בהעלותך תשפ״ו

00:03 Good evening. Welcome to tonight's Shiur. Parshas-- Thursday evening of Parshas Behaalotecha. We have some interesting Inyanim to talk about. So Sheilah number one, and that is, took me by surprise, this one. And that is the following. There's a fellow who does research and produces articles, and someone pays him, some company or whatever organization pays him for his researched articles. Works out that he has time on Shabbos, and they pay him per hour. So if he can spend ten hours, twelve hours, whatever it may be, he gives them an invoice, and they pay him for the hours which he put in. So he had been invoicing also, he has time on Shabbos afternoon. So he spent some time also on Shabbos doing his research, and he'd been giving them an invoice for his Shabbos time. And so in, in conversations, don't remember why he asked, but then I told him that I think it's a problem of earning money on Shabbos, problem of Schab Shabbos. So he says, "Okay, well, what about the back pay? What about all what I've been in the past?" So I said, "Let me look into it." And I'm pleased to say, and looking into it, it's not as, uh, not as, not as strict as I had, I had thought. There's, there is opening to what he was doing, Tefillat HaHeter. Now, everyone is familiar, there is a concept called Havlah, that for Shabbos, if you, uh, if you, let's say, are, are, are hired for a week and that

01:56 week includes Shabbos, then you can choo- you can be also paid for the Shabbos. Let's say the other way around. If I rent out rooms, I re-- I have a hotel, so I can-- how can I earn money on Shabbos? I'm charging not only for the food, I'm charging for the room also, and I'm, I'm not allowed to charge for Shabbos time. The answer is it's a package. I re-- I-- The room which is in the hotel is being, um, rented to the tenant, the guest, from, let's say, Erev Shabbos twelve o'clock until given time Motzaei Shabbos, let's say. So because it's Behavlah, because the package includes Shabbos and non-Shabbos, that's okay. But that's, uh, only if the Shabbos is not a separate unit. But here, he's invoicing for his Shabbos hours. That's where I was finding this as a problem. However, what you have on the screen is from Shmiras Shabbos KeHilchasa. Let's read this carefully. It says, "When does Tashlumin, payment Behavlah work? If it works in a way that you ha- that you are expected to finish the entire unit. But as if it is just, uh, e-each kind of, each, each day is payable for that day, or each hour is payable for that hour, then you wouldn't be allowed to earn, be paid for Shabbos." So again, what we're seeing here is the following. If this person had been doing hourly work and whenever he-- for every hour, you can say, "All right, I've finished my work. I'm s- stopping

03:45 here. Here's the, um, here's my invoice," that would be a problem to be earning money on Shabbos. And even though there's no Melacha involved. So let's say a boy who's asked to make up a minyan to charge, to be paid for earning for, for, for, for Shabbos time is a problem. A babysitter is working just on Shabbos. It's not a question of Melacha. We're talking about time. Charging money for Shabbos, that's a problem. But if it's a, a situation where he's do- he's meant to produce articles which are researched, and he puts in whether it's five hours or nine hours or eleven hours, and he finishes his research and gives them a, a, a, a invoice for all the hours to... for this project. So although the hours of Shabbos are spelt out clearly, uh, in the invoice separately, but because he can't just give them an invoice for five hours, "Oh, I did the research, but I didn't finish it. I didn't finish the article." They say, "We're not interested. We want to have the full, the full job from beginning to end." And then since he can't walk away in middle, then the Shabbos units are not payable on their own, therefore, it's called Behavlah. So we have a very interesting new perspective, that the concept of Havlah is true even though the Shabbos hours are spelt out distinctly. The c-- The Havlah is that the project, the, the commitment, the, the contrac- the contract is larger, uh, and therefore you are able

05:25 to charge for the Shabbos time. So I have a similar situation with someone who has a, a, an agency for getting carers for families who aren't coping very well, and they get government money, and th-they will, the government will pay for carers of sorts to go into these homes. Now, these, the needs of these families may be actually Shabbos, no less, perhaps in some, some ways more. Let's say it's, uh, um, when there's no father figure in the family- And for the boy to go to shul on Shabbos is very important, and he can't... He feels uncomfortable to go on his own, so you need someone to chaperone him. So the one who gives him private lessons or something during the week would be the ideal person to also take Shloimale along with him to shul. But if he's not going to get paid, he may not be interested in putting on all the extra effort. On the other hand, could he charge for the time which he takes Shloimale to shul? According to what we're reading here, well, that is workable. You can work it out. When, when we employ this fella... Listen, there's a, a boy, Shloimale, who needs extra attention. He needs four hours a week. He needs two hours during the week, and he needs two hours on Shabbos. Can you take care of... Can you take care of Shloimale? It will be your project, and it will include Shabbos hours and weekday hours. And if he takes on the project,

07:00 yes, then, then it's one project, even though they are quantifiable hours for Shabbos. He's not to be, um, giving an invoice for the Shabbos hours. I found that, you know, a, a new discovery for me, and, uh, so that's gonna be very helpful. Okay. Let's go to an totally different topic, and that is about mezuzah. So what you're seeing on the screen is on the first picture to the right is a door, and it's opening onto a rooftop kind of balcony. And this door, however, is not in use. On the second picture, you can see the inside of this door and where it's been taped up, and there's plastic and whatever. It's, it's not used. And the question is, does, does such a door need to have a mezuzah? So we have here on the screen, we have from Shechinat Aharon here a deya where it says that a, a house which has got many entrances, and they're all made for Lech nisat v'yitziat bnei habayis. They're all made for going in and out, even if at a later stage there are less people in the house. And therefore, there are some of those doors which are not being used. In regular... Ein reguil en atah lo teseh felavah. They're no longer in use. And still, uh, they still have to have mezuzahs in each one. So an unused door needs to have a mezuzah. Now, you could challenge and say, "What do you mean? None, not used at all?" Et cetera. So here's a

08:42 question, and, uh, how do you decommission a door for the point that it should no longer need to have a mezuzah? So in Gemara Baba Basra, there's a discussion about the p- when there's a shared chutz, which means there's multiple, um, oh, there's tenants or whatever who j- who, who share a chutz. And then the question of dividing how much belongs to each one. There it says, "In front of each entrance, there's an area of dalet amos allocated to a- each entrance." So if Reuben has got three entrances and Shimon has got one entrance, so before going to divide the, the, the, uh, thing equally, we're first gonna allocate to Reuben three plots of dalet amos in front of his three doors, and Shimon will get only one plot of dalet amos in, in front of his doors, and then we'll divide the rest equally. I'm not sure of the details now. Uh, a- and, and even if, says Gemara, even if the doors or one of those doors or two of those doors have been bricked up, so long as the wooden frame is still there, then Reuben still has his entitlement to three doorstep plots because he's still got the doorway, even though it's been bricked up, but because the, the, the, uh, the door frame is still there. So some wanted to take the same approach for mezuzah and to say that so long as the door frame is there, it still needs to have a mezuzah. Others are less extreme, and

10:29 so that you can see the first opinion, which is косμηματικά products etzi mehol. That means you're still anticipating it perhaps at a later stage to reopen it. Therefore, they... Some say that's requires a mezuzah. But then we have a, a more, much more lenient opinion, says that if it's been blocked with nails or screws, that's enough to decommission it. So if inside here they put some kind of screws or, um, an angle bracket or something so that it becomes a melacha, um, to undo, then that would be enough to decommission the door, and it's now no, no longer a door. So in this case, they hadn't done that. So I said, "You need to put up a mezuzah." So they're asking with a bracha or without a bracha. So now you have these cupboards in front of the door. This is the Poskim. Other, other, other seforim also ask, "What happens if you put a whole wardrobe in front of the door? Is that enough?" And they say, "No, that's not enough." Now, this is, this is an interesting point because in Hilchot Shabbos, a structure which is the size of a minimum... size of a mikvah, which is one by one by three amos, size of a medium-sized fridge, that is already considered boine. It's, it's considered a binyan. Does that mean, though, so that a, a lo- a large cupboard could be called a binyan. But that doesn't mean you're not allowed to move it, so you're moving a bi- binyan. The fact

12:06 that it's, it's, it's, it's called the structure of a cupboard, it's called a bin, a wardrobe, let's say, is, uh, is the size of a, a, a boy you saw, but that doesn't mean you're not allowed to move it on Shabbos. And for that, for that same reason, you put it in front of the doorway, that doesn't take away the chi of mezuzah from the door. And what we'd... So, well, then he says here another opinion. If you lock the door with a, with a key, and you throw away the, the, the, the key. So then that's the statement of you're no longer interested in opening this door. So it's not so clear that there's... Look to every one of chi of mezuzah. The past is so long as, as you haven't screwed it down. It seems to be more that you should have to have a mezuzah. But since it's taka not in use totally, and so then I'd tell them not to make a bracha if they put up. But really, I don't know why there was... I mean, it's very nice. You want to spend another $150 on a mezuzah, and you can spend $2 on a, uh, on some screws. And, um, all right, but that's, that's their choice. Right. Let's move on. Now, we're going on to a dikduk kind of question. So in some sidurim, now we are familiar, the Eshes Chayil, which we say before Hiddesh when we come home Friday night. By the way, I must say

13:32 there's, uh, a new publication from Kochas on Eshes Chayil, a really beautiful volume. It goes through each pasuk, and it's, um, explaining which personalities, it's, um, tzitzkonios, leading, uh, female figures in Jewish history. And it, it's a beau- a really very well-researched volume. I enjoy using it. Um, but let's come back. So it was just published last, this past year, I think. So we have here the words lo yichbe balayno neiro. That her, her, her light is not ex- being extinguished by night. The dikduk is, is it balaylo or valaylo? Is it with a vays or with a bays? This is what the question was. And so, so I opened up Mikraos Gedolos, and I saw this with a bays. And then I said that, um, I think that's correct because you've got here a tipcha. Now let's explain what's the discussion here. We've got the bays or vays. We've got like, we've got six letters. The gad kafas, which can be sometimes what's called the gusho, bays and pei and tof. Or they can be refuya, and therefore it's vays and fei and saf. So what... There are different criterion which to de- de- to, to, to decide whether it's gonna be a bays or a vays, whether it's gonna be gusho or refuya. And amongst those criteria are if the preceding word, if this is the beginning of a word, and the preceding word ends off with one of four letters, aleph, hei, vav, yud, ehevi. What's special about ehevi? They are the

15:21 silent letters. They are letters which act as vowels. So let's say in the word, um, like in the word yichbe. If it hadn't had the hei, we would read it yich- y- y- yichev, let's say. And without the hei of balayla, I know here it's a Greek siv, we just say balayl, and so on. So the... You don't hear the... In the word balayla, you don't hear the huh sound. It's, so the hei is acting as a vowel. So that's the, the affinity of those four letters, aleph, hei, vav, yud. They are letters which act as, they are silent letters acting as vowels. So if there's a, if ehevi's at the end of the previous word, and then the following word begins with one of the six letters, we got, we got kafas, so then it's going to be softened. It's gonna be vays, it's gonna be fei and saf, et cetera. Ba mede vorumem. When is that true? When the trop, when the tunes are kind of connecting the two words. But there are trop which, there are tunes which are separators. And the words which they have, malachim and mashalsim, or mafsikim, or machabrim, mafsikim, whatever the terms are. So then if the, the trop on the preceding word is separating it from the following word, then it does not influence the bays to become a vays. So looking at this, this, uh, note over here, which I will read as a tipcha, now you've got mecha, tincha. So tipcha is a pause.

16:51 And therefore I said, that's correct. It shouldn't have an influence. But then someone correctly, uh, pointed out that there are different, there's a whole different language of trop for the three sforim, of Iyov, Mishlei, and Tehillim. The r- the, the, uh, trop is a whole different set. They're called in short Taamei Emes, Iyov, Mishlei, Tehillim. They've got different names and different, et cetera. And indeed, in Taamei Emes, which is, this is, um, in Mishlei, this symbol here is, is called a tarko, and it is categorized actually as a machaber, as a mashares, rather than as a mafsik. So it's, it's, it's strange. It's the same symbol, but in different language. There it means it's a disconnect, and in Taamei Emes it's a, it's a connector. Now, now I'm going to go back to this early edition. I think it's printed around, around the time the Alter Rebbe was born, around Tov Kuv. The, one of the most prominent medaktichim in, in, in Tanakh is known, uh, this, this sefer called Minchas Shai. And here you can see his name is Yedidiah Shloime Refoel Noretzi. See, he worked through the whole Tanakh and r- put a record all the different diyukim here. Although here he actually doesn't focus in his pirush. This is, I think, the earliest print with the Minchas Shai, and there you can see it's a valaylo rather than balaylo. And as I said, that is because the symbol under the yichbe is a taam, uh, mechaber in, in taam emes, and therefore

18:44 it... the he influences the beys to be a veis. So why is it here? So why in the Mikraos Gedolos do they g- do it this way? Well, probably, like myself, they weren't sensitive to the fact that this is a, a different meaning in, in taam emes language. So they, they, they may have mixed it up. And so that's probably why in the siddur it's there also as balaylo. But, uh, the correct version is in, w- is with a veis. Right. Um, number four: How do I calculate maaser or investments that keep on reinvesting their profits? That's a very good question, and it d- it really depends what the nature of the investment is. If it's a simple saving account in a bank and so then normally you get a, a statement at the end of the year that during this year you earned so much interest. Okay. So if you earned a thousand pounds interest this year, so you put aside a hundred pounds, um, for, for your, um, maaser tzedakah expenditure. Now, that's gonna be much more complicated if it's going to be an investment in a, in shares or in a property. That's gonna be much more difficult to work out how much have you actually earned during a given year. So that's, uh, gonna be difficult to work out. Right. Um, let's move on, and here I got into a whole very interesting topic. And that is how do you... when you are translating a berachah, how do you write Hashem?

20:26 How do you say Hashem's name? And if you see the bottom over here, where I've copied from the ArtScroll siddur, and they are saying, "Blessed are you, Hashem, our God, the King of the universe." So we've got here, what's, what's the... Well, I'll tell you where I see the problem. The problem is like this. Eleinu is our God, that's straightforward. But Yud Kei Vav Kei, we have an interesting situation where the meaning of Yud Kei Vav Kei could mean Hoyo Hoy Vev Yeye. He was, is. So you could use perhaps the word eternal. The eternal one. But then we don't pronounce it. In Hebrew, we don't pronounce it Yud Kei Vav Kei. We pronounce it Adni. So the word Adni, Adnai, however you want to say, it means master, Lord. So which one should we... When we say, when we're translating Yud Kei Vav Kei into English, do we, do we translate the primary w- word, which mean therefore e- the eternal one, or do you, um, do you say the way we translate it, uh, the way we pronounce it, and therefore the master? And besides that, whether you say eternal, the, uh, or the master, is... These are also questionable because they are not names, they are descriptions. Like you'd say, the merciful one. This is not a name, this is a toyar, this is a description. And so the names have a meaning, but they are names. And then you have things which are just descriptions, so they're not names, that, that

22:07 don't have kedusha of names. And this is really a dilemma. Now, so, so the... in the, the little bit of history here. In five thousand and six, the Chabad siddur, Tehillat Hashem, appears with an English translation. This is done by Reb Nissan Mangal, zal zayn gezunt. And in that translation, he translated, "Baruch atah Hashem eleinu, blessed are you, the Lord, or Lord our God." So eleinu translated our God. Um, Yud Kei Vav Kei, uh, is, uh... He pronou- he translated Lord. Okay? So as I've s- just said, there's, that's not such a clear-cut, uh, translation. All right, that's a decision. Then a contemporary, Rav Shlia by the name of Shmuel Pesach Bogomilsky, who is a rov in, in, uh, New Jersey, in, I think in Maplewood, and he started a whole, a whole, um, fuss about this. How that the word, the translation isn't accurate. On top of this, he, uh, he says that in, in, uh, the goyische world, he used the... In, in Christian world, you say the word Lord, it means Isa Ish. And therefore, when you tran- It's, it's inappropriate to translate, uh, um, the Lord our God, uh, our God, because the Lord is actually deceiving. It's misleading, sorry. So that was, that was around, around five thousand and six. And he wrote a lot about this. And then someone pointed out to Rav Bogomilsky, Rav Shmuel Pesach, that the Rebbe had printed a small booklet in... during the war years, tav shin, um, tav shin, uh, tav shin gimel,

24:21 tav shin daled, a small booklet, Blessings and Prayers. And that's a bilingual booklet. It was... It wasn't a, a copy. It was newly typeset, probably by Scholzinger Brothers. One side is Hebrew and the other side is English, and there the translation is, is, um, "Blessed are you, the Lord our God." And so when this was pointed out to him, so he felt, uh, contrite. He had spoken, he'd written so, so, so harshly, criticized that translation so harshly. And so he wrote to the Rebbe kind of apologizing for the way he had written so, uh, explicitly. He would have chosen some more, um, you know, milder language. And so the Rebbe responds to him. He says, "Don't worry about. On contrary, you should be asking. That's appropriate to ask." Then the Rebbe writes the following: "Pshito, that when I am magiya, when I, when I edit a booklet which is published through Mercaz L'Inyanim Chinoch and similar, the meaning of my checking over is the overall idea. Klalos harayon, the overall idea, the approach, et cetera, but not something as such, which is more, should we say, pedantic, how you exactly translate." And so the Rebbe kind of backed, um, kind of said, "It's okay, you can challenge. Even though we've written that in, in Mercaz L'Inyanim Chinoch, it's okay for you to challenge this." Subsequently, what I'm seeing is that Rabbi Bogomilsky wrote about this. Possibly the Rebbe encouraged him to. He wrote about this to several Rabbonim, which is published in their Seforim. One

26:17 was Rav Yolis, the Rav of Philadelphia. And, and then we have another one to Rav Lebas, Rav Agudas Harabonim. And they responded to him. This is-- You can see the date. It's Tof Shin Mem Alef. Now, some of them, I think both of them actually, i-identify with his anxiety, and they are suggesting to use a Hebrew word instead of Yud Heh Vav Heh. Instead of saying Lord, say Adoni. Blessed are you, Adonai, et cetera. Now, it looks like he also referred-- um, put this question to Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. And according to, uh, according to the report which we're given, Rabbi Moshe agreed with him. Now, this, this overall question has been dealt with by other Poskim, particularly Rabbi Moshe Shteinberg, Zotza"l talks about this, uh, and also suggests putting in another language into, well, into the English translation. There's also similar or not the s-similar, um, question. Boruch, we, we say Hashem's name, Adonai. If it would be in the plural, Adonai means my masters, our masters. Our masters, my masters. So we'd have to say with a, with a commas rather than the Pasach, which somehow is less plural, although it's not so clear. How does Sefardim pronounce? So Sefardim, they make no difference. They say, um, they say their Pasach is almost identical. Perhaps is identical. So the Chazalish is quoted as saying that the Sefardim should pronounce everything as long as Sefardim. But Hashem's name, they should say with the commas, Anoy rather than Nai. Now, I can assure you that that

28:18 didn't go very well, down very well with the Sefardim. And they, they say, "No, you just continue everything with the way we were taught by our Zadas," et cetera. They don't accept this kind of changing. So the parallel which I'm seeing here is in middle of one style to now bring in a different style. That find-- I find it jarring. And I have a parallel in the concept of in a Sefer Torah. If you have different scripts, different types of writing in the same, that's considered KSAV MENUMER. It's blotchy. It doesn't look nice. And I feel, I feel the similar idea here. All right. Now, then around a couple of years later, the late, um, Ya- Emmanuel Shochat translates the Haggadah. And I spoke to actually to his son today. Possibly in his first edition, he did like the Art Scroll and said, "Blessed are you, Hashem." And you understand the dilemma. So and apar-- after this whole tumult which Rabbi Bogomilsky had made. So and here the Rebbe, I'm, I'm s-- I'm, I, I'm, I'm ninety percent sure that this was an answer to Rabbi Shochat. The Rebbe writes the following: "Ein somim maleiv le'inyan ikri." People fail to pay attention to something which is quite fundamental. "Vematzecha ha'hoveh," in the current situation, "hamatziyus hi," the reality is, "shekam vekam oimim rak atid." There are many people who are davening straight from the English. "Ba'amiras tevas Hashem, ein bo zer shame klal." Blessed are you, the name, means nothing. It's not fulfilling the di-

30:09 of saying a bracha. Blessed are you, the name, that doesn't, doesn't... Whereas if you say the word Lord, and how much more so the word God. So then the Alter Rebbe Paskens in the Shulchan Aruch that it has kedusha. "Veyosim zeh." I'm not sure what the Rebbe means by "Veyosim zeh." Perhaps the fact that the issue of, uh, if you disgrace it, it's the issue of, of violate, you know, disgracing Hashem's name. I don't remember. I'm not sure what he means by the "Veyosim zeh." But meanwhile, the Rebbe is objecting to the usage of Hashem in a translation of a bracha. On the other hand, this is, I'm, I'm-- If my timing is correct, this is after the whole tumult which has been made, raised by Rabbi Bogomilsky against the usage of the word Lord. Here, the Rebbe says, "If you use the word Lord, and how much more so if you use the word God, that's fine. That, that's, that you're doing the right thing." So it looks like the Rebbe Um, wasn't concerned l'maaseh. It was a shailah, tummel, and I think, uh... And I-I'm not sure exactly, but then the Kuntessichas, this is published in the back of the Kuntessichas, volume twenty-four. That was published in Tofshin Mem Het. And before the s- the volumes were published, the Rebbe would be given the opportunity to check through not only the sichas, which he did as they were published, but also the letters. And so the Rebbe released this in Tofshin Mem Het.

31:37 Um, and so it looks like he wasn't too concerned about the usage of the word Lord. Now, go a little bit further. Um, this, this is a question which every translator is gonna have this problem. So I did go back to Rav Sholom Shimon Rafael Hirsch, the Hirsch Siddur. I looked it up actually on the, in the German, and then it's the same in the English. Now, look, look how he's done this. "Blessed are You, God, our God, King of the universe." As we notice, the first time he does God in italics, and the second time he does it in regular writing. And the same is in the German. First time he has God is, is in italics or whatever, different script, slightly different. And so he's telling you something, that there are-- The, the- there's one time when we use the italics, God means Yud Kei Vav Kei, Hoy Hoy-Et cetera. And I didn't-- I looked in the Hirsch Siddur in this, in the introduction. I didn't see an introduction, and so therefore I didn't see whether he addresses why he put this word in italics. But he's certainly saying this as something different. Now then, and this is Tof Shin Nun Tes. Ave Shmuel Pesach has an older brother, who actually is my wife's uncle, therefore I guess my uncle too, uh, who published. His name is Rabbi Moshe Bogomilsky, lives in Crown Heights, and he had published a series of seforim, uh, in English, uh, called V'dibarta Bon. And then he came

33:09 to the point of publishing a Haggadah. So now in his Haggadah, he, in his introduction, he phrases this problem of how you translate Yud Kei Vav Kei. And he's not happy with using the word of s- uh, the word Lord, um, because is it, is it questionable? And then he says how his brother has raised this question, and he had, uh, he had written to Rav Moshe Feinstein, who agrees with my brother, in a letter dated again Elul Tof Shin Mem Alef. So Rabbi Bogomilsky, Tof Shin Mem Alef, is writing to various Rabbonim, uh, poskim. And so then the pual, what Rabbi Bogomilsky shows is, "Blessed are you, Adni, our God, King of the universe." So he put in the Hebrew word, uh, in middle of the English text. Now, going back to... So I, I, I asked, you know, um, Rabbi Shochat, what exactly was his fa- what happened with his father, with his f- with the Haggadah? 'Cause I was saying this, using the v'nim Hashem, would have been associated with the Haggadah. As you can see, someone who translated the Haggadah and used Hashem for Yud Kei Vav Kei. And so this is the-- What you have on the screen now is from Rabbi Shochat's translation of the Sichas. So after this, you can see it's a whole to and fro. The Sichas was published in Tof Shin Samech, so that's, uh, year two thousand approximately. So he now, in his introduction, he gives us the code, what he's used, how he's

34:57 done the various names of Hashem. And so when it's Yud Kei Vav Kei, it's written at G-O-D in large. It's, uh, in, in capitals. And Elohim is just G-O-D in, in regular. So he's, he's made a similar idea to what Rav Sholom Shimon Rafael Hirsch has done. That is, that he's made Yud Kei Vav Kei a different, a different, uh, presentation to the way, uh, Hashem's name is translated, the way it's Elohim, et cetera. And then he has though, he doesn't seem to be worried about the word Lord, which, which Bogomilsky was worried about. And here he says, when it says Adni, then it's translated as Lord. One more observation, and I had this conversation with someone yesterday, that in the Siddur, Rabbi Mengel is selective. When it's Yud Kei Vav Kei, it's, "Blessed are You, Lord." When it is Adni, like Boruch A-Adni Sof Rotivtoch, there he uses my Lord, and that's a, a conscious decision. The word Adni, when that's the w- the main, the original word, means my master. Yud Kei Vav Kei is not mine. It's Yud Kei Vav Kei, Hoy Hoy Vivaya. We have no Breira, so we say Lord or whatever word you're gonna use. But to use the my, the possessive, doesn't fit there. And therefore, he's made that difference in the Tfillas Hashem Siddur. And so we've got here various solutions that we see. Um, some have chosen to put in a, an English word in the Hebrew. Some have used the word Hashem, which for sure

36:46 the Rebbe is not happy about. And some have chosen to put in G-O-D, but somehow with a, uh, symbolically showing that it's something more than just, um, Hashem or Elohim. It's something distinct. Okay. That's as much as I wanted to share with you about this. Um, yeah. Let's move on then to our next point, and that is about this Friday Tomorrow? Oh, so tonight is Rosh Chodesh. Wow. No? Is that right? No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, this isn't... This Rosh Chodesh is Friday, but not, it's not tomorrow. Tomorrow is Chof. But then Chof, Chof is not even... Wait a minute. Um, no. So forget... No, it's not, it's not relevant this month. But if Rosh Chodesh is on Friday, and then if you're going to be... So let's ask me this question. Rosh Chodesh is on a Friday, and you start your meal early. Um, not with Ma'ariv. You start at the meal, and it overflows into Shabbos. Do you say Yaaleh Veyavo in bentching? So m-more, it's more common when Yom Tov goes into Shabbos. And there we have the whole story of Pirush Mapah Mekadesh that once Yom Tov goes... Yom Tov meal s-overflows into Shabbos, you c- Once, once it becomes Shabbos, you have to stop to make Kiddush. And then there's gonna also be the same question. Do you, um... I-It's now already Friday night, and you're bentching, but you're saying Retzeh. Do you have to say Yaaleh Veyavo? The problem is that in the, the graphics that

38:34 the Yaaleh Veyavo comes after Retzeh, whereas Friday becomes, comes before Shabbos. So does it make sense to say Retzeh and then, "Oh, ah, it's actually Yom Tov." Or, "It was Yom Tov," and then go, go flip back. That's the bit of the dilemma. And so some poskim, uh, including Rabbi Chaim Dvir, takes the view that it's... No, you can't do that. Once you've said Retzeh, you can't go back and say, um, Veyima, uh, whatever it is. Now, what we have on the screen is from Sicha, Sefer HaSichot Taf Shin Daled. This was in Simchas Torah, and it was such a situation where Yom Tov was going into Shabbos. And the Rebbe, as in Frierdiker Rebbe, is saying that they're asking, "What should we do with Retzeh and Yaaleh Veyavo? Perhaps we should switch around the Seder. First say Yaaleh Veyavo, and then Retzeh, so it shouldn't be a contradiction." And on this, the Rebbe responded. Uh, this is such a Chabad, uh, response. And I've zog this is stated in Seder. Just, you just, just follow as written in the Seder. Uh, first Retzeh and then Yaaleh Veyavo. I... The Malachim will sort out. They'll sort out what, what has to be presented first. And before bentching again, the Rebbe mentioned we should say Retzeh, that the people should say Retzeh, and they should not pay attention to the fact that he's not saying Retzeh because this Pirush Mapah Mekadesh thing, the Rebbe himself didn't do. And so he had only eaten on Yom Tov,

40:08 which is the Friday, and he didn't eat on the Shabbos, and therefore he didn't say Retzeh. But if you ate before, uh, you know, before, during the day, and then again you ate a kazais later, and then you'd have to say both Yaaleh Veyavo and Retzeh. In this instance, Retzeh, um, Retzeh, then Yaaleh Veyavo. So, as I say, there are those who are concerned about saying Yaaleh Veyavo before Retzeh and being a contradiction. And the Rebbe is saying here it's not an issue. And actually, I've written about this, not about the Rosh Chodesh question, about the Yom Tov question. I wrote about it in volume two of Nesivos Yesh Lichos. And bringing there from some earlier, from Ataras actually, he says, "But actually, when you do Yak Nuhas, so you make Kiddush, which means it's night." Sorry. "So as you make Kiddush, it means you're celebrating the, the, the incoming. Then you say Havdalah, you're cele- you're celebrating the outgoing." So that's interesting. You're, you're already s- you're, you're already, you're already entered the new day, and then you're going back. "Oh, I have to do Havdalah for the, for the day which is left." And it's not a problem. It's okay to have them kind of side by side. If you daven Ma'ariv in middle of the meal, let's say, Yah- if Rosh Chodesh overflows into Motzai Rosh Chodesh, and you daven Ma'ariv, well, Ma'ariv then has declared it as night, and then you can't go back and make it day again. It's... They

41:41 have a term, tré kol d'sat, two con- con- contradicting voices. Um, if you made Havdalah, if Shalosh Udkes goes into night and you made Havdalah, Havdalah is a declaration it's night. So then you can't go back and now say, um, Retzeh. You've made it already Motzei Shabbos. Even if you just said Boruch Hamavdil in the middle of the meal, you can't go back and, and say Retzeh. So Havdalah and Shemoneh Esreh, um, do constitute a, a break off from the Hemshich of daytime. Whereas apparently Kiddush isn't, and therefore you could... It's, you say Kiddush, and by, by, by Pirush Mapah Mekadesh, say Kiddush at, at sunset. And then later on, you'll say both Yaaleh Veyavo for the outgoing day and Retzeh for the incoming day. Let's move on. So here's a question about Yichud, and I'm not so, um, at ease with this. So the question was, as I put the question on the list, someone traveling alone by bus intercity. So on the bus, there's various people. Is there a question of a, a single person being on a bus? Now, Yichud means in a way, in a point of you're being secluded. Of a man with a woman being secluded, and it's not... They're not allowed to have relations, so that's, uh, a p-problem of Yichud. Is, is a, is o-on a, a bus with all different people, is that called a state of Yichud? So it's, it's like if it's open to the streets, there's all different people there. So it's not

43:21 a problem of Yichud. So in a bus, it also shouldn't be a problem of Yichud. So now I'm reading here from... You can see it's a contemporary Sefer, that there's no difference whether it's a big car or a small car. And, um, if you're traveling where there's no bypasses, then there's gonna be a situation of Yichud. Therefore, if a man is traveling in a bus and there's no other men, even if there's ten women, then you have a problem of Yichud. If it's in a secluded place where there's no other passersby. And there have to be three men, et cetera, or if there'd been two men, but a, a, a single man with a group of ten women would be a problem of Yichud. That's, that's what he's saying over here, yeah. And so then, then as a result, he says, you have sometimes a school trip with teachers and, and pupils, and they're going out to a, a place where... A se- a quiet place, secluded place. And they got a, a, a driver, a male driver. So he says, he says you have here a problem of Yichud. So even though there's many people on the bus, and he, he raises here a problem of Yichud. Now, what I'm confused here is, what's the difference between this, let's say... All right, so on the train, people can come and go at some places. What about on the airplane? There's, there's three hundred people on the airplane. Is that a problem of Yichud? I

44:55 mean, it's unheard of that that should be a problem, yeah. So how do you, how do you, how do you do this to sort this out? Here he's saying that you've got a whole group bus load of girls and a male driver, and he says that's a problem of Yichud. Um, and he's, he's not, he's not without ba-basis. I mean, here you have from the Shechinach, you have Ezer, you have Chof Beis. Yesh omim de'isho achas mis yahedes. Yeah. Aval im haim pritzim. If the, the man in question is, is not known to be restrained in, in sneers. Afu im ha'saro. Even if they are ten, it's also not okay. Um, although I'm now reading it, this could mean that the, that the men are pritzim. But then, all right, so you're on a plane, whole bunch of, of, uh, Nishun Zerah. They're, they're becheskas pritzim. So do you have now a problem of Yichud? It's like you don't know how to answer the question. Well, let's finish off, and that is last week I told over a story and I made a whole lamdis about this Reb Sender Nemtsov, who lived in Long Beach. This is the south of Brooklyn, in an island. And how he, um, was encouraged to make a Minyan Bizmanoi so that the people shouldn't... And the people who don't keep Shabbos will not have to... Well, they won't be Mechalel Shabbos for an hour earlier, just when Shabbos itself comes in. And the, the way this was published was

46:38 that this is, uh, was a request of the Rebbe. So Rabbi Nemtsov, or the father-in-law I mentioned last week of Rebb- N-N-Nistan, uh, Mindell. Rav Shaul Ber Shapiro publishes a weekly, uh, podcast. He's a son-in-law of Dr. Mindell. And a son-in-law of Reb Shaul Ber Shapiro sent me that as far, in Nemishpocha, as far as they know, this was not a initiative of the Rebbe, but rather it was an initiative of Reb Sender himself. That he tried to make a Minyan, and from his mind, he thought that this would be a hatsolah for the Yidden that... Because there's one Minyan which is davens later, that would solve the problem. Now, in, in the, in the Hergesh of a Hasid, it's also nisht kein shlecht a zach to give, uh, explanation. But it's certainly, um, I, I felt it was... The explanation was a little bit stretched, and it was not according to the Alter Rebbe, according to the Maaseh Hakesef. At any rate, for a Hergesh of a Hasid, that's good enough for me that, that which could be the explanation. All right. That's what I have to share with you this evening, and I wish you all a Guten Shabbos. And I just see there's two, uh, questions here on the chat. Let's see here. Um, one of the Selichos rhyming can only work with I. Yes. That's... Thank you. That's going back to the Sefardic pronunciation. And in my research, I saw that, um, um, the, one of the, the, one of the

48:17 actually the Zemiros, um, for Friday night, Baruch Hu Emunai, um, finishes off with Hashem's name. And that Emunai is in with a Pasach. It only fits according to Sefardi pronunciation. They listed that the article I saw has actually about five or six examples where the piyutim, the rhymes clearly indicate the Sefardi pronunciation, which means just that the one who composed it was a Sefardi, that's all. Um, all right. That's it. And, uh, good Shabbos. Wish you a Tzuris savas. Now, yeah.