Hilchos Shabbos: The Halachos of Chazara

Topics

• Chazara According to the Mishnah Berurah
• Chazarah and Shiyah
• Why chazarah is tied to the original shiyah
• Two ways to understand chazarah
• Shiur, Chazara, and the Question of a New Shiur
• Two Ways to Learn the Halacha
• Rabbeinu Tam and the Question of Chazarah
• The Biur Halachah and a Lenient Reading
• The Rema and the Case of Chazarah
• How People Learn It in Practice
• A Note on Being Machmir
• Chazarah According to the Rema
• A Case of Chazarah from Erev Shabbos
• How Chazarah Is Defined
• Sharatzion and the Question of Shir
• A New Chiddush: Shir L’Tzorech Shabbos
• Shabbos and Hazarah
• Coffee, Court, and Mood
• Hazarah to a Place That Is Not Yet Say Lethis
• Chazara, Yatzei Ledes, and the Measure of Heat
• The Mishnah Berurah and the Earlier Discussion
• Nir K’Mevashel and the Case of a Fire That Is Not Yetzelach
• Who Sees the Fire?
• The Same Act, But Not the Same Fire
• The Question of a Flame That Does Not Reach Yahtzee Lettuce
• Agreement, Land, and the Bottom Line
• Karka Is Worse
• Putting It on a Counter or in a Refrigerator
• Why Daytul Hakser Matters
• Karka, Fridge, and Holding It
• Raisachas and the Mishnah Berurah
• Reb Zelig and Learning on the Right Page
• Weakness, Greatness, and Different Types in Learning
• The Mishnah Berurah Case: Returning a Pot by Mistake
• Rishaburoi and the Ran
• A different sevara: by mistake
• Fell off by itself versus taking it off
• Distinguishing the Cases
• How the Sugya Depends on the Learning
• Talis and Berakhah After Sleep
• Conclusion

Transcript

# Chazara According to the Mishnah Berurah

We learned that the din of chazara, according to the Mishnah Berurah, is in Reish Nun Gimel, se’if katan Nun Beis. It applies even by mitztamek v’yafeh lo, but only when it is not garuf v’katum, because that is the halachah. Kirish gruf of tumah is only when it is mitztamek v’yafeh lo. But the case of eino gruf, which is not the Mechaber’s case, would not be good even by mitztamek v’yafeh lo.

We asked a kashya: there is no chitui by mitztamek v’yafeh lo. It is worse than shehiyah. By shehiyah, there is no din by mitztamek v’yafeh lo. As a matter of fact, by shehiyah, even possibly when it is after ma’achal ben Derusai, there is no shehiyah, even by mitztamek v’yafeh lo. There are two shitos. But here it is mashma that, according to all opinions, by mitztamek v’yafeh lo it would be asur.

Why? Again, by shehiyah, mitztamek v’yafeh lo is a problem; mitztamek v’yafeh lo is not a problem. And even in a mitztamek v’yafeh lo, it might not be a problem, according to one shita, the two shitos in the Shulchan Aruch, ma’achal ben Derusai. I once told this to you, that the Mishnah Berurah’s mashma is that he paskens that way, according to all opinions. Because in the summary, in the summary of that l’chol ha’dei’os that the Mishnah Berurah makes after shehiyah, chazarah, and so on, he writes clearly that you do not have to have garuf v’katum when it is ma’achal ben Derusai. No, the Mishnah Berurah paskens that way. I showed it to them. I showed it to you. I showed it to you.

And even though here it is mashma, and the Mishnah Berurah says teiv l’chol ha’dei’os, when it comes to mitztamek v’yafeh lo, it is mashma that according to all opinions it is not even ma’achal ben Derusai.

So why is mitztamek v’yafeh lo a problem by chazarah, and why is it so much worse than shehiyah? Shehiyah is rabbanan; chazarah is rabbanan. So why is this rabbanan more chomer?

He said a shtickel teretz, that it has to do with the reason for the halachah. Shehiyah could be משום שמא יחתה. Chazarah is because of nirah k’mevashel. So it has entirely different halachos. The reason shehiyah is משום שמא יחתה, and this is because of nirah k’mevashel. So the nirah k’mevashel could be even on the mitztamek v’yafeh lo. For chitui, it could be that it is only nega’a where it is not cooked, or even if you hold the chumrah when it is cooked, but k’ma’achal ben Derusai. But there would be no reason when it is mitztamek v’yafeh lo.

Then we brought down that, למעשה, the Mishnah Berurah and Sha’ar HaTziyun, se’if katan lamed zayin, write that there is a Sefer HaYashar בשם Rabbeinu Tam that the reason for chazarah is also משום שמא יחתה. It happens to be a Tosafos in Lamed Ches Amud Beis as well, the top Tosafos there. And if so, you are back to the shailah, back to the original shailah: if it is משום שמא יחתה, since by mitztamek v’yafeh lo you do not have it, why is it different than shehiyah?

So there are two terutzim. One teretz is that it is true that it is משום שמא יחתה, plus nirah k’mevashel. It is actually both. Shehiyah is only משום שמא יחתה, while by chazarah it is both: chitui and nirah k’mevashel. And the nafka minah would be that in order to make chazarah, you would have to take care of both problems. You would have to make sure there is no nirah k’mevashel, as well as no buttons, and if that were the case of gruf v’katum that you want to use for gruf v’katum, there would be no shailah of chitui. Kenzai.

The other way to learn it is the Magen Avraham. There is a Magen Avraham in the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, very bechiddush, that Shabbos is worse than Erev Shabbos. Shabbos is worse than Erev Shabbos.

# Chazarah and Shiyah

Shiyah is a problem, but that is the problem of every Shabbos, because chazarah is on Shabbos, and therefore it is much worse, much worse.

I do want to point out that, mi-tzad echad, it is much worse, but mi-tzad sheni it is much more calm. Before I point that out, I just want to say that the lomdus could be that chazarah is a type of shiyah, but it is the shiyah that you do on Shabbos. The way the cheshbon that the Magen Avraham is learning is worse because it is on Shabbos. It could be that we could hear it; it is not muchrach, but you could hear that they are both shiyah: this is the shiyah done on Erev Shabbos, and this is the shiyah done on Shabbos, and therefore the shiyah done on Shabbos is much worse.

Or you could say that chazarah happens to be on Shabbos, but it does not flow well. It is a different halachah: one is a shiyah, one is a chazarah. Why do I have to tie them together?

# Why chazarah is tied to the original shiyah

First of all, because we learned in the Mishnah Berurah, and you can see it again clearly, that the svara of chazarah is batlah shiyah rishonah. If the tie is that there is a new halachah of chazarah, you do not have to come on to batlah shiyah rishonah. There is no reason for it. What does the fact that the shiyah helped me have to do with chazarah? What does one have to do with the other? Let us say the shiyah is mutar. Yes, but there is a new halachah called chazarah; what do you have to do with batlah shiyah rishonah for?

Then you tie it back to the shiyah. You do not really need to ask on the chazarah that there is, let us say, a good shiyah. It is not batlah shiyah rishonah, so what? So what? That is right. Very good. Beautiful.

Why is chazarah mutar? Maybe chazarah is asur in itself. Who told you? Maybe the Chachamim said you are not allowed to be machzir. That is the lomdus that we explained in these halachos. But maybe the Chachamim assered chazarah altogether. So we were mevarer that these halachos seem to be something about daas and the original shiyah and the return. Yes, but that could be the lomdus; it is not muchrach.

It is very shak to learn that there is a new halachah by putting a pot on a fire. People do not know. Maybe a guy just walked into the room and he is saying, “Oh, you put a pot on the fire. What are you doing?” If it is my reshus, well, you do not have to work with the first shiyah. What is the first shiyah? We even asked this as a kashya. If it has to do with the first—sorry, if it has to do with chazarah, returning, and people seeing, then even if, even if there is—forget about the first shiyah. Even if, let us say, he died to laksa to the first shiyah, who cares? You see people putting a pot back on the fire. We discussed this. We discussed this. What is the shiyah? I am sorry, what is the niruk himavashal? Is it himself? Is it other people? We have done this before. I am just speeding through it.

But I mean, I can hear that you could say there is no halachah of chazarah, or you could say that once it is not a real chazarah, because it is only returning to what was, it is felt in the chazarah, because that could be. That is what you want: it is felt in chazarah because it is not a real chazarah, because it is just to return it. I am just saying that the rest of the sevara does not make sense. Once I went like this, that is it. I should not be able to put it down. It makes no difference. Why are you putting it back on the fire? What are those tznayim doing?

Yes, but let me explain something to you. After the halachah, saying that if this is the lamdus, then the halachah makes sense. But when you learn the sugya, you could just say anything. You could say that. I mean, do not forget these tznayim. It could be there is no such tznayim. We are going to soon learn from the Ram that there is no issur chazarah bikhlal. No, I am saying that there is no issur chazarah on Shabbos. We will talk about it. We are going to learn this soon.

# Two ways to understand chazarah

The truth is, you know what it is? I could go with you step by step. I will probably lose the olam. The olam is going to fall away if I am nitty-gritty with you. But it is clear that we could really take apart chazarah in many ways, and we could tie it back to the original shiyah. Or we could say that chazarah is not so much the original shiyah that becomes asur, but a new shiyah. There are two ways to learn: either the original shiyah is now no longer, and therefore it is asur, even to put it back to the original shiyah.

# Shiur, Chazara, and the Question of a New Shiur

Well, the peshat is that there is a new shiur. But there was no original shiur. That is exactly what we are going to discuss. In about forty minutes, with siyata d’Shmaya, we will talk about that case. That is one of the cases we will address: if there is no original shiur, what happens? We will discuss it.

Right now, we are holding by the nekudah of explaining that if it is al shem o yechateh as well, then why is the shiur, the shiur meaning the chazara, the part of shem o yechateh, why is that a problem by mishtahamik vir’aloi? So either you can say, anach nami, anach nami. It is al finir kevavash, and it is together, right? We were talking about daik. This is the Mishnah Berurah. The Mishnah Berurah, on which the Sha’ar HaTziyun is based, speaks about grufa. The Mishnah Berurah in siman kuf-lamed-zayin says: “Ve’ein tzarich l’zeh ela k’sh’adayin le’galos ha’mayechu b’n’dersoi, o k’she’ba l’hachzirah b’Shabbos d’mesruva imenu grufa.”

So the grufa chelek is to take care of the shem o yechateh. But that is not the reason for the shiur chazara. Understand that this Sha’ar HaTziyun is going back on that case, and that case is on the grufa chelek. That is why maybe you would need shem o yechateh. Anach nami. It is a very nice diuk, a beautiful diuk in the Mishnah Berurah, that the Mishnah Berurah brings shem o yechateh only on the nekudah of grufa. We said this already. I am just leading you into the next part of what we want.

# Two Ways to Learn the Halacha

The other way to say it is that these are not two separate halachos. One is shiur, and chazara is the shiur plus the nirakim ha’vash. They are two different things. Either we say that there is shiur, and the problem is going back to the original shiur, and here you root it with a chazara, whatever the case may be. Or chazara is a new halacha. There is a special halacha of nirakim ha’vash.

If you learn that it is the same halacha, then why does it have more halachos? If it is back to the original shiur, and besides you are making a new shiur, the problem is that the original shiur fell off and now you are making a new shiur, so why is this shiur worse? And the teretz is because this shiur is on Shabbos. That is where we use the Magen Avraham. That is what I meant when I said that with the Magen Avraham it gets better, to say that they are both about shiur. Meaning, it is not muchach in the Magen Avraham, but if you learn that this is a problem of shiur, the Magen Avraham is gorgeous. The Magen Avraham is telling us a nice story: there are two types of shiur. There is shiur on a weekday, I am sorry, there is shiur which is before Shabbos, which is less chomer, and there is a shiur on Shabbos, which is more chomer.

Because if you learn that there is a new halacha of chazara, then we could say there is a special halacha called nirakim ha’vash on top of shem o yechateh. But if you learn that it is because the original shiur fell off and now you are making a new shiur—that is what chazara means—if the new problem of chazara is that you are making a new shiur, no, you just make another one. Huh? You batel the first one and made another shiur? Who told you that? Who told you that? Maybe chazara means you are making a new shiur. Who told you?

So then there is a beautiful Magen Avraham, that this is worse because there is a shiur on Shabbos. This is worse, that is all. That is what I am telling you. That is exactly what I am telling you. If you do not want to put this Rabbeinu Tam in, then it is a nirakim ha’vash of chazara. Forget about it, that is all. But if you want to learn the Rabbeinu Tam, then you can learn the Rabbeinu Tam together with the nirakim ha’vash, or you could learn that it stands alone. The Rabbeinu Tam stands alone, al shem yechateh. So then why is the chazara worse? There it is: it is on Shabbos.

Ha’os ha’em isavar, you should know. But this, if you want to know your side, this is your side. What we just spoke was gevaldig. Many acharonim make this distinction, that it is one or two, but they do not go backwards. If it is only one, then why is it worse? They do not go back; they do not do that. The real reason is usually nirakim ha’vash. See, when you learn, you take on nirakim ha’vash as the davar pashut. And then Rabbeinu Tam comes into the picture, and you try—now you are stuck. Rabbeinu Tam comes and says, what are you doing? Tell her it is also. So you make it that this is the ikkar, and Rabbeinu Tam is with that it is al shem yechateh, that the reason for chazara is al shem yechateh.

# Rabbeinu Tam and the Question of Chazarah

You understand? So the question is: maybe Rabbeinu Tam is only an added point. Rabbeinu Tam has nothing to do with nirukim ha-vashal. But the Mishnah Berurah, when he brings Rabbeinu Tam, may mean to say that there are now two reasons. If, however, you want to learn Rabbeinu Tam separately, as Rabbeinu Tam עצמו, and I never spoke about nirukim ha-vashal, then what you could say is that the reason it is worse is because it is shehiyah on Shabbos. Then one would get the impression that chazarah is much worse than shehiyah.

# The Biur Halachah and a Lenient Reading

The Biur Halachah that we are going to learn says that since chazarah is only derabbanan, we can be meikel. This is the Biur Halachah according to this approach: efshar sheyesh l’hakel b’milsa derabbanan, where you have only one of the conditions. When you have da’as al ha-kas without another factor, without da’as al ha-kas, you can be meikel. Why? Because it is true that the Rema brings both cases, but the question is whether you need both or whether either one is enough. Therefore, b’milsa derabbanan, says the Biur Halachah, you can be meikel.

Wait a minute—is it really so that it is more lenient? I thought Shabbos is worse for shehiyah. Or maybe you say: yes, it is worse, but it is still derabbanan. You are right, it is worse than shehiyah, but it still does not make it a da’as al ha-kas, right?

# The Rema and the Case of Chazarah

I want to show you that it is really less than shehiyah. You know why? Because the Rema brings on amud beis, page 44. Now everybody look at the Shulchan Aruch, siman yud-beis, the Rema: yesh omrim that on Shabbos there is no issur chazarah. The issur chazarah is only on Erev Shabbos. So if anything, the shehiyah of Erev Shabbos is much worse than the chazarah on Shabbos, right?

Now you are going to say: who said we pasken like that? The Rema continues—who says we pasken like that? Someone is going to say, then why do you write books? Don’t write anything about it. No, there is no chazarah—what are you talking about? Ninety-nine point nine percent of people who did not learn the sugya properly do not know this. Go over to any guy and ask him, what is the issur chazarah? He will start saying, to return on Shabbos—there is no such thing. Yes, yes. No, it is all mutar. It is all mutar.

The worst case, the worst scenario, is anichah gabei karka. That is the only case. The only case: anichah gabei karka. The question is whether the other heterim work to undo anichah gabei karka. Anichah gabei karka is the worst case. There is no shehiyah, there is no chazarah; it is only on Shabbos. There is no such thing—there is no chazarah. It is a figment of the imagination of the mechar b’svara, of those who want to put out books and decide to pasken that way.

# How People Learn It in Practice

But in essence, it is funny, because you should know that in Lakewood they are busy with this. They love chazarah, shehiyah, hatmanah—they love it, they love it. The yeshiva guys cannot get enough of it. Lema’aseh, I got up there and I said this klal. I said, tell me something: what is the yeshiva chazarah? The guy said— I said, no, there isn’t. There is no such thing. He said, what do you mean? I said, there is no yeshiva chazarah, what are you talking about? And every guy, every single guy, says, what are you talking about? And I showed them. I said, could you sit down and read it? And they were like, whoa, there is no yeshiva chazarah. There is no yeshiva chazarah, I said.

L’ma’aseh, what is the nafka minah? The shehiyah was mutar. Once the shehiyah was mutar, there is no chazarah. That is l’cha’orah derasat. Because there was no shehiyah. It is a new thing, so there was never a shehiyah. You do not understand—it is so clear, it is not even my chiddush. It is just that the oilam does not pay attention to what they are reading. The ra’ayah is learning that there is no yeshiva chazarah; it is only shehiyah. It does not exist. That is the nirukim ha-vashal. The shehiyah of Erev Shabbos to Shabbos—nirukim ha-vashal—because he was not on the Shabbos. He was not on the Shabbos. And on Shabbos, you are putting it on the hatzarim. Nirukim ha-vashal.

# A Note on Being Machmir

Yeah, the title of HaKadosh—I want to tell you about this title. It is good to be machmir, why not?

# Chazarah According to the Rema

I want you to know that all the teshuvos tomorrow, whenever they have a questionable chazarah that is not clear in the Shulchan Aruch, what they do is: anyway, according to the Rema and the Ramadans, there is no chazarah, so don’t worry about it. Every case—look, all Rav Shalom is on chazarah is this: well, anyway it is mutar, and anyway it is mutar; anyway there is no chazarah, anyway it is beseder, anyway there is no problem in the Rema, and therefore that is that. Only what it says in Shulchan Aruch, huh?

What? I don’t understand. What don’t you understand? I don’t understand what? No, it’s clear: there is no chazarah according to Ashkenazim. You think the Sefardim don’t have chazarah? For k, only the Sefardim have chazarah. Yesterday you were telling me that the Sefardim don’t have an issur chazarah. I’m saying whatever—there are only two se’ifim. Guess what? Ashkenazim beat you on this one.

In Avos, there is nothing at all, blank. The one in the back, there is a hagah, a taiv le’hachmir to make. I know, Shalom, I know, Shalom—nothing. There is no issur chazarah whatsoever. It’s cooked already; what’s the issue? Chas v’shalom, I’m a taiv le’hachmir guy. I don’t care, I don’t care. You told me that the Rema means even if it is not garuf v’katum, it is mutar. Yes, yes, yes, yes, okay.

Forget about le’hachmir, forget about bishul, leave bishul out of the picture. Forget about le’hachmir. Chazarah— is there an issur chazarah according to the Rema? There is no issur chazarah. It doesn’t exist. Never happened. He made it up.

# A Case of Chazarah from Erev Shabbos

Aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, aye, aye, aye, dee, dee, dee, da. Did you know that I am hiring a case of chazarah from Erev Shabbos? It’s only a case of chazarah from Erev Shabbos. So tell me: if I had something on Shabbos, I had something that was not made for garuf v’katum, I could do chazarah.

I want to tell you a bigger chiddush. I want to tell you an even bigger chiddush: it chided even according to the first shittah, whether this is a chazarah. If it’s a chazarah from something that didn’t have a proper shehiyah, it might be chiddush. I put it on, I didn’t know the halachah, I put it on without garuf v’katum. I took it off, and I put it back—it will become mutar. Because you made a mistake. It’s shachach, that’s a good Shabbos. Shachach, not shachach. Shachach is when you took it off; I’m not talking about shachach as when you took it off by mistake. I’m talking about something else: he put it on by mistake. I’m not talking about mistakes now. I’m talking about a guy went, and there was no shehiyah. There was no shehiyah because it was wrong; you weren’t allowed to do it. There was no shehiyah, an illegal shehiyah, until the end, and then you went and you took it off. You wouldn’t have a problem by putting it back. You tell me why. It’s not shehiyah; it’s not chazarah.

# How Chazarah Is Defined

It depends how you learn chazarah. If you learn chazarah, then chazarah is the tash, returning it, and making it a new shehiyah. You’re right, yes. But if the tash is being machzir to the place that I was machzir, there was nothing before. That’s right. So then it’s machzir.

If, let’s say, I take it off the fire on Erev Shabbos, I’m holding it in my hand, and Shabbos came, am I allowed to put it back? I’m holding it in my hand. I took it off Erev Shabbos to check, and all of a sudden it’s Shabbos. Okay, and I go, okay, and I put it back. Was I— is the chazarah according to the Mishna Berurah? You think so, huh?

Okay, so let me show you why you shouldn’t think so much, because thinking is very dangerous when you don’t know the facts. Take a look at the Mishna Berurah, se’if katan mem-daled. Look at the Sha’ar Hatziyun, se’if katan mem-daled, on the Mishna Berurah over here, the Mishna Berurah...

# Sharatzion and the Question of Shir

Who’s reading the Sharatzion? Okay, so there is no chiluk between kishanot l’makirim b’mbayayim. If he took him b’mbayayim, what happens? He took him b’mbayayim. So what’s the case?

The light table is here: kishanot l’miru Shabbos, u’michaz b’samukh ha’shay, chamashvot, d’motu litu l’hachzer, afilu b’Shabbos. When you have a group for k’tum, yes? If not, it’s a problem.

The Sharatzion says, v’ein chiluk b’mkishanot l’makirim b’mbayayim u’mbayim b’Shabbos gufa. Which means what? I took it off Erev Shabbos, it’s oida b’yaday, and I’m putting it back — it’s a mutter z’rasser. No. It says that you’re allowed to take it off and put it back.

Wait a minute. Over here, what’s the story? I took it off Erev Shabbos. What happened to the shir? I’m going to put it back on Shabbos. On Shabbos. How does m’bayayim have to do with that? How does that help you on Erev Shabbos? How does it work? But you don’t believe in Erev shaya. I don’t understand. I don’t understand.

You were never m’shayim. When Shabbos came, it wasn’t on the pot. It wasn’t on the fire. It’s not even hazarah. But what about shir? Where was your shir? You weren’t m’shayim. I don’t understand. Did you do a proper shir? When Shabbos came, was it on the fire properly? No, so what are you talking about? How does it, when Shabbos came, where was this? It was in my hand off the fire, so why is it to put it back? But I took it off. It wasn’t shochet into Shabbos. It never happened.

But shir is not Erev Shabbos. If I cook something Friday morning, Thursday night, that’s called shir to you. But I took it off Friday morning. So I’m asking you: what is that all about? I’m missing the point. So what happened to the shir? It was never m’shayim on Shabbos properly, but k’nisias Shabbos. What’s the answer to that?

## A New Chiddush: Shir L’Tzorech Shabbos

Okay, so you know what? Let’s write. Give me the sefer. Let’s write that in at the end. Come, let’s write. You have a pen? Come, come. Could you write to Mechaba? He should write this. New chiddush: kol shir l’tzorech Shabbos.

Shir is not always before Shabbos. So normal shir is shir that it’s going to be before Shabbos, right? Meaning, shir that it’s there and it stayed b’shas. We even learned this clearly. What is shir? Shir is from the time of... from zman. What is shir? That’s exactly the words I just said.

One second. Let’s say I have chosen. But who said it has to stay there into shir? So then what is shir? The fact that you put it on. The fact that you put it on. You put it up with all the tenechas. They’re all tight and everything. That’s what shir is. Could you do me a favor and understand what shir is? What is shir? Why is it mutar? Because I started them l’chah before Shabbos. It happens me’leil on Shabbos. Where do you have that in this case? Whatever it is, but that’s what shir is about. Shir was before and after. That’s what it’s about.

When Shabbos came, I didn’t do anything. So how could it be? So how could you talk about a shir which was not do Shabbos? That’s what shir is. That’s what shir is. That’s what shir is — not do Shabbos. Why not? When I pick up something, that’s the bridge. That’s what connects it to shir, like it had no hefsek at all. I took it off, it’s not there. But I’m holding that the entire time with my hands. It’s zero and still right top. Everything is still there all the time. And, hilches malachim, by putting it back down, that’s not called a malachim.

# Shabbos and Hazarah

Shabbos, you start. Could you come and say, “I started them along”? You know, again, when I go to the store, I bought the chicken. Maybe I started the melachah. The real question is if I keep it off. We don’t need the shell. The question is: if I cook something on Thursday night, that’s exactly it. I need to get it off, and I take it off the fire. All right, and that’s about it. I want to return it. Is there something I don’t get a she’eilah here?

I think you should do it for Shabbos. You know why? Every melachah point you started actually during the week. Sure, when did I buy the chicken for Shabbos? I bought it on Tuesday, so it started on Tuesday. What do you think? I need more than coffee. It’s like on the first day. What did you bring on the first day? I brought my own food. I can’t—I don’t want to eat. It’s like on the first day. No, but I started it on Thursday. What’s the problem? But the Ramaz is when the lenient of hazarah applies only if what? You had the food in the Shabbos itself. That’s what I just read. Did you guys see this in the Ramaz? Where did you see that? I started now when I picked up on every— all the conditions are. That’s what she is. You like the case. You like it.

# Coffee, Court, and Mood

Okay, now that you finish bothering me, now that you finish bothering me, tell me: we can have more coffee, or it’s a try to move. Yeah, because, Baruch Hashem, I feel good now. You see, I should have went to court now, like the way I feel now. I should have went to court. What is the mind? It’s probably less coffee in it. I feel less coffee. I feel it’s not enough coffee.

Okay, you hear the vort? Yeah, okay, good. So yes, what? No. No, was I down? No. I love Hashem. I’m not down about anything, never, ever. Only crazy people are down. Okay, now, yeah. What should be down about?

Well, Hashem told my lawyer afterwards. The guy usually comes to my shiur at night. I called, “Mazel tov, I lost.” I—what’s not a mazel tov? It’s good. No, what else is good? Comes a little tight. What? It comes with type of means mazel tov. No, seriously, what’s wrong? Whatever the court case against the shul, I don’t know. Okay, now the kids are...

# Hazarah to a Place That Is Not Yet Say Lethis

When I want to make hazarah, it’s like a book. When I want to make hazarah, am I allowed to make it to a place which is not yet say lethis? Yeah. To make—if I want to make hazarah, is it only to a place which is, yeah, say lethis? Is that asur, or is it asur even if I put on a black?

So truth is, they all caught my show. Let me tell you something. It’s a little bit of an Irish guy to quote from my shiur, because Mishnah Berurah says it clearly. Maybe what they use your mosheh for—let me explain. Let’s look inside. It’s on Reish Gimel, see if Katan Samech S. That’s clearly that hazarah is only to makom. Maybe they didn’t get that far. Maybe the people who write the sefarim didn’t reach that far in the Reish Gimel, see if Katan Samech S. You have it? I know. Hey, okay, Kaf Samech, that’s right. Hey, Kaf Hey, Samech. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, I’m getting confused. No, it’s not. Here it is. Ayin Tes. It was the second page. Samech, Samech. That’s why I’m saying, you know what happens with the new Mishnah Berurah? You get confused with the source.

# Chazara, Yatzei Ledes, and the Measure of Heat

It’s not good. Okay, samuches, mi u’mnitztanin, hainu u’mnitztan legamri. V’atam n’shayach ois bishul chodesh. Good. So that’s when there is a new bishul. Yovesh, marak, bishul, bishul, good.

V’kol zeh k’shemini chateh b’makom, she’al yedei hachom, yiyeh yatzei ledes bo. So you see clearly that it has to do with b’makom shehazar; it is only an insert to a b’makom shehayatzei ledes. Maybe they use R’ma Yishu’s teshuvah to explain what’s yatzei ledes. R’ma Yishu learns that the food has to turn yatzei ledes, not that the place is yatzei ledes. It has to do with the food. If the food that you return it to will be in a place which is yatzei ledes, that is much worse. You need much more heat to make the food yatzei ledes. If it’s not yatzei ledes, it’s not chazara. Chazara is to a bishul. He writes this. He’s saying the only time it’s a problem is when it’s yatzei ledes.

There is a question: what do you call yatzei ledes? Yatzei ledes is the place, whereas yatzei ledes means the food becomes yatzei ledes. R’ma Yishu says the food becomes yatzei ledes. The place is yatzei ledes as long as the food won’t become yatzei ledes. I don’t know how you’re going to measure that. It’s not easy to measure. Forget about Ashkenazim; this has nothing to do with Ashkenazim. This has to do with everybody, if you hold there is an issur chazara, in the cases where there is an issur chazara. The issur chazara is to a place where it’s going to be yatzei ledes. That’s where you’ll have a problem with chazara. If the place is not yatzei ledes, then you don’t have a problem with chazara. It’s not called chazara. It’s like putting it in the refrigerator. As long as you didn’t put it in a place where it’s yatzei ledes, it’s like putting it in the refrigerator.

So what is the issur chazara? Right. So the question is: what do you call yatzei ledes? The place is yatzei ledes, or the food will become yatzei ledes? R’ma Yishu learns the food will become yatzei ledes. What if I stand there and wait to make sure I take out the food? Then it’s mutar. It’s always mutar. Even if I put it on the fire itself? No. So you’re talking about the issur stuff. I’m not even holding it yet. You have to know this will get better for that. No, no. Before we learn this, first let’s get what it says. Then we can start saying, okay, so you want to pick it up. You want to make a chapter. There’s no issur chazara because you chaptered before bishul. Okay, whatever. Okay, come.

## The Mishnah Berurah and the Earlier Discussion

Now, so this is this Mishnah Berurah. Is it totally in what we spoke before? Is it totally if it has to do with shammi echad? Is it totally in nireh k’mevashal? Is it totally because of the old shiur and the new shiur? What’s the story over here? Well, what’s the... So it really has nothing to do with it. If it’s nireh k’mevashal, so it has to be that the food... the food could be in this bishul, right? Okay.

Now, I don’t see where it makes a nafka mina l’maaseh. Careful, careful, don’t spill. This is very important. Okay, I don’t see where l’maaseh should make a nafka mina. Okay, good? Okay, next. Next issur. That’s what I wanted. But I don’t know. Shammi echad. You are talking about a group of ketumah. So I don’t know. Take it all the way and then just cover it up. Why? It’s not yet so obvious. It’s not a magic burning. You can’t put a fire on that. You can’t put a pot on that. It’s never going to happen. It’s going to be an open fire. There’s no metzikin v’bishul. Once there’s no metzikin v’bishul, or it’s true, you say maybe on the tzad of chitui. On the tzad of chitui. But that was my shaylah. That’s really where my chakirah is. That’s what I want to know: does it have anything to do with the shammi echad? Can I put a pot on top of a Shabbos candle? No, I’m never, ever going to have anything to do with bishul. Nothing’s ever going to happen. I don’t want to do it. Is there any reason for it? Is there a shiur? Or is there a chazara? I don’t see why there should be. Why would there be a chazara? No, the shaylah is different. The shaylah is: if it’s not something which is yatzei ledes, you’re never going to get your food yatzei ledes. Yeah, your food yatzei ledes. Why don’t we close the shammi echad? If the reason for chazara and shiur is the same, and shiur has to do with shammi echad, that’s really my shaylah. That’s what I meant. That’s exactly what I started with. I don’t know. Does that have anything to do with shammi echad? I don’t know. I don’t know. Maybe it’s only a place where now we’ll be in the Shabbos. To go on Shabbos and do that? Let’s say it’s not yatzei ledes, but let’s say the problem of shiur is shammi echad. It should still be asur. That’s what I’m saying. If the chazara is because of chitui, you might still have a problem. That was my chakirah. I didn’t explain it much. And when I said it, I realized—I thought the shaylah understood what I was saying. That’s my question. My question is this: does it have to do with chitui?

# Nir K’Mevashel and the Case of a Fire That Is Not Yetzelach

Then maybe it should be when it is not yetzelach. I mean, there is a fire there. If it has to do with nir k’mevashel, then you are not in the category of mevashel that way.

Okay, now wake him up, wake him up. We are going to learn a very big chiddush. Everybody, take a look. Come, come around, boys. Sit, come, come. We are going to learn a gevaldige chiddush.

Nir k’mevashel when it is not so hot. People see it, even if it is not so hot. We asked that as a kasha. Still, it is going to be nir k’mevashel. So what can you do? We asked this as a kasha. He is asking a nice Torah, which we really asked two days ago. We said that if it is mitzvah mikvah rav loy, this should be a nir k’mevashel. Teretzis? Why should it not be nir k’mevashel? It should be a nir k’mevashel.

No, no, no. We said a different question. We said: if it is mitzvah mikvah rav loy, who is going to cook it? What do I mean? It is mitzvah mikvah rav loy; that is not called mitzvah mikvah ha’veshel. Teretzis? Nobody sees? That is what we answered. We spoke about this, right? Then we said by gar v’katum, right? So again, who is cooking? Who would be cooking in such a case? If there is no food cold, then you are not going to cook. Again, who sees? So therefore, people.

So the kasha is really this. We spoke about this. Let us say it is not b’makom she’yatzeh l’des. Who sees? Let it still be a nir k’mevashel. There is a fire there. Who knows if it is a nir k’mevashel? I mean, if it is hot, but not hot enough. I do not know. A small fire. They do not know. You make your cheshbon. This they do not know. Gar v’katum, they do not know that it is gar v’katum. In stomach virality, they do not know because they are not looking in the pot. Everything they are looking at besides for the heat. Maybe they see a thing on an oven here. Who says there is a fire there? Maybe it is one of those electrical things, and it is just hot from before, and the guy does not know the difference.

Yes! That is what I want. Maybe you should not put things on the stove, and that is the nir k’mevashel. Yes, that is my shalom. That is exactly what I am asking. That is exactly what I am asking. And that is what he asked. Nir k’mevashel. Shalom. Next week. You say this year.

## Who Sees the Fire?

Okay, I hold some Mardi Gras. I hold some Mardi Gras. In stomach virality, we asked this two days ago. Who sees? How do people see? Okay, then it is nir k’mevashel. It looks bad. In stomach virality, no one looks in the pot. No one is going to look inside the pot. Okay, you know what? There are no coals, do not worry about it. No one looks there either. Nobody looks anywhere. But it is not yetzelach, so that they are going to know. If you see something on the stove, what do they know? I do not know if it is yetzelach or not. It has nothing to do with the bishul. It has nothing to do with the...

I am asking: you put it on a fire. They do not see a fire. They do not see a fire. You know what? They do not see a fire when it is gar v’katum. There is no fire. You said it is on the person. That is it. Again, if you tell me there is no fire, there is no fire here either. Right? Gar v’katum, they say it is dark; they fall in the mud. Yes, dark. They know the difference.

I am saying, on an electrical oven, you have an electrical oven. Nobody sees if it is hot or off. So if it is hot, then it will reach yetzelach, not yetzelach. Huh? I was going to say, for a Mexican, it actually means that it is a derech bishul. It is for yourself. In stomach virality, it is derech bishul. It is derech bishul. I did not know that. You know anybody that says, come, let me cook my chocolate? It is getting worse. The peulah that I am doing right now is a derech bishul. The peulah is a derech bishul. In stomach virality, it is still k’bishul. It is gar v’katum; it is still k’bishul. But if it is not going to reach yetzelach, that is not k’bishul.

## The Same Act, But Not the Same Fire

Never put it on that place, ever. Whether it is cooked or not cooked. What do you mean? What are you saying? What are you? Never put a pot. Who cooks pot? On the side of the black. If I want to warm it up, what do you mean? It is not cooking. It is not about warming. It is not cooking.

I am asking you: in stomach virality, you are saying the peulos are normal, just the scenarios are not. But a case where it is not yetzelach? Here I am giving you a very nice case where it is put in the same place, but it is just not yetzelach. You yourself would never do that. If we are saying, you yourself would not take a burnt chocolate to put on the fire to burn it even more. Again, the way he just said it, the act is the same. If it is a pot, I put it on the fire. The act over here is the same: I put a pot on the fire. It just happens not to be yetzelach. That is not the same fire. We never cook on such a fire.

# The Question of a Flame That Does Not Reach Yahtzee Lettuce

Again, but I would never cook... I don’t see the difference. I don’t know. Do you see the difference? Anybody see the difference? Maybe. Maybe that’s a good horror. Maybe. I don’t know. No one ever said that. No one ever said that that’s what’s done with Verado. Partly yes, partly not.

Where are you going? Huh? Oh. Good gosh. Why didn’t you write this question down? Seriously, it’s a great question. You’re very tired? So what? I’m just very tired. I keep hearing yahtzee lettuce, but what difference does it make, with yahtzee lettuce or not?

So what’s the case now? The case is what? That we have an open fire that’s not going to cook the food to the point of yahtzee lettuce? Maybe. Or maybe it’s just that it was once hot, and it’s just not reaching yahtzee lettuce. In other words, the question is: can I cook food on a flame which is not going to reach yahtzee lettuce? Correct. That’s the question.

So the challenge is: is it hot or is it cold? The question I’m asking is, it’s hot. Now why wouldn’t we say that, being that in my mind it’s a fire, right, and if it would have been a little higher, it would have been hot? So what’s his catch? It’s exactly what I just asked. It’s exactly what I just said.

I don’t know. He claims it doesn’t make sense to him. There’s no mistake a person would have made. No mistake. No mistake. It doesn’t look like a person would put it on a fire which will almost heat it. It’s not a fire. There’s one little flame going. When there’s no flame, you won’t make a mistake. But if there’s a flame and it’s just not yahtzee lettuce, you will make a mistake. That’s Raffi’s lumbers.

Stop rallying us, sir. What’s up, sir? Because...

Raffi, there’s a way of how to convince the panel here. You pay them in advance, and that’s all. You’re okay.

# Agreement, Land, and the Bottom Line

I’m not going to lie to you: there was no agreement with him about the land. The land was given to him by the Arabs. Do you agree with that? What? Do you agree with that? Okay, get to the bottom line, because in the shiur there’s no time for all the marmokim. Get to the bottom line, after the brackets. According to that, there is no agreement. There is no agreement. When should you be making such a deal? There was no agreement. Okay.

So you see that it could be one without the other. It could be either daytul hakser and not oidei biyaday, or oidei biyaday and not daytul hakser. So maybe that is why the Ramad breaks it up. It’s beautiful. The reason the Ramad doesn’t put it together is because you might think you need both. If it would say oidei biyaday and daytul hakser, you would think it is two, two different things. First, oidei biyaday. It’s either-or. First, it’s oidei biyaday, or daytul hakser; you need both.

So if you look at it, let’s go slowly: it’s either-or. In the Ramad, it’s broken up because, l’halacha, it’s roshon, either-or. It could have daytul hakser and oidei, without oidei biyaday, or without daytul hakser.

# Karka Is Worse

Now the question becomes that the halacha seems to make agav karka much worse, with one of the conditions. In the Ramad’s two cases, one of the conditions is good enough: oidei biyaday, even without daytul hakser, or daytul hakser without oidei. But that is l’hakel in this case. But efsher yesh l’hakel is in what case? In the Mechaber’s case of karka. It’s a little different case, right? How does the Mishnah Berurah bring it? So one of these two cases, not karka yet. The Mishnah Berurah didn’t bring the karka case.

Okay, so you didn’t pass. Where does he bring the Mechaber case with one of the conditions? In the Be’er Lach. And there he says efsher. So we don’t have a clear achra’ah about the karka, because karka, like I told you, is the worst. Oh, efsher. Efsher yesh l’hakel. But he’s not machria, that’s why he doesn’t bring it in the Mishnah Berurah, right? So karka is much worse.

# Putting It on a Counter or in a Refrigerator

Okay, if I put him on a counter, so it’s not biyadi, but it was daytul hakser. Which one of these cases would you compare it to? The Be’er Lach’s second case. It’s not only biyadi, but it’s daytul hakser.

What about if I went and put it in a refrigerator? That might be what? Karka. So under a biyad, it’s karka, and therefore you don’t have achra’ah for the Mishnah Berurah; it’s matir. It’s asur, even with one of the two. Efsher. He doesn’t deal with the efsher of the Mishnah Berurah. I stuck it back into the Be’er Lach. It says when you put it into the refrigerator, that’s agav karka, and one of the conditions of daytul hakser is not going to help you, or either biyadi is not going to help you.

It’s still in my hand. I put it into the refrigerator down, in my hand. I go, oh, I want to put it back. All of a sudden you hear the guy scream, oh, I want swarcholch. Okay, so let’s go back and put it back, all right? Still doesn’t work, really? Because this is called agav karka. It doesn’t make a difference. It’s either biyadi, but it’s still agav karka. It’s much worse.

# Why Daytul Hakser Matters

So we spoke this two days ago: either because kavana, the shiur eshayin, is still here, or in the ma’aseh hachazara, it’s still here. If it’s either biyadi, it didn’t get off the fire. But if it’s daytul hakser, it’s l’vatla and kavana, the shiur eshayin, because it’s all irrelevant. Either did you make a new one or you didn’t make a new one. Nothing, because as long as you put it down on the karka, it’s new, finished.

No, I’m saying he holds it if I don’t put it on the karka. But I’m not holding it. That’s what I’m explaining to you, because the vart of karka means I’m finished cooking. It’s not cool if I’m finished cooking. It’s normal to put that. Let’s see if it comes in and says, but today, even though we finished cooking, you put it down on the counter. That’s right, it’s good s’varah. Maybe. Lachitz chazar. Make a mistake. Make a mistake. Daytul hakser. Daytul hakser. So I made a mistake. There’s nothing about daytul hakser.

# Karka, Fridge, and Holding It

Because it’s too big, you might not need both. You might not need both, habesai. What do you mean? It’s either-or. Or it could be other even without night locks, and night locks even without it could be other. It’s all the same.

So let’s say you put it in the fridge, and you have a dark lock. The fridge is worse, and you think that you’re going to relax it, then it’s good. That’s called karka. Even not cold—one minute, I put it back into the fridge, one minute. Put it down into the fridge. You say one of them is good. Not when it’s agave karka. Not when it’s agave karka. Either die to last, or oi to be odd. Or oi to be odd if it ain’t die to last. Not when it’s agave karka. Maybe you put agave karka, it’s much worse.

If you’re not holding it, I need to die to last. If I am holding it, it doesn’t make a difference. Oi to be odd, as long as I don’t put it down in the karka. I’m holding it, it’s fridge, it’s agave soft, so it’s all good. Just not on top of a washing cloth. Karka. Karka.

# Raisachas and the Mishnah Berurah

Okay, now. Raisachas we spoke is a very nice title. It’s a very nice title, because Raisachas, past this, is because the Mishnah Berurah makes it into a bishel dekalach. The Magen Avraham, we’re going to learn, makes it into one of the five conditions for chazarah. The Magen Avraham makes it as the five conditions for chazarah, so it’s mashma as amdul chazarah. The Mishnah Berurah himself brings it down later. This is Magen Avraham. But the Mishnah Berurah in the beginning makes the Raisachas nothing to do with Shabbos. Read it, read it. This is not to do with chazarah, it’s not to do with bishel.

Ephraim, where are you? But you’re with me? You’re with me? Why? Why are you not up to it? It’s so beautiful. Tell me it’s not beautiful. I’m giving it to you on a klar, with klar kite. You’re not going to hear this anyways. This is clear. You should be up to it. There’s nothing not to be, especially you know the halachos in advance. You have to learn. Okay, let’s go.

# Reb Zelig and Learning on the Right Page

They say over the Brisker Rav that Rav David said over that his father used to ask him, as soon as he had no shaychas to him, he walked over to him and said to him, “If you want to hear what’s in benachas, I’m not learning benachas.” That’s good, that’s why I’m asking you benachas. So get into it, come on. First time, I’m a shaychas, it has to be, you know, this page, and I can’t go to the next page. So like, I’m clean and it’s exactly. You have to, no. They don’t call it tarikula, what do you want?

Huh? Get up to it. What? Because they can’t. I don’t blame them. It’s good that they don’t do that, because could you imagine the answers they would give? It would be very, you know, better for the talmid that he doesn’t do that.

Oh, okay. I don’t know. Reb Zelig is an interesting chap, you know. You know that. He’s an interesting person, Reb Zelig. You think you don’t understand Reb Zelig? Nobody understands Reb Zelig. The talmidim who live there understand him after years and years. Reb Zelig is an interesting person. Reb Zelig is very—Reb Zelig is an extremely ish atzmai, a very individual person. It’s very hard to figure out what he’s thinking, and what he wants, and what he means. His greatness is his clarity of thought. Very clear. Crystal clear. Everything he says with a cheshbon. He wouldn’t blink an eyelid that didn’t make sense. Everything has to make sense. It’s his greatness. And it’s that way of learning too. So that’s the type of person he is.

Yeah. Anybody bring a raya? The hamayim should learn to learn. That’s a little what he would do. He’s trying to prove that, no, you’re supposed to be on this page when you’re on this page and nowhere else. Okay. No problem.

Huh? He likes that yeshiva. You won’t like that yeshiva because they learn a lot there also. Don’t worry. Even if they 700 fooled us, they don’t fail us, they find it. But that’s exactly—yeah, but that’s what he is, and the non-answer is also him. It’s also, they don’t fool us, they find it. Isn’t that wrong? It’s not wrong. It’s not wrong. What it is.

# Weakness, Greatness, and Different Types in Learning

This is a type of personality. Same here, that is my type. But by you it comes from weakness; by him it comes from greatness. What do you mean? No, I’m serious. By him, he’s... How do you know it comes from weakness? Because I know you. You’re my Talmud, you grew up by me, you’re like my kid. What do you mean? You’re like my child. What are you saying? I know you. I mean, I know you since you were a little boy. What are you talking about? We’re together fifteen years. Do you know how many years we’re together? Of course it’s a weakness. Of course it’s a weakness. It’s a phobia that you have. You’re afraid to go further. It’s a phobia. It’s sugar. Sugar is useless. It has to do with the fact that by you everything is very neat. You’re very neat, and therefore in your mind everything has to be neat, and that’s not the way learning works. Learning has to move. And then also everybody’s different.

Reb Zeleg comes from sheetah and he’s so used to sheetah, and everything he says—there are a million sheetahs there. You want to know something? Yes. Yes, he understood it that way. I guarantee there are five other sheetahs. He probably didn’t like the way the guy asked him. He probably felt the guy shouldn’t have asked him. Maybe he wasn’t hearing well. No, he hears very well. He’s not scared. Reb Zeleg hears everything he needs to hear. After we finished the topic, he was talking. He was talking. Reb Zeleg probably held out takers, but there he had a million sheetahs. I’m talking about a man who has a million sheetahs. He’s a brilliant man, what are you talking about? I don’t know, brilliant, Reb Zeleg. Recon was brilliant, but they say Recon—I don’t know what they say. Whatever, you’re talking about a big man. You’re talking about a guy, a bench that’s been around a hundred years. So, yes, you think you understand everything he does. You’ll be a hundred years old, they’ll say. He’s about a hundred years old, Reb Zeleg, what do you want from me?

Can I know her? You know he’s the son of Reb Shimon, right? No, his wife is his grandson. Oh, his wife is his grandson. They were a very good husband and wife. They were tremendous. They were a very beautiful family, a very beautiful couple.

# The Mishnah Berurah Case: Returning a Pot by Mistake

Okay, the kids are... Here’s the story. So, in this Mishnah Berurah world, we just learned either/or. Okay, now like this: what happens if, by mistake, they took it off? By mistake. So what would you tell me, Reb Efraim? Here, Reb Efraim. Can I ask a question, Reb Efraim? The first thing I want to ask you is: the eyeball for the ayin hara, should I put it on my right hand or my left hand? Where should I put it? Okay, that’s shiloh number one. Shiloh number two: am I allowed to return the pot if I forgot? I took it off because I forgot.

Okay, I’m cooking eyeballs for ayin hara. Bunch of eyeballs. Really? He used to eat it. Yitzhak used to tell us he made eyeball soup. In Afghanistan, they eat eyeball soup. It’s a soup, a type of soup that they eat. Eyeball from a cow. From Taliban. Remember he told us? Yeah, yeah. Fish eyeball, cow’s eyeball. They make soup from it. Yeah, that’s... Why are you going so hard? You haven’t had breakfast?

Let me tell you something. Alzen is a good guy. He has good eyes. He has a good soup. Okay, let’s go on. So let me ask you like this, Kvodera: are you allowed to return it if it was forgotten? I’m going to help you. Okay, so what about forgotten? Okay, he forgot. What’s not allowed to be forgotten? So the truth is, Reb Shlomo Zalman comes along and says that you’re allowed to put it back. What did you say? What did you say about what? The toast. The toast, okay. He brings Reb Shlomo Zalman there? He brings him? Okay, so what does he say? The toast. The toast. You thought this is true? This is true. And what? The show wasn’t even cut? You have two pots, one for the night and one for the morning. Whatever, you took it off. Good.

Okay, now he brings Reb Mishnah Berurah also and says that you’re not allowed to return it. He brings Reb Mishnah Berurah? Where’s Reb Mishnah Berurah? Upstairs. He said there’s no return. That’s something else. That’s because you’re not allowed to return it. You have to take it.

# Rishaburoi and the Ran

Where is it? Where is Rishaburoi? Can you find me this Rishaburoi batal? You said there is no Yisr Chazar Rabbi, so you are lucky, no? Oh, that is what he says: Rishaburoi batal. You know why? Because anyway, according to the Ran, there is no problem.

Does he bring that shtick of food? Does he go so far as to bring the whole piece? Yes, yes, he does bring the Ran. So I did not understand: what do you have to come on to the Ran? What do you have to come on to the Ran? He brings it, you hear? Because anyway, there is no Chazar Rabbi, as I told you. Any case that is not Rishaburoi is no problem. Which Rishaburoi are you talking about? Oh, that Rishaburoi. You see a Rishaburoi like this? I will prove to you there is no such Rishaburoi, because if there were a Rishaburoi, your guy over there would not have to write in the back. This is how he suffered, according to what Rishaburoi says. Obviously, there is no such Rishaburoi.

Okay, go ahead. He says the following: if he himself committed the sin of the fire, and he thinks that the fire belongs to the Jewish community, and he is allowed to help the Jewish community, but on the condition that the food that was offered to the Jewish community, he has the right to speak about the Ran. He has the right to speak about the Ran. So you see that without the Ran, it would be a problem.

# A different sevara: by mistake

Ah, you are going to say maybe a different sevara: he took it off by mistake, so he was not b'ta'as l'shiyurah. When is there a problem with b'ta'as l'shiyurah? But he wanted to take it off completely. I know, but he did not do it on purpose. By mistake, by mistake.

So I want to tell you a meireh deke zach. This is what Reb Shlomo Zalman says. Okay, let me ask you: what happens if it fell off by itself? So here too comes Reb Shlomo Zalman, right? Let us make the cheshbon. If you want to learn that it has to do with the Ran, that anyway everything is mutar, so this would also be mutar, right? What is the difference? Yeah, it fell off. You say that. Ibn Dhafqan did not say that. You say that case, which I want to say later, and you are ruining my shiur. It is okay. Just do not forget to pay me at the end of the... pay me at the variance. You will not hinder my shiur. I am not going to support it. You are not going to support it. I am going to hinder it.

# Fell off by itself versus taking it off

Okay, now. So the shaylah is like this: it fell off, and you take it off. The Ran is saying there is no... it is cheshbon, so once you send it to the Ran, there is no problem. But if it has to do with the fact that it was talui, but you took it off, here I did not take it off, so maybe it is a lot better, or maybe it is a lot worse. Why? Because there the pshat is, I by mistake took it off. While here, it fell off, which means that the off that it came off was not a mistake. It was not with the daas of l'hasir. You can hear it both ways.

I am going to tell you: Rav Shach in the sefer speaks about this shticklach, and he says he does not understand the whole sugya, blah, blah, blah. And nafal me'lav nafal me'lav says Rav Shach would be asur, and he compares it to a tallis. It is funny, because everybody, when I said the shiur there, a tallis! There is no reason to put together a tallis. And he says of Rav Shach: if it is al tasech daas, if it has to do with hesech hadaas, so you too, hesech hadaas. Even nafal me'lav would be asur.

The way we are learning, it is not muchach, because you see that Rav Shach did not want with hesech hadaas, because then he would not need the ran. You do not need the ran. You do not need to run to hesech hadaas; there is no problem. Hesech hadaas is bad. Hesech hadaas is right, but he did not have hesech hadaas. You by mistake took it off. You did not want this part off. Not my part. I did not want this part off; I wanted that part off. Now you are talking about a different case. You are talking about when I thought this part was this. That is Rav Shach.

I know, that is what I am trying to tell you. That is if the case is: I wanted this part off, but I made a mistake because there is something else inside. I wanted this off. It is something else. Good, that is what I am trying to tell you. So that is a case where I...

# Distinguishing the Cases

I wanted this pot off because I didn’t know where it was. But let’s say I thought this pot was something else. No—I was going for the chalm pot. I was going for the chalm pot, and by mistake I took the other pot, not knowing what was inside, not because I thought it was chalm. I went over and took off the first pot, thinking it was the chalm pot. In truth, it was the second pot, so I was never mesir daas.

No, it’s not the same story. It could be a talis where I didn’t realize which pot I’m taking off. It’s dark. I meant to go over to the first one, and it was dark. I went for the second one. Again, it’s dark, it’s dark, and I took the second pot by mistake, thinking that was the first pot. That is different. Thank you. That’s what I wanted. I know.

# How the Sugya Depends on the Learning

And that’s why I’m saying it’s totally decided. It depends how you learn. If you learn sahas chadas tik alacha, then even Reb Sholem Ezzamu would be maschil to such a case, without the Ran. But if you learn—I didn’t say wrong, I’m saying it’s totally how you learn. If you learn the Ran, the nafka minah is also the same thing. If you learn sahas chadas, right, so depending on how you learn the story: if the story was that it was a mistake and there was no chadas, and that’s why you have to come on to the Ran, right, so where there is a sahas chadas, right, or the ta’am is by nafka minah, if there’s no sahas chadas, it fell off. I wasn’t going to say chadas. That’s the shaylah, because it’s by you, it fell off me. Maybe because it fell off me, and I need kavanah lehed to have it.

# Talis and Berakhah After Sleep

By talis, the ta’am is: as long as it’s on me, and I’ve come—if I fall asleep in the middle of the thing and I wake up, that’s it, I have to make a new berakhah, maybe. Maybe, maybe, maybe. The guy fell asleep in his talis. Oh, the guy fell asleep in his talis—does he have to make a new berakhah? Maybe. Who said not? Afshiyah. Tell me something: when a guy falls asleep, does he have to make a new berakhah? Why? Who said? Who said? You know who said? HaShulchan says this. HaShulchan says that by chadas, it’s a chadas to make a new berakhah. Otherwise I would never have to make a berakhah if I didn’t sleep at all.

So those that learn when they sleep—we learn from the madrash, right? Right. And when they sleep they learn Torah, tzaddikim, right? So there’s chadas; you have to make a berakhah. Unless you learn that the limud Torah of sleeping is not the chadas of limud Torah, and therefore the berakhah is not chadas.

# Conclusion

Okay, we’ll be mamshich next time. This is the nekudah, and we’re going to learn the Raki Veg with toyes. We’ll speak about it. Okay, see you in my good old days in Queens. Where do you live? You live here? How do you stop it? How do you stop it? Oh, you shut up.