice cream a f-fluid, or is it a s-, uh... Is it a liquid, or is it a, a solid? Of course, we eat the ice cream in more in a solid form. But if you leave it, it would, in at room temperature for, uh, for a long time,

51:07 Speaker 1 it would come into a liquid. So, the Afken minah is, is, is the Bracha achronah for kazais or for revias? But I believe the general view is we see it as a food, and therefore kazais of ice cream is enough to warrant a Bracha achronah. Let's move on. And here, when it comes to Kedusha, so the Chazan is, uh, I don't know whether you hear him. In so- in some communities, they have, "Bekor zeel zevar Omar." So, he turns to the right and the left when saying, "Bekor zeel zevar Omar." That is not the Minchababad. Um, the Chazan turns... Uh, just stays straight. There are other things for Birchas Keranim, et cetera, where we do have an end of Kaddish as a Shalom Remoh, but at, but Kor Zel Zevar Omar, we don't have this mimic of turning from side to side. And, uh, um, what you have here, this is from the Siddur, my Siddur, in, in this location, in, uh... My Kedusha in Shacharis weekdays, and there's a quote here from the Abu Draham, who is, I've mentioned many times, a pioneering work of Birfilla. And he says, "Ve'einon tzrichim lehosef pnei v'chol tzadd, she'ayeh yesh lahem panim v'chol tzadd." The malachim do not need to. If they want to talk to the ma-malach next to them on either side, they do not need to turn. Because as described in Nevuah Yechezkel, if I'm not mistaken, the malach is described as having four faces, one in each direction. So, if you have faces

52:40 Speaker 1 in the different directions, you don't need to turn your head. So, beka- there's no need. Bekor Zel Zevar Omar, there's no need for malachim to turn. And so, if we are trying to emulate the malachim, so we don't need to turn to either side. Finally, um, and this I'm going to go back to something we, we discussed before Pesach. Um, if you remember, before Pesach, we went through a few points of the Haggadah. And one of them was in the Halach Meanyoh at the beginning of Maggid, where you have, "Lashon habo, um, hashato hocho. Lashon habo be'ar ad Israel. Hashato avdin lashon habo bnei choirin." And we have the Rebbe quotes in the Haggadah that the Rebbe Rashab curiously would change the word habo in two ways. In other words, it want-- the first time he would say, "Lashon habo mil el," on the second last syllable, and in the second one, he would say, "Habo," the stress on the last syllable. Which means, in dikduki, which means that the one was, as I illustrated, we are the year Taf Shin Peh Vav. So, Lashon Habo, the s- this year which has already come, we are Adi Israel. We should be known as Adi Israel. And the second one, Lashon Habo, which means Taf Shin Peh Zayin, Bnei Choirin. We should be free men. And I was asking, what's the reason for that change? Why when it comes to Ba'ad Israel is there the pressure it should be this year, which I understand fully. Why

54:28 Speaker 1 when it comes to Benei Choirin could it wait for next year? That was my question. And my suggestion was that the Rebbe Rashab was looking up to the Lashon Habo, Bnei Choirin, Avdin Benei Choirin, more in Avodah Hashem. There's a time of Avodah, and there's a time of Benei Choirin, and there's a time... The earlier period of Moshe Mashiach is a time of Avodah, and the later phase of Moshe Mashiach is, uh, is a time of no pressure, just, just Schar, and that's the Benei Choirin. That was my suggestion. But I did not know, and I met someone in... Well, whilst I was tra- In Chicago, actually. He said he'd written about this, and he brought to my attention his article that this is actually in the Rebbe's Reshimas. And we have many, many of these, uh, anecdotes in the Hayom Hayom and in the Haggadah of the Amata, which they're to be found in the Rebbe's Reshimas, which the Rebbe had written during the times he had spent with the Felicia Rebbe, put things on record. So here we have from the Rebbe's Reshimas. Ad monish mosadin, ho ya tomid oimer Lashon Habo, Ha-Alef mil el. The first one was Habo. Habes mil el, the second one was Habo, uh, in mil el. Pa'am achas sho alai. One time, this is the Felicia Rebbe telling the Rebbe. One time, I asked my father, "What's the reason for the change?" Ve'anahu bechiyuch. He answered me, smiling. Vest elder varden, vest kliger varden, vest farstein. You'll

56:05 Speaker 1 grow older, you'll become smarter. And you'll understand. So he did not give him an explanation. One time, So one time the Rebbe Rashab asks his son, the Friediker Rebbe, "What's your... What do you think?" So one time he kind of avoided answering. Another time, he put the question back to the son, asked him, "What do you say?" And the Friediker Rebbe says, "I answered the following." It's... Well, the difference is, as Rashi in Chumash talks about Rochel coming with the, the sheep of Ya- of Ya- of Laban. One time it says, "Bo." One says, "Bo." Rashi says, "One is in the past, one is in the present, one is in the, in, in the, uh... One is in the present, and one is in the past." Yeah? All right. That's, that, that dikduk we, we know. But then he says, This is now the explanation. To come to Eretz Yisrael, We do not need any preamble to get to Eretz Yisrael, to We are anticipating any moment to come to Eretz Yisrael. So therefore, we say, We are Eretz Yisrael. We are ready to be there in a, uh, in a flash. But as to be in a state of freedom, that is something, So he seems to be differentiating being, being physically in Eretz Yisrael and the Geulah. So, uh, That's not so obvious that the... You can come to Eretz Yisrael whenever you want. But, uh, flights permitting, by the way. Um, but to be Bnei Chorin, that's beyond us, and it needs

58:11 Speaker 1 to the Geulah, and it's not so, not so much, not so obvious. So that's what the Friediker Rebbe said. Then the Rebbe adds in brackets, as he signs himself, the one who's recording this. I understand the difference between coming to Eretz Yisrael and, uh, the Geulah, but I don't still understand how that's got to do with the present tense and the future tense. Don't fully understand because I think what he's saying is, "Why can't we have Mashiach now, right away, and have therefore Bnei Chorin this year too? Why is it Shona- why is it for next year?" Then, I'm gonna finish off with this. The Rebbe says, And the way... See, the, in the Urashima Sayuman, the Rebbe wrote things very short, and there's the first volume has it faithful as the Rebbe had written it. The second part of the volume has what they call Pianuach. How they've explored and ex- added, uh, words. So the way the editors understood, here the Rebbe is actually saying an opposite position. That the idea of freedom we've given, been given by Matan Torah. The idea of Bnei Chorin, that we have already from Matan Torah already. Whereas to come into Eretz Yisrael, we need to have the Geulah rather than what the Friediker Rebbe is saying that to come to Eretz Yisrael doesn't depend on the Geulah. The Rebbe's saying on the contrary, to come to Eretz Yisrael as it should be, we do need to have the Geulah. But it does... That seems to be...

1:00:05 Speaker 1 That, that seem, doesn't seem to fit at all with the difference between Taf Shin Pe Vav and Taf Shin Pe Zayin, uh, saying, uh, we need the Geulah, and Bnei Chorin we, we have already. See, I don't... It, it doesn't seem to fit with the explanation of the, the present and future tense. So that's what we have. The ikkar is we should this year, which is already come, Taf Shin Pe Vav. We should be and that should be with the Geulah Sheleimah with Moshiach Tzddkeinu. Uh, Kol Tuv. A guten Shabbos, and, uh, Shavua Tov. Kol Tuv.