שופטים תשפ״ו

00:05 Good evening. Welcome to tonight's cheer. This is Asher Stroiftim, and it is the night going into the second day of Rosh Chodesh Elul. So let's-- I wanna share with you, first of all, something which came my way in a very interesting way. And that is that I had a reference to Likuter Sikhes, to Helek Chaf Dalet, page four thir- three forty-two. And by mistake, in my mind, it was to Helek Chaf, page three forty-two. And I was writing to the-- my to, to my colleague that there's something, uh, the reference is not a correct reference. Then I realized I looked at the wrong volume. Meanwhile, as I looked at the wrong volume, I found something which, of particular interest to me, a, a, a comment of the Rebbe on the Siddur, on the Nusach HaTefillah, which, uh, I had not quoted in the Siddur, wasn't aware of it at the time. So I'm gonna share that with you now. So this is from the Sikhes of Taf Shin Lamed Ches. And it was that winter that the Rebbe said the Sikhes-- He spoke from his room because of, uh, he wasn't well in, uh, well enough to speak and to be in public. And those Sikhes were subsequently mugger by the Rebbe, and they were later included at the back of Helek Chaf. So the winter Taf Shin Lamed Ches Sikhes are printed in the back of volume Lamed-- uh, volume Chaf of Likuter Sikhes. Now, in Parashat Chayei Sarah, the Rebbe talks about Yaakov

02:00 VeEsav Hamurim BaParasha. There is an Esav who is an Esav within the Parasha, um, rather than the Esav who's lurking out there in a, in a, uh, negative way. So in The Ha'ara, which you have on the screen, the Rebbe says the following. In the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, talking about the Nusach HaTefillah for Rosh Hashanah, says that when it comes to the end of the middle brocha of Musaf, which is, um, Zich-Zichronot. So it has the here, as you can see on the screen, "Va'akedas Yitzchak l'zarai hayom berachamim tizker." The Akedah should be remembered for the, for the seed of Yitzchak. Now, Nusach Ashkenaz has a problem with that because it could also be construed as being, um, for Esav, because Esav is also Zarah shel Yitzchak. And in the Yom HaMeforashim, we have to be very particular. There shouldn't be any ambiguity in our Tefillah. So that's the why they actually, the Nusach Ashkenaz has, "Va'akedas Yitzchak l'zarai shel Yaakov hayom berachamim tizker." Despite that apprehension, in the Alter Rebbe's Siddur, and that is so in the Pri Etz Chaim and the Siddur HaArizal, the Nusach is written, "Va'akedas Yitzchak l'zarai hayom berachamim tizker," without qualifying Zarah shel Yaakov. So far, says the Rebbe, "Shemizeh mashma that Esav einu nechshav mizarai shel Yitzchak klal." The, the idea that Esav- You have to turn your audio off for a minute. No. I can't hear anything. I can't. Well, that's two of us then. Oops. Fact that Esav is not considered Zarah shel Yaakov-- Zarah

04:23 shel Yitzchak is so, is so obvious. So whereas Nusach Ashkenaz does see a, um, bit of a doubt, but according to the Arizal, there's no . Esav has got nothing to do with Zarah shel Yaakov, uh, Zarah shel Yitzchak. Therefore, we don't worry when we say this on Rosh Hashanah. You see, this is sometimes you-- there's a Torah said by a Rebbe more in a way of a Tefillah, to interpret in a way that, uh, th-that's how it should be Al Pi Torah, to kind of dismiss any claim of Esav to, to the merit of Yitzchak. The Rebbe's saying, according to the Arizal, Yitzchak, um, Esav's got nothing to do with, um, Zah- to be Zarah, Zarah of Yitz. Now, why in... That's, that's the, the Rebbe's comment here. In my comments on the Siddur, I have a quote from Rav Menachem Azarya Mefano. He was a contemporary of the Arizal, also a Mekubal. And he says, "Why don't we want to mention Yaakov here?" Because the emphasis on Rosh Hashanah is on Midas HaDin. As we see that there are three who were-- became-- who conceived Rosh Hashanah. The three tzitzitkonios, and they are Sarah, Rachel, and Chana. So Rach-- Sarah conceived Yitzchak, Ze'enen of Gevurah. Rachel conceived Yosef, who again, he was a very powerful person. And Chana conceived Shmuel. Now, Shmuel, he says, was an exceptionally powerful, strong person. He was a „Maymid Malachim" and „Moedid Malachim". He was, he empowered, he appointed Shaul, then he took him down, then he appointed

06:18 David, and, uh, then, uh, with the story with Agag. See, Shmuel was a very p-strong person and because of this, Mo- David HaMelech sees in him this, this power. He says, „Moshe V'Aharon B'Choyan U'VShmuel B'Kodosh Shmo". He puts him on the same pedestal, same level as Moshe and Aharon. So because... Well, as Yaakov is Midat Harachamim and because on Rosh Hashanah, the emphasis is on Midat Hadin rather than on Midat Harachamim, therefore, we don't use the words, „Zechareh Sh'Yaakov Hayah Meracham Chitzkor." We leave out the word LiYaakov and, uh, just we attribute it to Yitzchak. So that's the Ramah bifano, uh, his, his comment why Nusach Sfarad and Arizal, et cetera, didn't expect-- didn't accept the, the, uh, modification of Nusach Ashkenaz. Of course, he doesn't mention the Arizal. He's just talking about Nusach Sfarad. Right. Let's move on to the next question. Someone asked me this past week, when you are writing, uh, let's say, uh, uh, an article and it mentions Aveida Zarah, do you also have to use Elokim or do you... can you write the, the word, the word in full with a He? Possibly that could be. For other words, now when we daven, we say Hashem's name properly. Well, well, you know, I'm not talking about Yud Hei Vav Hei, which we say Adonai, which generally we pronounce Kel, Elokim, Shem Dalet Yud. We pronounce them. But when it comes in conversation, even in good conversation, we will say Elokim, Kel, Havaya, et cetera. So here's the question. When

08:20 it comes up, a pasuk which has Elokim Acherim, should you say Elokim Acherim or you can say, you can say it with a He? Because after all, you're talking about Avodah Zarah. You don't have to respect Avodah Zarah. That's the question. So here you have on the screen from the Kuntress a short letter of the Rebbe. „Murgal B'fi HaOlam" In response to your Haar. „Murgal B'fi HaOlam" It is common in colloquial conversation to say Elokim Acherim b'kuf, with a Kuf. „Af SheMedubar B'Avodah Zarah" Even though the focus is Avodah Zarah, so who cares if you're going to be not respectful? „V'Ulai Yesh L'Kasher Im Pirush Ramban Devorim Chaf Alef, Chof Beis, K'Naan Chulo SheChoshash Chulo." Perhaps we can expl-- connect this with the words of the Ramban. Now, this is the coming week's sedra in Parshas Ki Teitzei, and we have here a mitzvah. If a person is punished with a death sentence, „VeHo-VeSaliso Al Etz", he should be hanged on a tree, on a gallows. Rashi says, „Ol Kol Hamosim Nislim," uh, all those, all those who are killed by beast. And, and Ramban disagrees. He says, "No, it's only those who are guilty of, of blasphemy," et cetera. Avodah Zarah or blasphemy. In other words, it's got to do with Kilall Hashem. That's where the punishment would include hanging. Even then, the Torah says, "Do not leave the Nivlasa. Do not leave the dead body hanging on the tree overnight. Rather, you should bury him on the same day. Ki Kilal Hashem Tolui."

10:14 So how do you explain the curse of Hashem is hanging? What exactly do those words mean? Well, Rashi Tamhez Orez goes further. So Rashi mentions a mashal of a king and who had a brother who's a gangster, a bandit. And the ban-ban-bandit has been arrested for a big, uh, terrible offenses. He's being put to death. But he's identical to the king. So if his body is left hanging on the tree, people will say that the king is hanging. What's that got to do with anything? So Rashi says, from this pasuk, we're learning the mitzvah of Kevurah of a person who died should be buried. Why? Because the human image, he is a Tzelem Elokim, is in, is in G-Hashem's image. Therefore, you see the, a body, a human body being disgraced, it will somehow reflect a disgrace on Hashem. That's the way Rashi learns. Ramban's not happy with that. He says, "Well, you look at... People don't know what Hashem looks like to say, oh, they'll see a body disgraced, think about Hashem." And he says this is limited to the Poshtut Pshat, is limited to a person who was put to death because of his, his, uh, blaspheming and, and et cetera. So he's Kilall Hashem Tolui. He's... Anyone passes by, they'll see, why is this body hanging? Because he had been, uh, arrogant against Hashem. He, he, he cursed Hashem. So then that perpetuates his crime. His, his Kilal to Hashem by the fact that his body is there, is gonna be perpetuated.

12:07 Therefore, don't leave it there. Take it away before the, before nightfall. That's the way the Ramban learns. Okay. And then he's-- he kind of is... The mashal of the two brothers, he says it's, um, a, a sod. But then towards the end of the Ramban, he, he quotes the following: because there is the mitzvah of burial, v-bey-v-bey-um, veyayim, and not to leave a body hanging. Earlier, he talks about the sons of Shaul who were put to death at the insistence of the nes-- the, uh, Givonim. But now he's talking about Yeshua at a particular moment had conquered five kings of Canaan, of various cities. And he had then, after he'd captured them and disgraced them, then they were hanged, and then he took them down and buried them. What was the urgency to b-bury them? Why couldn't he leave them hanging? So he writes like this, Ramban. Min halava zeh is for this reason, this negative commandment that Yeshua buried the kings of Canaan on the same day. Af al pi sheheim mitelos naklonlo sheheskir raboseinu bemegadat havah de'aveidah zorah. The fact they weren't... Their crime was not blasphemy. When you see the king of Hebron hanging, you don't say, "Oh, it's because he was, um, arrogant towards Hashem." He was a, he was an enemy of the, uh, of the, uh, Jewish people, but nothing to do with kilal ha'selichim. So why was the urgency to, to bury him? According to the Ramban, it's only because of reflection of kilal ha'selichim perpetuating the klalah.

13:59 Aveil hahoy bahem meshum tumah se'oret. But I didn't quote on the screen ki chilas velo yisatame se'oret. A body left, a dead body left out is, is, uh, is broadcasting, is, is, uh, radiating tumah, and therefore it should be buried. So that's the other reason. But now comes the reason which is relevant to our discussion. Oy shechoshash lekilal ha'selichim min hamoshel shnei ha'achim she'asher pirshati. And this is what the Rebbe refers to in his letter. Canaan shechoshash. So somehow, which I'm, I'm going to admit I don't have a, a co- a, um, a clear understanding, but somehow there seems to be the following. That you've got the two brothers, one is the king, and one is the, o- one is the gangster. And when there is a disgrace of the gangster, it somehow has a also a, a, uh, reflection, a negative reflection on the king. Therefore, we don't want to disgrace the gangster so as not to disgrace, uh, the H-Hashem. And therefore, when we have a mention to Elokim acheirim, although we're talking about Aveidah Zarah, but since the name Elokim is also used for Hashem, therefore, we would be careful to treat this name with respect, even though it's used in the context of Aveidah Zarah. So, so this comes, um, come, comes to mind like this, that in many, uh... It says in the Gemara, kallit nusach asurah, chosmin nusach de'aveidah zorah. It'll be many times you find in the Gemara they davka take words of Aveidah Zarah and distort them

15:42 in a, to make it in a, uh, scoffing way. For example, I'll just tell you, um, there's the twenty-fifth of December is pre-- it's called in Yiddish kratzmach. Kratzmach means scratch my, scratch me, scratch my back. That's wh-what they would... In, in literal- They took the words and distorted it a little bit, as you have in the Gemara, various words, names of Aveidah Zarah, which they distorted to make it in disgraceful way. S'var meh devarim amurim when it is in a, a name clearly for Aveidah Zarah. So then we say yashke, yashke pandrik, et cetera. Yeah. So these are all, um, sp- said in a, in a, uh, in, in a mocking way perhaps. But when it comes to this very same name, which is a title for Hashem, and it's now being used for Aveidah Zarah, so then we're going to be careful and not express... Not, not treat it disgracefully because it has also reflection on the Aibishter. That's the way I understand how the Rebbe's using this Ramban and, um, why he buries the, the kings of Canaan because bury-- you want to bury the, the bad twin not to give a g- a, a negative reflection of the good counterpart. Let's take a look at... Someone has put something here on the chat. You hear it further. Okay. Let's move on. Okay. Our third question is about Kriyas HaTorah. Is what happens if you hear Kriyas HaTorah and it's not Parshas HaShavua? How, how much of a problem is that? And

17:30 the, the particular, uh, application, the most likely thing is where you between Eretz Yisrael and, and Chutz La'aretz in during, after Pesach or after Shavuos. So now we have here a comment. Someone asked me this. He read in the Si-sichah from, from Tov Shin Mem Vav, forty years ago, last Shabbos, and the Rebbe says the following. In Kriyas HaTorah, in addition to the fact you have a Parshah designated for each Shabbos, but overall, there's the din of Kriyas HaTorah, as we find in Poskim, although it's not so well known, that reading a Parshah in Torah with the reading of a Parshah in Torah, whatever Parshah it may be, yo yetz ikriyas HaTorah. So he's asking, oh, the rabbi is saying that there's a certain f-um, flexibility perhaps. It doesn't matter whether you read Parshas-- if, if, if you read last Shabbos Parshas Re'eh, you read Parshas, uh, I don't know, VaEschanan or, um, Parshas Lech Lecha. Nis-nisht ze gever lach, yeah. That seems to be there's a certain flexibility. You read Kriyas HaTorah. I seem to re-um, recall that in some communities when there would be a chasunah, they would do Kriyas HaTorah, a different Kriyas HaTorah, not the regular Parshah. Just l'kavod the choson. So, so he's a- so this fellow's asking if there is that flexibility, you read Kriyas HaTorah, whatever Parshah you hear. If so, why do people make a whole fuss when they traveled from Eretz Yisrael to Chutz La'aretz, et cetera, to make up the missing Parshah? To which I

19:16 said there's two Inyonim. You read Kriyas HaTorah is one thing. Then there's the other thing that you want to, you want to have the full repertoire, the full pa- the full set of Parshas. These are two separate things. One is the mitzvah Kriyas HaTorah. One is your own how-- so, uh, having gone through all the Sedras of that se- of that year. Um, so I looked around. I find here there's a Sefer called Yom Tov Sheni Kel Choson, which is a, a excellent Sefer dealing with lots of details about people traveling here and there one day, two days. But also, as a result, there's also the whole idea of the difference between Eretz Yisrael and Chutz La'aretz, um, for Kriyas HaTorah. It's got to do with when Acharon Shel Pesach is on a Shabbos, whether, whether it's considered Shabbos or it's considered Yom Tov. Good. Um, so Reb Shlomo Zalman is quoted that on those ti- years where there is a, um, there's, there's a difference between Eretz Yisrael and Chutz La'aretz. The Bnei Chutz La'aretz in Eretz Yisrael are not required to make Minyanim to, to, uh, to have the weekday Kri- the, the Chutz La'aretz Kriya. He mentions there that some people would say in the name of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein that they should have ev-every week another Minyan for the Chutznikim to keep up the Chutznik Kriya. Like they keep in two days Yom Tov, should have also keep the Kriya of Chutz La'aretz. Reb Shlomo Zalman says there's no such... And

20:48 even Rabbi Moshe is not really clear he ever said such a thing. You, you, you, you, you-- Now, if you want, you can do the first Shabbos. This is in many places in Eretz Yisrael. The first Shabbos after Pesach when there's a change, they will make a Minyan in a side room, and they'll do the entire Parshah of the Shohener. And Kohen will have the first whole Parshah, and then Kohen of the second Parshah. And then they can just join the rest of Eretz Yisrael in their Kriyas HaTorah and without a problem. So Reb Shlomo Zalman says it's not a Chiyuv, but it's a ni- you know, it's, uh, Im Reutzim. So in answer to the question, how important is it? Person heard Kriyas HaTorah, but not the-- his Kriyas HaTorah. How important? It's not so important. Having said that, there is, however, what happens if our whole community didn't have Kriyas HaTorah for some reason. We had in COVID, there was a situation people didn't have Kriyas HaTorah. Could be whatever it may be the reason. So then we have here in Shulchan Aruch, in Siman kuf lamed hei, Kriyas HaTorah, the Rama writes, "Im bitlu Shabbos achat Kriyas HaParshah betzibur." If one Shabbos, what the circumstances were that they didn't have Kriyas HaTorah. "The Shabbos haba, Kohen yoseh Parshah im HaParshah HaShaychezh los HaShabbos." So the next week, we'll read the missed Parshah together with the Parshah which is for that week. So the concept, what we see-- what I'm bringing this here

22:31 is the concept of not missing a Parshah is a, is it has got its source. It's not-- It's-- But it's not a Chiyuv, but it-- For, for tzibur, it's something which they should be doing. In that itself, when you-- If this Shabbos, we want to make up for missing a Kriya in Parshas Re'eh. So then there's two ways of doing it. One is to take Rishon and Sheni of Re'eh for Kohen, Shelishi and Levi for Levi, and then, um, the second-- the, the fourth Aliyah would be a part of Parshas Re'eh and part of Shoftim, and like we do whenever we have two Sed-Sed-Sedras joined. That's one way of doing it. And that, that ap- that approach very much emphasizes, brings out the point which the rabbi is saying in the Sikha that the, that the connection of the Parshah to this Shabbos is not so rigid. Others are a bit more concerned about this, and therefore they say similar to what we said just now, if they want to be Mashlim Parshas Re'eh this Shabbos, you'd call up Kohen for-- and you'd read with Kohen all, all the Parshas Re'eh until Sheni in Parshas Shoftim. And then from there, you continue regular Aliyas of Parshas Shoftim. All right. Let's move on. So here's a common situation where it's not nesivtin, but if there's two Chiyuvim in the same Shul. And so they make an arrangement. Both want to daven for the Yom Tov. So one says, "I'll, I'll..." So they say, "One, I will

24:09 do till after Chazarat Hashatz." Then they'll switch over, the other one will do Ashrei of Avodah Zarah. So someone writes to me that he heard that there's a problem with that because the Chazan of the second Tefillah after Avodah Zarah says, "Tiskabetz loasyn havuasyn," may the prayers be accepted. But if he wasn't the Chazan for Chazarat Hashatz, so then how-- what's he saying, "Tiskabetz loasyn"? So my initial reaction was, and I think I'm gonna stay with that, is that it's not really a problem because the Chazan is a represent- representative of the tzibur. And the tzibur can, at a given point, take-- switch over. Instead of this one representing us, this one representing us. So when the Chazan says, "Tiskabetz loasyn havuasyn," does he mean the Chazarat Hashatz exclusively? He's talking about Shemoneh Esreh. We all daven Shemoneh Esreh. That's when-- All right. That's the way I look. But I, I looked around today, andsee here in the Piskei Teshuvos, he gives a reference to the Gesher HaChaim from Rabbi Michoel Tukatchinsky, who wrote a Sefer all about Inyonim B'vav Ha'elus. And he writes the following. Now, this idea of switching over is mentioned in Mishne Berura in Siman kuf lamed beis. That's where it mentioned-- the Mishne Berura talks about Kaddish Yosom. And the-- there's a whole, there's a whole hierarchy in communities where only one person says Kaddish at a time, then becomes a whole politic, who is gonna get the f-- this Kaddish, that Kaddish. There would-- A whole way of

25:54 sharing out. You live here, you don't live here, uh, uh, who you, who you're saying Kaddish for. It's a whole parshah. And the Mishne Berura put together, he calls it Maamar Kaddishin, a whole article about Kaddish. In that Maamar Kaddishin, he mentions this minhag of switching over that one Chazzan just does Chazarat Hashatz, and the other one does Ashrei V'Olam. But that's as much detail as the Mishne Berura goes into. Here, the Gesher HaChaim, Rav Tukatchinsky, he says what's the use of going for V'Olam? Ah, that's because of the Kedushah. V'Olam's got the Kedushah. And he says, therefore, if a person goes through the Amid for Ashrei V'Olam, and he doesn't do the Kedushah out loud, like you have in Litvish Shuls, Ɣakadosh, El okeinu, Melech ha-Olam. Yeah. So if you don't do it out loud, and you're not gonna be prompting the tzibbur to say together Kaddish, Kaddish, and the same thing with Baruch Hu, if so, what's, what's the point of you going for the Amid? W-w-what... I mean, w-with what are you a Chazzan? With what are you, with what are you, you... W-with what are you galvanizing the tzibbur? And therefore, if you're not galvanizing the tzibbur for anything, so the Kaddish Tiskabel belongs to the first Chazzan. So the f-- this com-comment which he said, you know, this is what Rav Tukatchinsky is saying, very interesting. So, as I said, I am-- I'm not convinced that this is okay, the, the, uh, imperative because your Chazzan, on behalf of the

27:30 tzibbur, can say Tiskabel... Tiskabel of the tzibbur. Now, go further. In the Piskei Teshuvos, where he brings this, and he says, "What's so special about the V'Olam? 'Cause it has Kedushah." And this he quotes the Tukatchinsky, Gesher HaChaim. Then he adds another thing, that in V'Olam, that Hashem's name comes up eighteen times. Now, um, due to, uh, constraints of time, I did not sit down and count the number of times Hashem's name comes up in V'Olam. But he says there's e-eighteen Azkarot. And the eighteen ni-- ti-times Hashem's name in V'Olam correspond to the eighteen brachot of Shemoneh Esreh. And there are other exalted fillahs in V'Olam. And it says in the Gemara that the world is sustained by Kedushah D'Sidra. So very unusual because usually in Piskei Teshuvos, everything he has a source. And this he comes up as an alternative. Gesher HaChaim says it's imperative that you say the, the, um, Kedushah out loud. He says, uh, he seems to be saying, "No, it's okay. You're saying eighteen Azkarot, and this is Shemoneh Esreh." That's, that's what he seems to be saying. And, um, all right. So there is, there is gr-- the, the complaint which was said has got a source. On the other hand, as I said, I feel that it's nizgeferlach that there is a tzelem being a Chazzan for V'Olam, even if you don't say the Kedushah out loud. The reason why we don't say Kedushah out loud, that's just another discussion. And I, I may have once mentioned this

29:09 in, in the, uh, shiurim, the following. That it's quoted in the siddur, uh, my comments on the siddur, that it comes the, it comes the, um, Birkat Kohanim in Yotzer Or. So there we tell a story. We talk about the... We talk-- First of all, we talk about the celestial beings as in the sun and the moon. Then we say, "Tizbachu netzach." We're talking about the Malachim. And then as we talk about the Malachim, we say how the Malachim say Kaddish. And they say Baruch. So we tell a story, and then we come back to Yotzer Or. That's the context there. And so we've told a story. Then it comes to Chazarat Hashatz. So we say Kedushah together. We say Kedushah together with the Malachim. We say, "Naklishok." We have yachad, kulam kedushah l'chol shalayshu. We're saying it together with them. Okay. And it comes to V'Olam, we kind of say, "Ata kadosh yotzer tzilut Yisroel." That you are s-holy, um, the praise of the Eden. And we say, "V'hakadosh elokeinu oma kadosh, kadosh." We start talking about Kedushah. We've forgotten about the Malachim. It's as if we've kind of kidnapped the whole Kedushah. We've taken it for ourselves and forgotten about the Malachim. So the, the, the Zohar says the Malachim, if they know about it, they'll be concerned. What are they gonna go, "Eh, eh, eh." First they came in just as, uh, reporters telling ou-our story. Then they became partners, and now they've forgotten about us. So for that reason, says the

30:51 Zohar, not to make too much of a noise of the Kedushah in V'Olam. So however you learn the Zohar, I'm quite sure those who, uh, say it loud also know the Zohar. But that's the reason for non, um, in Chassidische communities, the волоцин-- the Kedusha волоцин isn't made, uh, allowed. All right. So So here someone asked me in the Israeli Chabad siddur, it has, uh, several times the word chasdo. It says, "Yadgish hasamach shel chasdo." You should stress the samech of the word chasdo. And he's asking, what's it mean, stress? Because you know, in Hebrew we have , the upper... The, the, uh, last syllable, second last syllable. What does it mean, this stress on the word, on the samech of chasdo? So I decided it's worth, uh, exploring this a little bit. So we have the following. This comes from the Rebbe's Haggadah, the Rebbe's, uh, Biur on the Haggadah. Towards the end of the Haggadah, we have Hallel, and on this the Rebbe brings the Yerushalmi quoted in the Rif. "Ki leolam chasdo. Tzorich lehatiz ki leolam chasdo." You have to stress ki leolam chasdo. "De lo lishtamah ki leolam." It shouldn't sound like ki leolam, like the world chasdo. "Ve gam samech shel chasdo," and also to stress the samech of the word chasdo. So let's now... The Rebbe has given us a source, and this is really, in a large way, what the Rebbe is doing in his Haggadah, in his Biur on the Haggadah. He is, uh, he's bridging the

32:59 gap, shall we say, from the literature of Halakha, et cetera, literature of, of, uh, Pardes, and he's c- showing how it connects with the... Where it connects with the Nusach Haggadah, with, with the tefillah of the Haggadah. And so here he has a, a, a, a source about this ki leolam chasdi Yerushalmi, so he quotes this. Okay. So let's read the Yerushalmi as it is quoted in the Rif in the, uh, I think third perek of Berachos. "Reb Levi ve'Rebbevu de Minchefo veShem Rebbi Sisi," says, "Tzorich lehatiz zayin shel lema tizkeru." When you say it in Shema, when you say tizkeru, you should stress the zayin. Okay? "Reb Yoino veShem Reb Chisda amar: Tzorich lehatiz ki leolam chasdi." You should be stressing in the the words ki leolam chasdi. What stress do you need to do? So then there's a Rashi on the margin of the Rif. "Tzorich lehatiz de lo lishtamah ki leolam vechei tzorich lehatiz samech shel chasdo." Without Rashi, you could have said the stress is on the word ki. "Tzorich lehatiz ki leolam chasdo," not ki. But then Rashi adds also the samech of chas. This is what the Rebbe is quoting, the gam samech shel chasdei for the Rashi in the Rif. If you look in here on the bottom of the page, we have here from the Knesset HaGedolah, which is like a collection, uh, um, on, on the Shulchan Aruch, of comments on the Shulchan Aruch. Written by Veniste, if I'm not mistaken. So he says, "Tzorich le..."

34:55 He quotes the Rashi that's from the Rif, that, "Tzorich lehatiz ki leolam chasdi." Yeah. It shouldn't be like ki leolam chasdi. I don't know. "Venire midivorom d'tarti bo inu." So from the Rashi's comment, we understand there's two emphasis. "Lehatiz ha-yud b'chi," they're adding to stress the yud. "De lo yihiye nire ke'omer ki leolam." It shouldn't be seen like, like one word, ki leolam. That's why lehatiz... Sheinis lehatiz samech shel chasdi to stress the samech. "Shelo yiheye nire, yir'eh ke'omer chasdi be zayin." It shouldn't sound like a chasdi. Just to make it stress, it should be a samech. So it's interesting, by Shema, laman tizkeru, it shouldn't be tizkeru. And by, uh, chasdi, it should be chasdi, not chasdi. Okay. And he refers to the commentary of his brother on the Yerushalmi. Uh, if I'd like, um, might as well share the opportunity, take the opportunity to share, my Nachman, tzadik alav shalom, who by, uh, by the Seder night, he would relive the siddur in which he was present by the Rebbe. And so by, by he, by Hallel, he, it was alternating. Um, okay. That was approximately the tune. Right. Someone is commenting that the SeMaH Tzedek says Kedusha волоцин is not said aloud, I believe. Uh, gonna have to look that up. Okay, what else do we have for today? Okay. There's, uh, a fine gentleman who I met in Los Angeles who's Sephardi or Israeli and, um, therefore, there are certain things which for Ashkenazim are really not an issue, but for

37:01 Sephardi pronunciation, they do become an issue. And that is when it comes to a comets So as you may know, Sephardim generally pronounce the komatz as we do a patach, as a "a." But if the komatz is what's called the komatz katan, which means that it should have been a cholem and it's been diminished to a komatz, then that remains "o" rather than "a." So a Sephardi will say kol davar because the word kol comes from kol. So kol, the cholem was diminished because of a hyphen. So it's diminished to become kol. It's not gonna be kal davar, yeah? So here's a question on the word shomro nafshi ki chasid ani. In Tehillim chapter eighty-six, shomro nafshi, is it sh- for a Sephardi, is it shamra nafshi or shomra nafshi? This is his question. And so I looked around, and first I saw it's, uh, a lot of confusion here. But then I took the Sefer of Rabbi Shmuel Heber, zal zei gezunt, and he, he very tersely, he says there are two, there are two ways of understanding this sentence, and that makes a difference to the way you'd pronounce it in Sephardi pronunciation. Is shomro nafshi, "O Hashem, protect my soul," or is it saying, "Shomra nafshi, my soul has been observant and guarded your mitzvahs"? Two different, totally different meanings. I looked up in the Tirzashim translation, Rabbi Manguel. He says the former, sh- shomro nafshi, "Protect my soul." But there's another way of pr- reading it. Shom- Shomro nafshi, "My soul

38:52 has been guarding your mitzvahs," ki chasid ani, "because I am pious." So let's read. He brings from the Ibn Ezra. It's a, a verb in the past. "My soul has been guarding, observing what it had to do, and therefore, ad hayosi chasid, and we've come to the level of piety." Then he quotes Rabbeinu Bem Biluam. No, it's shomro nafshi. It's not a shmor nafshi. Guard, that's a request. Guard my soul. And as a result, that will make a difference in the pronun- in, in the pronunciation and the shva, et cetera. So this... It's the same word. And as they say, Ashkenazim, um, makes no difference to us. It does, actually, because when you're davening, you should know what you're saying. And so now you, now you know there's two pirushim, yeah? I've been often asked, why is it in the Alter Rebbe Siddur s- he has about six or eight times two, two, um, two nusachahs. For example, . If he... I mean, which one do... If you're only gonna say one, why did he put the other one? So my, uh, my suggestion is the following, that in actual davening, you can only say one. So you have to take one or the other. When it comes to kavana, you can have a high kavana both. Uh, lo sosur, it will not go astray. Well, will not be removed. Altos is a request. You can have in mind both. And so, um, here also, shomra nafshi ki chasid ani, you can have in mind

40:29 both kavanahs. I'm gonna finish off. I'm gonna finish off a little early. We have ma'ariv at quarter to nine thirty, so, uh, I will have a few minutes to be able to get to ma'ariv on time. So if you remember two weeks ago, I'd spoken about I was checking my tzitzits, and in the knot I saw how the tzitzits had unraveled. And as a result, I stopped wearing that tallis because unraveled tzitzits are, uh, as if they were dis- not, not kosher tzitzits. And it was down there in the knots, in the, on the, the braid, and that would make the tzitzits pas. So, and then because it is imperative that tzitzits have to be braid. They have to be twisted. Sh- sh- moshe-- sh- shzira. Moshe. So now, one of our listeners, Rabbi Potash, Rab-- uh, so in, uh, San Francisco. So he pointed out to me that in the Or HaChatim, the late Rabbi Mitritsky of Pfas, he put together two volume of the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch with comments. Um, and later, his son, Mala Mocha, Rab Morcha, uh, zal zei gezunt, he did it on the Hilchos Shabbos, and recently published an excellent two-volume set on Shir HaKodesh thereabouts. But meanwhile, here's a comment of Rabbi Levi Mitritsky. So he wants to say the following. When it says that when the sh- the tzitzits have unraveled, they're not kosher, that's when it's made just of two, two threads, and they've been twisted over one another, and now they've unraveled. But if

42:11 it's made of eight strands, as we have, that's a common tzitzits nowadays. So then the fact that they are unraveled within each strand, but because they, they s- they are largely the two, the two main bodies are br- um, s- twisted one over the other, therefore, we... they're still kosher. I saw the, uh, Piske Chosid also has a similar, uh, observation. Again, that that which tzitzits unraveling means that it's n-no longer kosher. That's only if it's entirely unraveled. But if it's within each, each side of the, of the, uh, of the, of the, um, two main bodies of the, um, twisted tzitzits, if within them they are unraveled, then the tzitzits are still kosher. I'm gonna finish off with this. Wish you all a Gut Mechayesh and a Kasive v'chasima tovah and, uh, we should have a shnas geulah, Mashiach tziteinu, bamahora b'yameinu. Chazak chazak.