בהר–בחוקותי תשפ״ו

00:02 Speaker 1 I think I heard it. Good evening. Welcome to tonight's shiur. Thursday evening of Parshas Vayera, and this coming Shabbos is Chanukah on top of it. So, let's go into our shiur. We might finish a little early. My lift up the road is at nine thirty, so if I get ten minutes to get up the road, that will, uh, be helpful for me. And so we'll see how we go. So the first question we have here, one of our listeners asks me the following. He, uh, let's say, has a dietary problem with sugar, and therefore when he has a cream cake, unfortunately, he has to remove the layer of cream. So now he's questioning, uh, about Shabbos. Can you remove the layer of cream and r-- and throw it away? So on Shabbos, there is a concept of berir, uh, of selecting bad from good is not okay. Uh, good from bad is also sometimes, but, but bad from good is definitely a problem. And in this case, it's not objectively bad. It's actually very tasty. But subjectively, for the person who's got a problem with excess sugar, so the cream is not okay. So it's subjectively psolis, and that's a, that's an issue. Now, fortunately, I found this direct-- question directly addressed by Rabbi, uh, maybe Fasil Forcash in the Sefer Shabbos Kahalacha and, uh, in Volume Two. Now, let's, let's, uh, go to the more well-known story of a... Well, first of all, cream floating on top of milk or fat floating on top

02:10 Speaker 1 of soup. So those of us who remember the, the milk bottles being delivered to your doorstep, and the top inch and a half was cream, and beneath that was, was milk. And if you wanted, you stirred, you, you, you shook up the bottle, and you had, uh, the milk mixed in. But if you wanted to have cream with your coffee, so you'd separate the cream from the top. And if you had a problem with too much fat in your diet, so you'd have to skim off that bit of cream. So in Shechinach, it talks about such a scenario where you want to remove the fat floating on the top of the milk or on the top of a, a, uh, soup, a chicken soup. Obviously not together, yeah. So now... So it says like this, "To remove all the cream from the milk, that's not okay because you're separating from two minimum, uh, two, two species, one from the other." What you can do, so you've got, let's say, an inch and a half of milk-- uh, sorry, of cream, and the rest is milk. So don't remove an inch and a half. Remove an inch, and there'll be a bit of cream left with the, with the milk. In this way, you've taken, shall we say, psolis away from psolis. You've taken the unwanted, part of the unwanted from the unwanted. That's okay. That's okay. But to take away all the cream, uh, from, from the, uh, from the milk, that's not okay. I

03:48 Speaker 1 don't know how, how practical it is, but let's say in theory to remove and to leave di- uh, no cream at all, that would be a problem of berir psolis min ha-oychel. Could be also oychel min hapsolis, but that's-- let's leave it simple. So now... So what Rav Forcash writes here, you have a problem with the cream on top of the cream cake, so r- take a knife and cut off ninety percent of the cream, and you'll leave a little thin layer of cream together with the, uh, cake. In this way, you've taken psolis away from psolis. Now, what happens if your sensitivity to cream is so acute that you have to take-- remove all the cream? Then he says, "If that's not..." So therefore, this first solution is not, not, not a-adequate. Okay. So then he says, "Take off all the cream and a thin slice of the cake." In this way, you've taken psolis and oychel away from oychel. Not very happy about that, and the reason is now let's come back to the fly in the soup. Now, in the Alter Rebe's Shechinach, in Simash Yinyotes, he quotes the Taz that in the case that a fly fell into the soup, so then you can scoop up the fly together with some soup. So you've taken the psolis and some oychel, and you've discarded them. So you're not just taking psolis away from oychel, you're taking also food away from... food together with the, with the, uh, fly. The Alter Rebe, the

05:32 Speaker 1 siddur, dismisses this, uh, solution, and the understanding of this is that since you're taking the fly and that s- lo-- spoon of soup, and you're throwing them all away. So then what are you telling me that the spoon of soup is oychel? You're throwing it away. So in your mind, the fact that you're discarding it means it's by you, it's psolis. So the fact... So that's taking the li-- the fly with the soup and this throwing it all away is taking psolis away from oychel. In that case, the same story here. To take away the cream with a thin layer of, of cake and discarding it is the same as taking the fly together with some soup because you're gonna throw them all out in any case. It's treifles, you know, echo. So that, that's where we have a problem. What does the Alter Rebbe actually advise? He, uh, comes up with an interesting Chiddash, uh, and that is where he says, "Instead of scooping the fly out of the soup with some soup, tilt the bowl, and the fly, it can be... blow it even, and then it will go overboard. Then you'll tilt the, the bowl back." In this way, I understand what he's saying is you're taking f- the, um, you're taking the soup away from the fly. If you're allowed to take... allowed to take the good away from the bad, you are allowed to. So that's the Alter Rebbe's, uh, solution, to tilt the bowl, and then once the fly's

07:00 Speaker 1 gone overboard, you tilt it back. All right, so that's what we have here so far. Rav Farkash is, uh, saying better to leave a little bit of the cream. That would be soyless, away from soyless. But to take away all the cream plus a bit of, of oil, that could be a problem. Okay, I'm looking here at the couple of questions, uh, on the f- on the chat. Why can I take chicken skin away? The cream is edible. I thought from good, good, good from good is okay. Yeah. So you are allowed to peel a banana on Shabbos. Are you taking the peel away from the banana? That's because that's called derech achilah. You can only get to the food without taking away the peel. That's, that's, that's permitted. So if you've got chicken and for... By the way, the skin is very gishmak, yeah? It's just that, uh, it could be for your diet it's not good. But you can't get to the chicken without removing the skin. So it's like peeling. That's called derech achilah. That's okay. But when it, that... when that peeling is not the, doesn't answer the question, then we have a problem of taking what, what subjectively is, is soyless. Take it away. Now, now you said good from good is okay. That's also, that's true only if it's for immediate use. But let's say to separate good for good from good for delayed use would be an issue of boire. So let's say an example. You have a

08:40 Speaker 1 Friday night, you s- had a platter of meat, and you had some cold cuts of salt beef, and you had some, some s- turkey slices, and you had some, uh, salami. Then you had a nice spread, and, uh, Baruch Hashem, everyone's happy, and everyone's eaten, and there's quite a bit left over. Now, the nature of these things is that the... if you leave them together, the salami has got a strong garlic taste and this, that. You don't want them to stay together. Therefore, you'd want to take all the salami, put them in one container, and all the salt beef in another container, and all the, uh, the turkey in another container. That's not allowed. So again, you're allowed to separate good from good for immediate use. If you want to have here a salami here and, and turkey here and serve it as separate platters for immediate use, that's okay. But to sort it out, to leave it, uh, in storage, so to speak, even for, for, for an hour later, that wouldn't be okay. All right. The, the problem with the cream here is why is I seeing it-- I'm saying it's soyless? Because he's throwing it away. And I say it's subjectively for this person. So if he had, uh, an ankle right next to him who loves the cream, and he takes the cream from the cake and gives it to his ankle while the mom, while the mommy's not looking, then that's okay because it's gonna be eaten. It's gonna be

10:01 Speaker 1 enjoyed. But if he's gonna throw it away, it is soyless. Okay, let's move on. What's our next question? So here's a f- the following scenario. There's a hospital, and f- they have security. When you come to the hospital and you want to go in, they ask you who you're visiting, and they... you have to show ID, a passport or something, uh, identification. And once they're satisfied that you are not a terrorist, rachaman lilant, so then they give you a wristband. On the wristband is your details and, uh, and then you can go in and out of the hospital. So long as you show the wristband, you're, you're good. Question here is, over Shabbos, so someone is staying as the kehillah have provided very generously, uh, hachnasat orchim for relatives near the hospital. So, but to get from the hospital to, to the hachnasat orchim and back, you have to go across the street. So are you allowed to wear this wristband on your wrist when you're going from across the street? Is not, that not cal- called carrying? So this question has been already addressed years ago in the Sefer Shemiras Shabbos Kehillchasa, and he says it's a problem because it's not a piece of jewelry, and it's not a garment. Garments are worn either to keep you covered, patznias, or to keep you warm. Wristbands serve neither purpose. What you could say, uh, what about a piece of jewelry? A piece of jewelry is an ornament to make me, make, make the person look

11:45 Speaker 1 more attractive. Fine. But a wristband with a identity ID does not that, do that either. So it doesn't enhance the persona. So that's a problem. So what, what he writes is, in the Shemiras Shabbos Kehillchasa, Rav Novard writes, "If you could make this wristband as a kind of- Uh, band to hold your sleeve. You know, I haven't seen these in years. Right, it used to, it used to be common. Gentlemen used to have special elasticated bands which they would hold up their, their sleeves. So if you would use this as somehow to hold your sleeve together, you'd unbutton the buttons of your sleeve, and instead you'd have this wristband keeping your wrist, uh, your, um, sleeve in place. He says that's, that's the heter which he gives 'cause then it's serving your dressing. Good. But otherwise he does have it as a prop. Now then, Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein in the Sefer Toras HaYoreh De'ah comes up with another heter, and he says, "Look in Igros Moshe," where he talks about wearing a watch on Shabbos. Now, we've gone through this before, how in Chabad we don't accept the heter to wear a watch on Shabbos. Um, one, one... According to one report, my Zayde was told by the Tchebiner Rebbe, "Shabbos, tahr min it, un, un Yom Tov darf min it." Another discussion. But, uh, the Rabbi Moshe talks about it, Limud Zchus, for those who do wear watches on Shabbos, and he says, "Possibly it's considered Levusha, considered wearing, since you wear it mamash

13:30 Speaker 1 on your skin." What's his proof? You have a... It says, "Tabas yesh alah chosom," a ring with a seal. So in the Gemara, in, in, in, in Mishnah, it says, for a man, it's not, it's not oiver an aveira he's wearing such a ring on Shabbos. It's considered an ornament. Uh, well, he says... So Rabbi Moshe says like this: "Of course, the signet ring is used for sealing, for when you have to seal a document. And if it's, the seal is broken, so he's not gonna wear it 'cause it's not serving its function. And yet, he's allowed to wear it on Shabbos. It's not considered carrying." Why? So he says, because it's worn mamash on the body, therefore it's called Levusha. And if so, the wristwatch, which is a watch worn directly on the wrist, is also called Levusha. Now, is... I, I don't really accept his argument, although his comparison is nice. As I said, a garment in my understanding is either for warmth or for cover, for tznius. If it's neither, then it doesn't really qualify as a garment. So what then? Why is there heter to wear the ring? It could be that in Geonim, it's true, true, a man would wear a signet ring to seal documents, but that would morph into this plastical mensch, so then you go around with such a, a, a, a ring. If you don't have such a ring, you are as looked down as, as a, as a battlin, as a schlepper. I don't have

15:03 Speaker 1 a signet ring. So therefore, it kind of from becoming a tool for sealing, it becomes a, a status symbol. And you can say the same thing with a watch. Yes, I accept that. You can say the watch is really just to keep the time. You can do that from a clock on the wall also. It's not a garment as such. But it, um, a, a gentleman who doesn't wear a watch is perhaps less today because we've got mobile phones, et cetera. But perhaps a m- a man without a watch is considered a nishkan shleimos ha'adam, so therefore it adds to his persona. I want to bring another proof to this sevarah. There's a discussion in the Mishnah, Machlokes Tana'im, whether wearing a sword on your waist is considered a tachshit or not. And one of the Tana'im says, "If it were a tachshit," it says, "Moshiach comes, that people will no longer have swords." Therefore, zarai, it's not a tachshit. But let's go back and let's say, uh, people would wear swords, even Los of Loroy, let's say, or the other Tana. Say it would consider it a tachshit. But why are you wearing a sword? Of course, it's a weapon. In case you need a weapon or you need, need to cut something, you have the sword by your waist. So then it's for a function. But the same sevarah, since it became so fashionable that a j- a, a man would walk around with a knife at his waist, therefore it became a

16:37 Speaker 1 status. And without it is a halber mensch. All of this is very nice, but it doesn't work for the, for the wristband because the wristband doesn't make you more of a mensch or less of a mensch. It doesn't... It's not mashlim. It doesn't, doesn't com- complement your profile in any way. Therefore, I don't see, uh, that heter. And so coming back, it is a problem. And the one solution you have here is to use it as a, uh, to keep your, uh, sleeve closed. Um, so I was talking about this in class with the girls, and one of the girls says, "What happens if I'm not wearing such a garment which needs, uh..." So another girl said, "Well, make sure to wear for Shabbos. If you have this situation that you're gonna have to, um, be in a hospital and walk across the street with such a band, make sure to wear such a shirt, which will need to have some kind of, um, band." Okay, let's move on. Now, I'm just sharing here things which are, uh, shtick or chidushim, which I find, uh, in, in informative and news to myself, and I felt that I want to share them. So here's the following story, that someone has a guest who came on Yom Tov, and they brought a, let's say, a box of chocolates. But the host or hostess has every, ha- has a strong suspicion That they were bought on the day of Yom Tov from a shop. There's a shop nearby

18:13 Speaker 1 which, which also you can buy kosher chocolate there. And so she's worried that it was bought on Yom Tov, and therefore the guest would very much bring this nice chocolates after dinner. They're serving tea, which would be part of the schleimus would be to serve these fancy chocolates. Are, are you allowed to serve the chocolates which were likely bought on Yom Tov from a shop? So I'd like to say that what I, what I responded, if it were Shabbos, that would be a problem because if it was for sure. It was for sure bought on Shabbos. Don't forget, it was never mind bought from a store on Shabbos, if it was brought th-through the street on Shabbos, so it was melacha of carrying, and if it's a big city, it's just a Rabbeinu Tam, unless there's an eruv. So that would be a problem because there's a concept called maaseh Shabbos. Maaseh Shabbos means that Mid'Rabbonon there is a knas, a, a penalty, that if something was created through a violation of Shabbos, you're not allowed to have benefit from it until the end of Shabbos. So therefore, you have here this, uh, if something was brought to you on Shabbos in violation of carrying in the street on Shabbos, then that would be a problem, maaseh Shabbos. Now, however, here we have in Shechinat HaKodesh Siman Tov Kof Alef Halachot Yom Tov. In this respect, Yom Tov is more lenient than Shabbos, as you may know, that the penalty for a violation of Shabbos

19:48 Speaker 1 is Kores and Sechel. It's a very, very enormous chatos. Yom Tov, it's a lav, so it would be malkos. So it makes... It puts Yom Tov on a lower level of severity. And possibly because of that, the halacha is here, if... Now we know that we're not meant to strike a match to create a fire, ignite a fire on Yom Tov. This is a Rabbonou of moled. Interesting. Also, last is the Yom Tov, Nesher Moled. The Kiven Shehoyo Efshe Lasos Meerev Yom Tov also last of Yom Tov. Interesting combination of two points here. It's creating something new and hadn't been possible to do it before Yom Tov. Had it not been possible, then you would be allowed to be moled. But since it's possible to avoid, okay, whatever, that's a side clause. The main thing here is it says here that the Knas for violation of Yom Tov, there's no Knas for violation as Yom Tov as it is a Knas for violation of Shabbos HaChamura. So therefore, the concept of Maaseh Shabbos. Since something was, um, this benefit was, was brought to me through a violation of Shabbos, that would be if it's on Shabbos, but not on Yom Tov. In one of the seforim I wrote about this, it can be... I'm sure it's a very common situation where shluchus have, uh, someone invited for Shabbos dinner, and they, they are within walking distance, not a question in that respect. But they come in, they bring a gift, and then kind of it

21:20 Speaker 1 becomes a conversation, where are the chocolates, why, why don't you serve them? So what I say is the following. On the one hand, there's a mitzvah of hirheach lehgirach. You have to tell people you have to keep Shabbos. To go and start telling them, you know, they're not ready for it. They're not, they're not kale in possibly in your judgment. That I can understand. When they say, um, "Rebbitzen, well, you know, how about serving those chocolates?" Then you, then you can say, you know, "I'm really sorry that I can't serve them, but because they were brought on Shabbos, we can't have them on Shabbos." You can say it in a quiet way, in a private way, and the people should understand that, that, uh, something which is brought on Shabbos, so it's, it's hirheach lehgirach. We have a mitzvah of telling them. And when it's brought up in such a way, one could say it in a sensitive way that we cannot use it on Shabbos because of the... It was brought in a forbidden way. Right. Let's go on to the next question, and that is, uh, about a chosson giving a ring to the kallah. Someone's asking about the previous point about the, um, wristbands, garters for socks. Would also... Yes, if it, if it works. Nowadays, our socks are elasticated. The garters for socks are not usually so, uh, necessary. But yeah, if that's can be done, yes. All right. Let's come to our, our chosson. And so I got this question,

22:56 Speaker 1 I think, from two people. But one was a girl who is meeting a, a young man, and he gave her a gift worth fifty dollars. And she's asking, she's asking is... At the moment, at the time, I didn't realize, but was it wrong for me to have received, accepted the, uh, the gift? Okay. So truthfully, I did do a little bit of looking around, and I'm sure there are out there some books which give guidance of behavior out on when, when, when chosson and kallah are meeting before the shadchan. But I d- I don't, I don't have such a sefer, uh, or at least I didn't find it. But meanwhile, this is from the Sefer, um, Nittei Gavriel on Shidduchim. So he writes, there's a minhag to give a kallah, a chosson to g- to give a kallah a ring on the engagement. Then he says that a particular gadol introduced that you shouldn't be giving an engagement ring because of the concern of Kiddushin. And in the note, he brings for the minhag of giving an engagement ring. Very interesting, that's why I'm sharing it to you. That it says in Parashat Hasavah, "Eis shtei hatavos." Those three words is rosh yotzeves isho. And there's a remez that a, a wife is given two rings. Cute. One for the engagement and one for the, for the marriage. Cute. What was the reason why some gedolim, including the Rebbe, uh, a-a-phased or, um, um, discouraged giving an engagement ring? Because the engagement is in a,

24:50 Speaker 1 in a, in a large measure very similar to the erusin, which was done in times bygone, months before the wedding. So there's two phases in marriage in Halakha. There's the betrothal, the, the reservation that we are committed to one another. And then there is moving in together as husband, husband and wife. And once the isho, once a woman has received Kiddushin, if they decide not to go ahead with getting married, then she has to have a Get. Now, if the engagement ring is given, what is engagement? It means also a commitment. Therefore, it's got strong resemblance to the Kidushin ring, and if it's done in the presence of A- of Eidim, so then it could be seen as Kidushin. And therefore, if, Chas v'Shalom, the Shidduch falls apart, then it's not enough just to do Michah one another. It would have to be with a, with a Get. And so to avoid this, the Rebbe, and he brings a whole thing from Rav Henkin, uh, um, very strongly discouraged the giving of an engagement ring at the engagement. To, um... After the... So in Lubavitch, as far as I hear, is-- comes, uh, by the shi- by the Yichud room, in addition to the ring, ring which was given under the Chuppah, which is a plain gold, uh, wedding band. Also, the Choson will then give engagement ring with a stone, whatever, so the, the engagement ring. So the engagement ring is given later, not at the time of just the engagement. Then he goes

26:22 Speaker 1 further, and he writes the following. That after the Tenaim are read, but again, I'm not gonna go into this now. Chabad, we don't do Tenaim at the engagement. We only do it on the day of the Chasuna. But in the custom, uh, many, uh, do still do Tenaim at the engagement. So then the Choson gives a battala to the Kalla, but it should be done not handing it directly, but rather putting it down nearby or through a third party, maybe his mother or his sister. So they're giving the gift through a, an, an indirect way. And just to clarify the balance here. On the one hand, why are you giving a gift? Because you want to create a Hirhur Hadas, whatever the word for that is in English. You want to create a certain closeness. That's why you're giving a gift. On the other hand, you know that you're not married yet, and therefore getting too close is inappropriate by Halakha, and therefore you give the gift with some kind of distance built in. If that's so, so let's just sum up this qu- point. Giving gifts after the engagement, yes, through an, through a third party. Certainly, this concern of overstepping the line of getting too close would apply before the Shidduch is closed when meeting. And therefore, I believe that is indeed the Minhag to avoid giving gifts at, at that stage for, for the reason of respecting at the moment we are trying to get to know one another, but we're not

27:58 Speaker 1 overstepping the line. Let's move on, and, um, so I had-- This question came from a couple, couple of directions. On Lag BaOmer, a Shliach did a barbecue. And one of the people who's close to him, who offered to do the barbecuing, so he unfortunately is not Shomer Shabbos in any way. And so one of the other guests at this event, by this barbecue said, "You know, if he's not a Shomer Shabbos, is what he's doing, uh, roasting this meat on the barbecue, is it not a problem with Bishul Akum?" So here what you have on the screen is from the Epistolae Shur, at the beginning of Heres Bishul Akum Yodea Kot Git Gimmel. And he quotes from one source that the reason for Bishul Akum, why Chacham forbade us from having what was cooked by a Goy, is because of having their nice Gishmakah cooked food will bring down barriers and bring to intermarriage. If that's the reason, if the reason for Bishul Akum, for being forbidden, is be- to deter intermarriage, but when it comes to a Mechal Shabbos, he used the word Mumar. So a Mumar, a person who has dropped Yiddishka totally and switched even to another religion. So when it comes to everything else, we say he's like a Goy. When it comes to marriage, he's considered like a Yid. And therefore, this person, if he wanted to, if you want to marry his daughter, et cetera, you would be allowed to. Therefore, there's no Bishul Akum by a, by a,

29:43 Speaker 1 by, by a Mumar. A Mumar is not considered a Goy in relation to Bishul Akum. But then he brings another reason, and that is why do we-- why should we not be eating what a Goy cooked? In case the Goy mixed in some non-kosher ingredients. And if so, a person who has dropped Yiddishka totally, is also you can't trust him. Of course, you can say now in this immediate environment, I've brought the meat, I've brought the barbecue, I've brought the, uh, whatever ingredients, therefore, I don't have to worry. But all right, so there, there is... Here we have two opinions, and Lechatchilah one shouldn't rely on, uh, a M- a Mechal Shabbos Jew to, to have it, to allow him to cook food for you to be kosher food. That's Lechatchilah. So I said, in the future, the Shliach said you should be lighting the fire, and in this way, it's considered Bishul Yisroel, at least for Ashkenazim. Right. Uh, if you're involved a little bit, poke the fire a bit, fine. So this I got from one angle. Then I got from another angle, a Shliach says to me that his, uh, a girl who was Niskal for him and his wife went off to Eretz Yisroel, to Ma'ayanot or wherever- And Baruch Hashem, she's Shomer Torah mitzvos. She's come back home to the UK, and her parents have kindly gone kosher, but they're not Shomer Shabbos in the least. So now one of her friends told her, "Do you realize that when it

31:24 Speaker 1 comes home-- when you come home, what mo- whatever your mom cooks, it's gonna be Bishul Akum because she's not Shomer, she's not Shomer Shabbos, Mekalel Shabbos, which means every time mom cooks, you're gonna have to light the fire for her." I said to, to the Shaliah, "This is not gonna work. That's gonna be... That's-- that kind of relationship that every time the mother cooks, the girl is gonna have to say, 'Oh, Mama, you have to light the fire before you do that.' This-- you're asking for an explosion there. And therefore, we're going to have to rely on the more lenient opinion to say that it's only got to do with Chasnos. And even the second opinion, which has got to do with Devarim Basurim, she's in the house, she sees the ingredients, she sees there's no treif of stuff in the house. You're going to have to rely on the lenient view and say it's called, um, that's not a problem of Bishul Akum." So depending on the situation, bring in this Chal Shabbos chef. Don't go that way, LeChatchilah. Bedieved, there is room to be Mekil. And in the case where you cannot be Makmir, then there's room to be Mekil. Let's move on. So I don't usually talk about, um, Aveles stuff, but, uh, on this, uh, show, but okay. What happened here, the, uh, the shaal has come up many times. Someone, um, has lost a relative, for which he therefore has to sit shiva. And during a shiva, a man or

32:56 Speaker 1 woman is asked to do Melacha. They're not allowed to do regular work. They're not allowed to trade. And so then what happens with their business? What happens to the shop? So simply put, yes, it should be the shop should be closed for the week due to bereavement. What happens, though, if it is a partnership or when this-- it's a big investment, and this-- and to stop for a week is going to cause a signi-significant loss. So there are ways around it. So one way is to write over the whole property, the whole, uh, the business, to write it over to someone else. It's no longer... It's not yours. It belongs to someone else. For the week of shiva, it belongs to someone else, and that way the business can continue to function. Now, what I saw in Nittei Gavriel, it brings us, in the case of partners, some a-allow even less than that. Just that one of the, the partner who is the, the, the, uh, mourner, the Shl, the Avel, he just says, "I'm, I'm withdrawing, um, um, any interest for, for this week. It's not to do with me." And then the other partner takes over. In the Sefer of the Madrich written by Rav Levi Garelik, he published there two pages, a Hebrew and an English document for the transfer where the Oinen would be able to write over, uh, his, this business. Now it belongs to someone else. So that is, that is a solution that the business should be able

34:38 Speaker 1 to continue to run, and it's not his, or hers for that matter, uh, for the week of shiva. What I-- someone asked me, "What happens with the income generated?" So the truth-truthfully, I don't have an answer to that. I didn't find an answer to that. In m-many cases, it's not a question of a week-to-week income. It's something which the case which I had this week was someone in Eretz Yisrael has a, a nursery of plants, fruit, vegetables. It's not a week-to-week thing. It's, uh, it, uh, goes over weeks. It has workers and to maintain the, the, the, the, uh, greenhouses, whatever. So you can't stop for a week because it's gonna go all to ruin. But it's not as if there's a, a, uh, profit generated per week. Let's put it more simpler. If there were a, a profit generated per-- during that week, it would make sense that you're withdrawn, and then you shouldn't be keeping the profits. It should whoever you gave it to, especially as a partner. Okay. So you're withdrawn for that week. Um, but I did not find this discussed in, in Poskim. Uh, I'm going back to one of our listeners talking about a hospital where there's no Eiruv Chatzeres. Can you move from ward to ward? And the answer is yes. The hospital is all Reshus Hayachid within the buildings for sure. Don't know about the grounds. That would have to be i-i-inspected. Are there walls around the grounds? But the-- i-in the hospital, there's, there's no private,

36:15 Speaker 1 uh, ownership there. It's even less than a hotel. A hotel, at least you have... If you're reserved to sit in a particular room, you could say, "Oh, I need to have an Eiruv because it's my room." In a ho-- in a hospital, you're mamish at their mercy. You know, this room, that room. They, they, they can move you around. There's no ownership there. And so therefore, it's all... There's one... Sorry, there's no private ownership. There's a management of the hotel, of the, of the hospital, and so it's all one Reshus. It's Reshus Hayachid. It's not what's called the Reshus HaMoireves. It's not multiple owners in the premises and therefore requiring an Eiruv. It's just a single owner. Let's go back to our list. Okay. So now we have in benching and in davening very similar phrases. In the Bracha of Ahavas Olam, we say, "Ush'voreh ol hagoyim me'al tzaforeinu." Uh, we say, uh, "Chenu mehira v'me'oz la'atzem." Break the yoke of the goyim from our necks, from upon our necks. And we have a very similar lotion in bentching. "Harachaman hush'voreh ol galus me'al tzaforeinu. U'henu mehira v'me'oz la'atzem." So now, going back. So, um, well, let's go back to the previous slide. So Reb Boruch Noah, son of Reb Chaim Noah, wrote to the Rebbe, uh, about why is Harachaman in bentching different to the same bakasha in, in, in, uh, in, uh, in, in Birchas Keriat Shema in Ahavas Olam. He should say, "Ol hagoyim," and not, "Ol galus." The Rebbe answered, "Gam

37:55 Speaker 1 da'ati chen hu." I agree with you that it should be ol hagoyim too. So let's come back to... So this is on the top right of the screen. This is from the first print of the Alter Rebbe Siddur which we have. And there it says, "Ush'voreh ol ha'akum me'al tzaforeinu." So to-- Now, there was always the worry about the censor checking the Jewish, uh, um, um, books, seforim, and if they see something which is offensive, so they, uh, would, um, block the printing. So whenever there's a, something disparaging for goyim, so then the, the printers would put the word, "Ha'aku." Those are so-- serving stars and, and, um, and constellations. "Harachamim mazalos." And they would then leave a very seforim at the beginning, at the inside of the front page. Have it wherever it says goyim, we don't mean the n- the goyim today, which are civilized and friendly and, uh, refined people. It's referring to the pagans who were, uh, half cannibals kind of thing. That's, that was the, that was the excuse. So they, so they put, "Ol ha'aku me'al tzaforeinu." And then at a later print, you see here, that was perhaps also not good enough. "Ush'voreh uleinu me'al tzaforeinu." To break our yoke from upon our necks. Now, before going further, what is more offensive to the Omes Olam? To say, "Ol hagoyim," or, "Ol galus"? And so I think it's quite obvious to say, "You, the goyim, are my problem." And, "Ush'voreh ol hagoyim me'al tzaforeinu," that is a greater

39:41 Speaker 1 offensive state-- m-more offensive statement to say, "Ol galus." There is a, there is a situation. There's a world situation. We are in galus, and may that be, uh, taken off our yokes, uh, off our necks. So ol galus is a milder offense than ol hagoyim. And so back to our question, why in Ahavas Olam is it one way, and why in bentching is it another way? And just before we wrap up, we have here also another print. This is from Tafresh Chaf Ches. And it has here, "Ush'voreh uleinu me'al tzaforeinu." And the bentching also has, "Ush'voreh uleinu me'al tzaforeinu." So you see it's fluid. It's uleinu, ol, ol, uh, ol galus, etc. And so what's very interesting that the, the Rebbe here, this is around Tof Shin Lamed, Lamed Aleph, had responded to Boruch Noah that he also agrees that in bentching, we should also say, "Ol hagoyim." However, as I noted in the Mesrieder, the publishing, the publishing house called Kehos asked the Rebbe whether they should change this in the print. And the Rebbe said, no, they shouldn't change it. So, so again, the, in bentching, it says, "Ol galus." And although the Rebbe agreed to say, "Ol hagoyim" in bentching, but in the print, he wanted it to stay the way it was. So you can explain this on various levels. You can say, I just happened Be'hazkar Haprotis, learning Gemara, uh, Kidushin today, Chaf Daled, Chaf Daled Lamed Aleph. And it says there, a lotion of, uh, Mishne Eino Zozim Mim

41:25 Speaker 1 Komo. And Rashi says, "Once people have gotten used to saying thing in a particular way, so then it's difficult to change the way you express." And therefore, possibly on a very simple level, the Rebbe's saying, since people are used to saying it this way, let them continue saying it this way. You don't have to change it in the print. That's one level. Another level is that, and I've seen this elsewhere, there's a special tefillah which is added on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur in Ma'ariv. Avinu Malkeinu, um, uh, uh, there's a, uh, there's a whole list of things which you ask Hashem to protect us from. Now, if you take a look in the older print, it says one of those thirteen things, which I mentioned, I think, is Ushmad. And then later prints, the word Ushmad was taken out. Now, Ushmad means where the goyishe authorities or whoever would forcefully convert Jewish people to become Christians. And somehow, this was a sensitive point, and it was dropped. Now, today, we don't have to worry about having that in the, in, in the Maariv. And yet, the Rebbe told them not to put it back. There's possibly a certain diplomacy that, uh, not, not to write. If things are there, it, it was... I'm, I'm re-eyeing in Ahavas Olam. I'm just reprinting a siddur which was printed in Vilna s- fifty years ago, a hundred years ago. I'm just reprinting. But to, to prepare a new text, oh, we are going to object to the

43:02 Speaker 1 Ol, Ol hagoyim, uh- Perhaps that's the diplomacy which the Rebbe was taking a line not to put it in their face, so to speak. Okay, um, now, another couple of points we have. And w- someone asked me, we say in, in, uh, before, before Boruch, "Shem Yechud Kodsh Burchu Le Yachud Hashem Yud Kei B'vov Kei." And he asked, "What's this Yud Kei? There's no such word in Hebrew, Kei. There's a word-- There's letter He, but what's supposed Yud Kei? So what we're saying this Kei for?" Then it's, it's like it doesn't, doesn't make sense. So happily, that's the way I was taught when I was learning to daven some sixty years ago, and it seems to be across the board that's the way it was taught. And here you have the Gemara Aved Zahra talks about - One who utters, who articulates Hashem's name with its letters. So one way would be to say a person who pronounces, utters the Shem Yud Kei B'vov Kei, a, i, o, that is Hoyges Hashem, which is forbidden. Tosafot says it means if you say the four letters. If you say Yud and then a He and then a Vav and then a He, that's also called Hoyges Hashem B'vov Kei. And the Arizal writes the Hiddor. Hiddor lived about two hundred years ago. The Arizal follows, accepts the words of Tosafot, that we should not be uttering the four letters of Hashem's name in succession. That you say Yud and He, et cetera, is also included. And

44:59 Speaker 1 therefore, if you did have that, um, coming out, you should say like this, Yud A, He Oyi, uh, et cetera. Uh, Yud A, Yud A, He, and then, uh, A, Vav, A, He, et cetera. Yeah. So the, uh, this Yud Kei thing, thing comes-- is already recorded by the Hiddor, uh, as I say, about two hundred years ago. Now, the question re-remains. I mean, it's not a-- It's not, it not-- This doesn't mean anything. So my answer to him is, to this question, when it's a Bracha or a Tefillah, then you need to say Hashem's name as best as you can. So you don't say Yud Kei B'vov Kei, you'll say, um, Adonai, et cetera. But in the Shem Yechud, it's not a Tefillah as such. It's kind of referring to a concept. We're mentioning about a concept of Yechud, Yud Kei and Vav Kei. It's a Kabbalistic concept which we are ref-- alluding to, we're referring to. Therefore, it's okay to use with a, a, a Hinui, with an indirect pronunciation. And really, when it comes to the Herutz and the Krishma Shel Amita, about the Dalet B's, so it's, there it's clearly you have it in Bagamdi Beshem Yud Kei B'vov Kei. How else can you say it? You can't say with the He because that's Hoyges Hashem B'vov Kei, which we're not allowed to do. So the only way you can do it is Yud Kei B'vov Kei, whether we're saying Kei. So that remains Minig Yisro to say Yud, Yud Kei.

46:42 Speaker 1 And, uh, that's how it's published in the Annotated Siddur. And, uh, as I say, this seems to be the widespread Minig Yisro, whoever says Yud-- this, this Shem Yechud says Yud Kei, as far as I know. Okay. On the list, I did put also a question number nine is, can we have a joint Sheva Berachos for... In this our Kehillah, we have two Chasunahs, two weddings, and we want to make a communal Sheva Berachos. Can we have the two Chasanim and Kallas at the one Sheva Berachos? Now, I'm not going to answer that question. Now, I didn't have the time to look into it. Briefly, I did see in the Ramoh that you c-- in, uh... That it says you can do it, and that would mean one set of Sheva Berachos covering for both couples. Uh, now, and then if you want to have separate, then I saw in one of the Sufam saying about sending the one Chasan out and then doing one, then the other Chasan comes in. What I do remember then is by the Rebbe often, now it's, it's useful to the younger people who don't remember this, by the Rebbe was often a case where they did Sheva Berachos at the Fabregen, at the end of the Fabregen. And there would be several Chasanim sometimes, and it would be a couple of times Sheva Berachos. So it needs a little bit more homework before saying something definitive. So I'm gonna leave that. And the last thing which I had

48:10 Speaker 1 was the same fellow who challenged me about the Yud Kei B'vov Kei also referred to what I'd spoken about a couple of weeks ago, talking about small communities, or not even communities, where they don't get a Minyan. And we'd had a couple of things about doing a Kriyat HaTorah. So one of the things was, what about doing a Zoom Erev Shabbos session? And, uh, I w-- I said, don't call it a Friday night session, call it a pre-Shabbos session. And so this fellow says to me that this is very common now i-in the Reform or Conservative. They do a, uh, an Erev Shabbos, uh, session, a Kabbalat Shabbos on Zoom. A Kabbalat Shabbos, uh, in, in the winter, it's gonna be six o'clock. In summer, it's gonna be six o'clock. It's always... And they, they don't have the restrictions of the, of the Yemini. Um, and therefore, he says we shouldn't be, um, we shouldn't be doing things which the Reform are doing. And there are things which the Rebbe did object to, um, when someone wanted to make a Tefillah group led by a woman Hazzanit, et cetera. The Rebbe's response apparently to Rabbi Kunin was, uh, find out how the Conservative movement started and et cetera. So certain innovations, true, which the Reform, et cetera, are doing is something which we shouldn't do. I'm not saying something here definitive. I think there's a difference where you have a community, and you have a Takka Kabbalat Shabbos with a Minyan, and then, uh, to

49:48 Speaker 1 separately or to put that on, on Zoom, whatever, however you can do that, um, that I think your objection is, is valid. But if you have a case where you don't have people coming together Friday night at all, and this way you're going to be able to communicate them with, uh, on a, on a weekly basis, and you're going to remind them when Shabbos is, and you're gonna say share them, share with them something Shabbos. I can-- I see that in a much more positive light than, uh, and I see the benefits outweigh perhaps the, the concerns which the person raised. But, uh, I'm not there. Uh, this is a question from the United States, and it's something which should be, uh, decided, or as the Rebbe would say, "Al Chabad, Al HaSar, Al HaChlid." All right, I'm gonna finish with this tonight. As I said earlier, I'd like to get to Ma'ariv for nine thirty. So I'm gonna wish you all a Gutten Shabbos, and as we're getting closer to Shuas, Kabbalas HaTorah b'simcha v'pnimius. Cholov.

50:58 Speaker 2 Shkoyach.

50:59 Speaker 1 No problem.