BSD

Suka 27b (2) 28a. 

Cheshvan 20, 5782. October 26, 2021

1- Some notes from last week:

Mentioned the פנים יפות who says that the 2 opinions if a Sukkah is supposed to be לכם, (meaning that one needs to own his own Sukkah or not), correspond to the 2 opinions/reasons why we actually sit in a Sukkah. 

We find that Reb Eliezer and Reb Akiva (suka 11b) argue as to the meaning of the commandment “you shall sit in Sukkah because I placed the Bnei Isroel in Sukkos when I took them out of Egypt”.

What ‘Sukkos’ is the Pasuk referring to? Reb Eliezer says it  refers to the clouds that hovered above them. Reb Akiva says these Sukkos were actual huts.

 

Says the פנים יפות, that according to opinion that they were clouds, it would make sense that a Sukkah does not require ‘ownership’; clouds belong to all. However according to the opinion that it was actual huts, then one would say that the Sukka needs to be owned by its user. 

2- Speaking of לכם, we also spoke about חליצה. The shoe used needs to be ‘owned’ by the brother who will wear it on his left (weaker) foot. 

In general, the Beis Din needs to ascertain prior to the חליצה process if he is ‘right footed’. 

This is accomplished by inviting the חולץ to Beis Din prior to the procedure. They ask him to sit and then ask him to come forward.

If he places his right foot first, then he is ‘right footed’. 

If he places his left foot first, then he is ‘left footed’. 

What if one is  ‘left footed’?

Four opinions:

Dons it on his right foot (his left),

Dons  it on his left foot (like everyone else),

Dons it on both his feet, together or simultaneously, ( we are unsure what to do) or…..

He can’t do חליצה at all!! 

3- There are discussions about soldiers that are trained to march left right, left right. Instinctively,  they will always put their left foot first. Does that make the above test on them irrelevant? 

We also mentioned the interesting opinion of the חתם סופר that uses a novel idea from one of the פוסקים that in reality there is no such a thing as a ‘left footed’ person. This unique opinion is that when the גמרא discusses the issue of  איטר רגל, left footedness, it was referring  to a case when one is handicapped ר”ל with his right foot dragging after his left. 

See here. AH, 91 paragraph אמנם. 

3 – This week, 28a,  we continued with the מנהגים and fascinating stories of the the great Reb Eliezer of Lud. 

He used to say: ‘I never said anything that I didn’t hear from my Rebbe’ (Reb Yochanon ben Zakai). 

We spoke at length about this statement.  

Question 1- There are numerous statement in all of Sha”s where Reb Eliezer states an opinion that seems to be his own, since he doesn’t mention that he heard it from his Rebbe.  

Answers: 

1. This  custom was only while his Rebbe was still alive. 
2. He heard everything from his Rebbe. However,  after dwelling on his master’s ideas, he internalized some of these sayings to the point that it became ‘his’. Thus he would not say them in the name of his Rebbe. Likutei Sichos 36. 181.
3. He heard and only repeated the כללים from his Rebbe. Based on these general rules,he expanded and created new ideas. LK”S 19, 266, 29.

 Question 2- If this מנהג is to be lauded and followed by all, how could Torah flourish?  All we would have are repetitions from the רב to his תלמיד. Nothing new or creative. 

Answer: Reb Eliezer didn’t mean to limit creativity. 

His only refrain from not saying things he didn’t hear from his Rebbe applied only to Halochos that he heard from others saying that they heard it from their respective Rebbes going back to Moshe Rabeinu. 

Novel ideas and new interpretation from others, not his own Rebbe, are not in this category. 

This also answers question 1 above. Aruch Laner. 

4- Here is the next fascinating piece of Gemara. From Sefaria 

The Sages taught: Hillel the Elder had eighty students. 

Thirty of them were sufficiently worthy that the Divine Presence should rest upon them as it did upon Moses our teacher. 

Thirty of them were sufficiently worthy that the sun should stand still for them as it did for Joshua bin Nun. 

Twenty were on an intermediate level between the other two. The greatest of all the students was Yonatan ben Uzziel, and the youngest of them was Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai.

Now about Ren Yochanon Ben Zakkai: 

The Sages said about Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai that he did not neglect Bible; Mishna; Gemara; halakhot and aggadot; minutiae of the Torah and minutiae of the scribes; the hermeneutical principles of the Torah with regard to a fortiori inferences and verbal analogies; the calculation of the calendrical seasons; and numerology [gimmatreyaot]. In addition, he did not neglect esoteric matters, including the conversation of ministering angels; the conversation of demons, and the conversation of palm trees; parables of launderers, which are folk tales that can be used to explain the Torah; parables of foxes; and more generally, a great matter and a small matter. 

The Gemara elaborates: A great matter is referring to the secrets of the Design of the Divine Chariot, the conduct of the transcendent universe. 

A small matter is, for example, halakhot that were ultimately formulated in the framework of the disputes of Abaye and Rava.

 

5- What is this ‘conversation of trees’? 

We mentioned the Rashba Bava Basra 134a who quotes Reb Hai Gaon who writes that in his days there was a certain Reb Avrohom Kabasi who had the ability to hear the conversation of palm trees. 

שיחת דקלים. כתב רבינו האי גאון ז”ל כי מר אברהם קבסי היה מכיר בשיחת דקלים ומה הם אומרים כאשר מתנודדין ברוח.

see  קורא הדורות    on  page 5

 

 

As to what science has to say about this phenomenon, see here about trees when sensing stress, transmit messages to other adjoining trees alerting them to fungus and disease. 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering-trees-180968084/

https://doorcountypulse.com/do-trees-talk-to-each-other/

6 – We next spoke about the meaning of the A small matter is, for example, halakhot that were ultimately formulated in the framework of the disputes of Abaye and Rava.

How can we term these as ‘small matter’ when the entire Sha”s is filled with the discussion of Abbaya and Rava? 

See the  בן יהוידע on our Gemore:

וראיתי בשער הגלגולים לרבינו האר”י ז”ל (בהקדמה ל”ו דף מ.) שכתב דאביי היה גלגול שלישי לנשמה שהיתה בריב”ז ולכך אמרו רז”ל על רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שֶׁלֹּא הִנִּיחַ מִקְרָא וּמִשְׁנָה וכו’ וְהֲוָיוֹת דְּאַבַּיֵי וְרָבָא יעוין שם. והשתא לפי דברי רבינו האר”י ז”ל הנזכר מובן הטעם דקרי להוויות דאביי ורבא בשם ‘דָּבָר קָטָן’ כי הם של גלגול שלישי שהוא קטן לגבי רבן יוחנן בן זכאי ודו”ק.

 

See here from   צוואת הריב”ש. 

https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=16081&st=&pgnum=63

https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=16081&st=&pgnum=131

https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=16081&st=&pgnum=232

  ורבן  זכאי בן יוחנן עשה גם מהויות דאביי ורבא מעשה מרכבה

7- We concluded with final item in the Gemore: 

The Gemore relates that the Sages said of Yonatan ben Uzziel, the greatest of Hillel’s students, that when he sat and was engaged in Torah study, the sanctity that he generated was so intense that any bird that flew over him was immediately incinerated. 

Popular Jewish joke: 

3 student sitting in front of their Rebbe, a Chosid, a Yekke and a Litvisher and they get to Sukka 28a.  They all hear this fascinating story of the greatness of Reb Yonatan ben Uzziel. 

Their Rebbe asks each one of the three what their take is on this story –  any bird that flew over him was immediately incinerated. 

The Chosid: Wow! I’m amazed at the great level of קדושה his learning must have created to generate a fire that incinerated birds hovering above him.  

The Yekke: One needs to be careful when learning, least one go overboard and create a fire hazard that can cause damage to flying birds overhead . Additionally, what about צער בעלי חיים…..

The Litvisher: I’m thinking as to who is ultimately responsible to pay for the damaged birds. Was it Reb Yonasson’s direct cause and he would need to pay,  or was it indirect, גרמא….and he is פטור . 

 

 

 

BS”D

Suka 27 a-b.

Cheshvon 14, 5782. October 21, 2021

1- Continuing on the topic of  ‘ownership from zero to 100’.

In regards to a Sukkah Reb Eliezer says that 100% ownership is needed. So sitting in a friend’s Sukkah is not sufficient. Even if he loans it to you for exclusive use.
מתנה על מנת להחזיר would work. Just Like by Esrog.

The Chachamim say, as such is the Halachah, that sitting in a communal or a borrowed Sukkah is fine.

2- We mentioned the Rebbe’s take on this.

Briefly, true, 100% ownership of Sukkah is indeed not needed. One can sit in a friend’s Sukah . סוכה שאולה ושל שותפין כשרה.
However, there is another issue and that is that a Sukkah needs to be תשבו כעין תדורו. It has to be like one’s house. It’s meant to be ‘liveable’ like his year round home.

And people don’t live year round in borrowed houses. Neither do they share homes.

So why should a Sukkah be any different?

Ideally, says the Rebbe, every one should have his own Sukkah.

3- The Rebbe spoke once as to why we find a מגבית for the poor before פסח but not before ראש השנה or Sukkos. Lk 14, 373. Footnote 31.

His answer is that we don’t want to utter the words “poor” prior to ראש השנה and therefore no מגבית was established prior to these holidays.

In a footnote the Rebbe suggests another reason. Jewish poverty throughout the ages. Making a מגבית, expecting people to open their wallets large and wide more than once a year was very difficult. So they chose פסח.

The Rebbe continues that this pervasive poverty explains why not everyone has his own Sukkah when in reality, as above,  תשבו כעין תדורו, ideally each should have his own just as one has his own house.

Similarly the Rebbe explains, this is the reason why in many communities there would be only one communal Esrog. Surely, due to the ולקחתם לכם, each should have his own. It was the lack of funds that brought about this ‘Esrog of the many’.

See also here LK 20, 267. Footnote 10.

The Rebbe also uses this concept to explain the Alter Rebbe about using a borrowed Sukkah.

LS 19, 348.

Interestingly, the AR adds the words that a borrowed Sukkah, סוכה שאולה, is fine, because ’it is like your one’.

Now a Sukkah does not need to be לכם. So what does this ‘like your own’ add?

Explains the Rebbe that since the lender of the Sukkah allows the user to use it as a Sukkah, and a Sukkah is like someone’s home, then he specifically allows him to use it ‘as his own’.

4- We mentioned the Ramo 658, 9 that writes that when the community buys an Esrog in ‘partnership’, everyone need to participate. However, the extra money needed to purchase a beautiful Esrog, that הידור falls upon the well to do more than the less fortunate!!!

הגה: וגובין מעות אתרוג לפי ממון דהדור מצוה מונח טפי על עשירים מעל עניים ואשה פטורה מליתן למעות אתרוג הואיל ואינה חייבת בו (תשובת מהרי”ל סימן י’). וכל אדם ישתדל ויהא זריז במצוה לקנות לו אתרוג ולולב לבד כדי לקיים המצוה כתקנה (הגהות מיימוני סוף הלכות לולב):

5- We learnt the Tosfos about a community Esrog, purchased in a partnership, the idea is that every participant grants each individual user (on the first day when making the brachah) his share. Thus the user, for that moment, owns the Esrog 100%.

We mentioned the Magen Avrohom 658,10 that  it’s best to announce that every participant gives away his share when another community member uses it.

ולכן נ”ל שטוב להכריז שיתן כל א’ חלקו לחבירו במתנה כי בסי’ רכ”ו יש הרבה דיעות בזה ע”ש בב”י עמ”ש סוף סי’ זה:

6- We discussed the Rashi who writes that one cannot be considered an owner of an object that is worth less than a פרוטה. Anywhere from 0.10-0.20¢.

Much has been written on this Rashi. Discussed the classic question of the Minchas Chinuch of how can a ערבה be לכם when at times it has a value of less than 0.10¢.

The Rebbe discusses this Rashi etc. in LS. 19, 348. Footnote 8.

7- We concluded with a quip on the הפטורה.

When Elisha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed.

So he went in and shut the door behind the two of them and prayed to Hashem.

Then he went up and lay on the child, putting his mouth on his mouth, his eyes on his eyes, and his hands on his hands.

And as he stretched himself upon him, the flesh of the child became warm.

Then he got up again and walked once back and forth in the house, and went up and stretched himself upon him. The child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes.

Sometimes we see a friend that is down, depressed and lonely, in poverty, can’t pay his rent. Almost lifeless.

He needs a ‘listener’ to hear out his issues and problems. He needs encouragement .

What do we do?

Putting his mouth on his mouth. We offer a hug and warmth.

It’s fine of course, and very necessary indeed. But ‘the child’ is still lifeless.

We take it a step further. His eyes on his eyes,

So one looks his friend in the eyes. He gives him the attention he lacks. He shows his concern.

All fine gestures. But the child is still lifeless.

Only one thing can help….

When we place  our hands on his hands, we give him  גשמיות, a few dollars so he can buy food for Shabbos.

 

Ah!

…and the child opened his eyes

 

BS”D

Sukkah 27 a-b. 

Cheshvon 6, 5782. October 12, 2021

1- Sholosh Se’Udos. We read the Tosfos that states unequivocally that one needs to eat bread for the third Shabbos meal. Fruits are insufficient to fulfill this obligation. 

Minhag Chabad is explained at length in a Sicha of the Rebbe. See here. LS 21, page 84. 

2- We began to delve into a deep and much written about topic in ראשונים and אחרונים. 

Namely – how does one define the concept of ownership in Halachah. 

As an introduction we mapped out the wide area of ‘ownership’ in הלכה. 

Ranging from pure 100% ownership to the total opposite of non-ownership, like…. stealing. 

Within this range, between these two pivots, are ‘other’ type of ownerships: Partnership, shares, temporary ownership, leasing, renting, borrowing, easements, right of first refusal etc. 

3- For starters, 100% ownership is caused by either inheriting something or purchasing it. 

The classic example where one needs 100% ownership is an Esrog. ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון 

Ownership of an Esrog needs to be, on the first day of Sukkos, 100%. Borrowing is less than 100% and therefore not sufficient. As it says ולקחתם לכם. 

We will discuss an Esrog owned  in a partnership and an Esrog that a Kehila purchases for all to use BLN next week. 

We mentioned that buying an Esrog on credit, according to some, is a bit of a ‘defect’. We thus find the Minhag of many to pay for the Daled Minim before Sukkos. Minhag Chabad is not to be particular on this. 

And here’s to you Mr. Rubinson…

4- We related the story of Mr. Rubinson who sponsored the printing of the שדי חמד.

At the special Farbrengen the Rebbe made upon its competition Mr. Rubinson asked the Rebbe to say something about the שדי חמד.

One volume was brought o the Rebbe who opened it at random. The page opened was a discussion about this very topic – if it is necessary to pay for the Daled Minim before Sukos.  See here.

יוסף חיים רבינסון

5- Continuing on this topic, ‘ownership from zero to 100’, we brought up מתנה על מנת להחזיר. Whereas the ,גמרא Kiddushin 6b, explicitly says that it is considered 100% ownership, we discussed if this can be understood in the modern world.

After all, how is it 100% yours if one must return it?

We suggested that this תנאי of returning can be viewed as an ‘outlier condition’ that does not affect the ownership. If the person did not return it then he must pay for something that was never his. If he does return it, as agreed, it retroactively places the object in his possession 100%. 

So much for the Esrog.

We began the sugya of ownership of a Suka. The Gemara brings the two opinions regarding the ownership of a Sukkah.  To be continued.

6- We discussed the opinion of Rebbi Elizezer that one cannot go Sukkah hopping on Sukkos. One must stay and use only his personal Sukkah all seven days. The reasons given are either it’s derived from the פסוק  or as not to embarrass the the Sukkah by leaving to another.

 

BSD

Sukkah 26b – 27a 

Tishrei 29, 5782. October 5, 2021

Welcome back. 

1- We began with the Mishna that relates two stories about eating in or outside a Sukah: 

מַעֲשֶׂה וְהֵבִיאוּ לוֹ לְרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי לִטְעוֹם אֶת הַתַּבְשִׁיל, וּלְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שְׁתֵּי כוֹתָבוֹת וּדְלִי שֶׁל מַיִם, וְאָמְרוּ, הַעֲלוּם לַסֻּכָּה. וּכְשֶׁנָּתְנוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי צָדוֹק אֹכֶל פָּחוֹת מִכַּבֵּיצָה, נְטָלוֹ בַמַּפָּה וַאֲכָלוֹ חוּץ לַסֻּכָּה, וְלֹא בֵרַךְ אַחֲרָיו:

Rabban Gamliel and Reb Yochanan ate food items that are not קובע inside a Sukkah, despite the fact that Halachically, one can eat them outside the Sukkah.

Reb Tzadok, ate less than a שיעור outside the Sukkah.

 

2- We scratched the surface on some topics of the long Tosfos. 

• How much one needs to eat to be מחוייב to Bentch Min Hatorah. 
• To make a ברכה אחרונה one needs to eat a כזית. However, Tosfos quotes the Yerushalmi that if one eats a בריה, a whole grape, a bean or pomegranate seed, a ברכה אחרונה is required even if it it’s less than a כזית. 
• The הלכה is unclear and therefore the Alter Rebbe suggests that one should always eat more than a כזית of such בריהs. See here. 

3- The ברכה before eating has no שיעור as Rashi writes. Even a crumb requires a Brachah.

אסור להנות מעולם הזה בלא ברכה. 

This is based on the Gemara in 35a ברכות

We discussed the Pnei Yoshua that writes a very fundamental point. “Some things are so obvious that the Torah has no need to say it, does not state it explicitly, but it is still מן התורה”.  

[We prefaced it by what Reb Elichaim Roitblat, the legendary מלמד of Oholei Torah, used to say: Vu shteit az men tor nisht kushen a katz in mitten Shmonei Esre……]

Since the Gemara says that making a Brachah prior to eating is a logical idea – for how can one eat something that belongs to Hashem without asking permission first, which is the actual ברכה – this reasoning creates a חיוב מן התורה! 

May I have one please?

Meaning that ברכות הנהנין are MiDeoraisa. This novel idea generated much discussion amongst many אחרונים. We mentioned the Reb Akivah Eiger in Brachos 12a. concerning a ספק ברכות הנהנין. 

The Rebbe quotes this פני יהושע in regards to an idea concerning the the חינוך of a קטן.  See    26   ‘הע  , p65  לקוטי שיחות – לה

4- We continued to the next Mishna. 

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה סְעוּדוֹת חַיָּב אָדָם לֶאֱכֹל בַּסֻּכָּה, אַחַת בַּיּוֹם וְאַחַת בַּלָּיְלָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין לַדָּבָר קִצְבָה, חוּץ מִלֵּילֵי יוֹם טוֹב רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חָג בִּלְבָד. וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מִי שֶׁלֹּא אָכַל לֵילֵי יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן, יַשְׁלִים בְּלֵילֵי יוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, 

אֵין לַדָּבָר תַּשְׁלוּמִין, עַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר (קהלת א) מְעֻוָּת לֹא יוּכַל לִתְקֹן, וְחֶסְרוֹן לֹא יוּכַל לְהִמָּנוֹת:

Reb Eliezer says that one must eat 14 meals during Sukkos. The חכמים counter that and say the one needs to eat only on the first night of Sukos. 

Reb Eliezer’s reason: תשבו כעין תדורו. A person usually eats two meals a day in his house. Ditto for Sukkos. 

The Chachamim’s reason: All of Sukkos, (except for the first night) one has to option of not eating at all- he can fast. Therefore there cannot be an obligation to eat in the Sukkah. 

The issues we discussed:

A– What about שלש סעודות on Yom Tov? If one needs to eat this 3rd meal then it would add up to 16 meals. One extra meal on the first and another on last day of Yom Tov. 

The מגן אברהם deducts from this that indeed, on Yom Tov, one has no obligation to eat שלש סעודות. 

However there is one Shabbos on Sukkos. So the שלש סעודות of Shabbos needs to eaten inside the Sukkah. So we are back to 15 meals on Sukkos?

One answer, from the חשק שלמה, is arrived at by him first asking another question. It says in the Mishna:

 רַבִּי  אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה סְעוּדוֹת חַיָּב אָדָם לֶאֱכֹל בַּסֻּכָּה, אַחַת בַּיּוֹם וְאַחַת בַּלָּיְלָה. 

Since the first Sukkos meal is at night, should he not have said אַחַת בַּלָּיְלָה and then אַחַת בַּיּוֹם? 

The answer is that Reb Eliezer agrees with the Chachamim concerning the first meal. He adds another 14. The 14 meals begin after the first one.

So we have 13 for the rest of Sukkos (14 meals minus the first) and one extra on Shabbos for שלש סעודות , totaling 14! 

B- What did the Chachamim mean when they say that ‘one does not have an obligation to eat on Sukkos’? Is it not an obligation to eat סעודת יום טוב? 

Tosfos here actually says that there is no חיוב. The consequence of this ruling is that if one forgets to say יעלה ויבוא on Yom Tov there would be no need to repeat Bentching as there is no חיוב to eat bread on Yom Tov! 

We mentioned the Tosfos in ברכות that differ and say that one is indeed obligated to eat bread on Yom Tov. 49a. 

What the חכמים meant to say is that there is no obligation to eat in the סוכה (like the first night). But one still needs to eat פת on Yom Tov, because of Yom Tov. (albeit inside the Suka).   

That is the הלכה. See Alter Rebbe OC 639, 17. 

C- We discussed the בעל המאור who explains why we must eat in the Sukkah all 7 days on Sukkos but only need to eat Matzah on the first night of Pesach. 

D– We spoke about the חזקוני who writes that although there is no חיוב to eat מצה except on the first night of פסח, one who does eat מצה all פסח is מקיים  a Mitzvah. 

Why no ברכה? Good question. 

5 – Don’t recall how we got to talk about a ממזר….. but we mentioned a common misconception (in my humble opinion) of Chabadniks concerning this topic. Based upon what the Alter Rebbe writes at the end of 7th Perek in Tanya some have the idea that תשובה does not help for this grave sin.

It’s incorrect. Teshuva does indeed work for someone who ר״ל caused a ממזר to be born. The ממזר raoming around  may be embarrassing for the repentant father, but his Teshuva is accepted. That is the simple פשט in the Gemara in Yevamos 22b.

וְהַאי בַּר תְּשׁוּבָה הוּא וְהָתְנַן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר אֵיזֶהוּ מְעֻוּוֹת לֹא יוּכַל לִתְקוֹן זֶה הַבָּא עַל הָעֶרְוָה וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה מַמְזֵר הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא עוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֵׂה עַמְּךָ הוּא

The Gemara objects: Is he in fact able to repent after fathering a mamzer? Didn’t we learn in a mishna that Shimon ben Menasya says: Which is: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight” (Ecclesiastes 1:15)? This is referring to one who engaged in intercourse with a relative who is forbidden to him and fathered a mamzer with her. This implies that he has no possibility of achieving total repentance. The Gemara responds: At least now, after repenting, he is considered as one who acts according to the deeds of your people. Although he cannot totally rectify his transgression, his child is liable to receive punishment for cursing or hitting him.

What the AR writes is that as opposed to other sins, when doing proper תשובה, in addition to being forgiven, the sparks of קדושה that temporarily descended into קליפה, are elevated. 

Conversely the actual sin of creating a ממזר, can be wiped out thru proper תשובה. However, the sparks that were dragged down into this ממזר cannot be elevated since it has morphed into a human being. 

As the AR writes: 

וּבָזֶה יוּבָן מַאֲמַר רַזַ”ל7: “אֵיזֶהוּ מְעֻוָּת שֶׁלֹּא יוּכַל לִתְקֹן, זֶה שֶׁבָּא עַל הָעֶרְוָה וְהוֹלִיד מַמְזֵר”. שֶׁאָז גַּם אִם יַעֲשֶׂה תְּשׁוּבָה גְּדוֹלָה כָּל כָּךְ, אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְהַעֲלוֹת הַחִיּוּת לִקְדֻשָּׁה, מֵאַחַר שֶׁכְּבָר יָרְדָה לָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְנִתְלַבְּשָׁה בְּגוּף בָּשָׂר וָדָם.

ומסיימים בטוב. א געזונטען ווינטער. 

 

See more here.