KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - The Weekly Mitzva Ki Tavo
KMTT - The Weekly Mitzva Ki Tavo, by Rav Binyamin Tabory
This is as we speak, this is KMTT, today is Monday. It's very 11th day of Elle. Oshishan is getting close. Okay, we're starting our second week of KMTT for the Fakharushalul, our first full week. Today's Shure as every Monday in Haharushalul is the Shure of Harabhinyah. This is the Shure of Harabhinyah Meantavori. In the weekly mitzvah, this week the weekly mitzvah for Palshat Kaitavor. We're not going to have, we haven't yet arranged for the day they have a high on it so we have the half hour of Harabhavthavori and that will be the Shure for today. Tomorrow on Tuesday will be the Shure in Palshata Shavor. Wednesday the Shure of Harabhinyah Tagin in the Shloshasayami.13 attributes of mercy. Thursday Shure will be Harabhyak of Khan on Haharushasayana and Friday the usual Elle Shabbat token. Now Harabhavthavori, the weekly mitzvah, Palshat Kaitavor. In Palshat Kaitavor, the Parsha of Viduimassar, bringing Trumasimassaras, bringing the required separations of the fruit, of the vegetables that we eat. And the Torah tells us the Parsha to say, the paragraphs of the Torah that we recite when we do this mitzvah. We say, Lohavari team in mitzvah, Taha, the Loshahakti. I did not go against the mitzvah of God, and I did not forget. Rashi Ummesh explains that the phrase Loshahakti, I did not forget, is referring to the idea of Loshahakti, Milavarihah, Loshahat Masot. I did not forget to give the Braha to say the Braha on giving Masir. That, according to Rashi, is included in the Parsha that a person says at the time of Viduimassaras. Now that seems very strange, because we know, or we have a general assumption, that the Braha, before any mitzvah, is a Braha de Rabana, is an enactment of tahkhamim, that a person must make a Braha before he does a mitzvah. How could Rashi interpret the chapter of the Torah, Lohavari team in mitzvah, Taha, the Loshahakti, to refer to a Braha, which itself is only the Rabana. It was enacted later, it is not a biblical law. Some of the commentaries of Rashi actually point out, that Rashi did not mean it. Rashi, when Rashi said, Loshahakti, Milavarihah, Loshahtumot, he was not referring to the Braha, that we think, that I assumed, was the Braha, Loshah, Loshtumotum Masot. But it just means, Milavarihahtumot Masot means to bless God, to thank God, to be aware of Hakora Satov, to think that I am grateful to God when I brought the Masros. And therefore it is not referring to the Braha itself. However, Rashi in Brahas, where the Gama'a has a similar comment. The Gama'a's comment there is much a topic of various readings of the Gama'a, various texts. In our Gama'a and Brahas, that memo of the base, it says, Lohavari team in mitzvah, Taha, Loshahakti, Lohavarihahtumilavarihah, Loshahakti, Milavarihahtumilas, Kishimhahalav. That phrase would not refer necessarily to the Braha. Lohavari team in Milavarihahtum means, I did not transgress from thanking you from giving you a Braha, but not necessarily for making a Braha. The Lohavari's cart, the Loshakti, the Loshakti, the Loshakti, the Loshakti, Kishimhahlav. There the Gama'a discusses, is it really referring to a Braha or not? The Gama'a according to our text seems to think that it's referring to a Braha, and Rashi there on the Gama'a says, Milavarihahtumilavarihahtumilav. Rashi quotes the text of the Braha that we say, so it does seem that Rashi really interpreted the statement. Lohavarihahtumilas, not just to thank a Krsbrahubha based on the Gama'a, that it means the Birhasamitzvah, and therefore it's very difficult. How could Rashi say that the Torah is referring to a Braha which is only Dravana? The Torah, Tnima and other commentaries comment on this and say automatically that this is an Asmakta. The Pshat of the Pasukh is not to make the Braha, but famir the Khachamim somehow attached it to the Pasukh and said that there is a Birhasamitzvah for a Prashas, Tumas from Asros, which this Braha is somehow hinted at in the Torah, is referred to when we will just later when we make the Birhasamitzvah, we'll attach it to this concept. But really, it's not a Braha at all, Minatore. Minatore, there's no requirement to make such a Braha. And therefore, it doesn't seem that a person would have to say, it seems logical, that a person would have to say, "Minatore, according to Biblical law," person would have to say, "I did not forget to make the Braha when I did this mitzvah." If in fact, he doesn't have to make the Braha at all, according to Biblical law. What would have happened had the din bin that a Braha would be Minatore? Would the Braha bin Makay, would it hold back the mitzvah? Normally, we think that a Birhasamitzvah is a mitzvah, there's a Braha mid to Rabbanan, a rabbinic law, that a person should make a Braha before he does a mitzvah. But we generally think that if a person does the mitzvah without making the Braha he fulfills the key of any way. This is based on a Gemara in Braha's Tazvav and other sources. The Gemara there says that if a person doesn't make a Braha on Shumah, a person can't make a Braha on Shumah. For whatever reason, he can't make a Braha on Shumah, so he didn't make a Braha on Shumah, the Gemara there says in the Tazvav and Braha's that you fulfill the obligation anyway. Even if you didn't make the Braha, the Gemara says there clearly that a Mitzvah without a Braha, you fulfill the mitzvah. You fulfill the mitzvah anyway. For example, a person blew Shumah and did not make a Braha before you blow the Shumah at the end, we say you fulfill the mitzvah. If you fulfill the mitzvah, a person ate mitzvah and forgot to make the Braha on eating mitzvah, so he fulfilled the mitzvah anyway. But the rush added a comment. And the rush said, "Because I have a Braha." Mashed met the Tumah, so he knew Tumah, that Braha met Kevis Abrashan. The Gemara said, "The Braha of Tumah is Drabanan, and therefore a person who was Mafish, Tumah, without a Braha, fulfills the Kyiv. The rush inferred from this Gemara, that had the Braha been the right, so it would seem that you do not actually fulfill the mitzvah. Because the Braha would be Makhhev, the Braha would hold back the fulfillment of the mitzvah. "I, we pass in the Brahas in the Macfas." We pass in the Braha does not hold back the fulfillment of the mitzvah, so it is because we hold the Brahas rabanan. But the rush says, if Brahas would be the right, then it would seem that a person could not fulfill the mitzvah without a Braha. This led to a long discussion between rebel Han and Vassaman, Hashemi Kommdemo, the Echatadi-Glevraha, and the Dvavram, where Bhavram, Dovia Kanneshipiro. Apparently, we are by Vassaman, wrote to the Dvavram, and said to him that if this would be true, then a person would not fulfill the mitzvah of learning Torah without a Braha. Since Bhirhasa Torah, the Braha that a person must make before he learns Torah, is the raissa, that is clearly the opinion of the Ramban. The Rambanan is safe for a mitzvos. In the mitzvos that the Rambanan left out, the Rambanan adds the mitzvah of Bhirhasa Torah. There is no doubt that according to the Ramban, Bhirhasa Torah is a Braha mida raissa. So he said, if that would be true, then a person would not fulfill the mitzvah without the Braha. And that's something new, something that we've never heard before. And then he said another kind of a brilliant argument. He said, really we know you're not allowed to learn without a Braha. Whether the Brahasa Torah is the raissa, or the Rambanan, your person certainly should not learn without making a Braha. And the Gumerin, the Darim dafpey alif, says, a very famous Gumera that says a ma of the harits, what is the reason, for the desolation of the land, shall obey the Torah. Because they didn't make a Braha on the Torah. He said, that would come out very strange. Since you do not fulfill the mitzvah without a Braha, then if you don't make a Braha, there's no mitzvah. If there's no mitzvah, there's nothing wrong with learning Torah without a Braha. The argument is ingenious. Since the Braha is makhev tammu Torah, therefore one does not fulfill tammu Torah without a Braha, therefore why would it be awesome to learn without a Braha? Because you do not fulfill the mitzvah. What you would have to say, and they suggested themselves, these kiddolim, in their discussion, that the Braha is not on the mitzvah of the minut Torah, but it's on the actual learning Torah. Learning Torah requires the Braha. It's not just bhirhasa mitzvah, which requires bhirhasa mitzvah in Torah. When a person is mafishkala, so it's a bhirhasa mitzvah, a person is maksa, there's a bhirhasa mitzvah. A person learns Torah, it's not just a bhirhasa mitzvah, it's a Braha because Torah requires a Braha to enter the province of Akodesh Baruchu, to learn his Torah requires a Braha before him. And he says, if that would be true, then women would be required to make the bhirhasa Torah. That is the argument that ribuhanun proposed to the dvavra. In short, he said that according to the wheezing of the rash had bhirhasa mitzvah bin daraysa, it would have been makhev the mitzvah. And therefore, he went on to a tangent to discuss what would be the law of bhirhasa Torah, if a person did not make bhirhasa Torah, would he fulfill the mitzvah? And why would it be that you would have to make the Braha even if you don't fulfill the mitzvah? It happens to be that the shahannarah paskins, that simon memzayim, the last halacha of simon memzayim, in arahayim, the halacha is that nashim be vahrat bhirhasa Torah, women make bhirhasa Torah. And the reason that women make bhirhasa Torah is an issue of dispute among the various commentators. Some say that it's a regular bhirhasa mitzvah, it's a regular Braha you do before you perform a mitzvah. But you women make the Braha the same way that Ashkenazi women make the Braha before they eat. I'm sorry, a mitzvah from which women are potter. For example, shawfar, sitting in sukkah, or taking a lull of we paskin, that women can make a Braha, the Ashkenazi sak is that women can make a Braha even if they're a potter from such a mitzvah. So some say that that is the reasoning that women make bhirhasa Torah, because they make a Braha on a mitzvah, even if they're a potter from that mitzvah. However, it's well known that Rebavelville, the brisker of, explained differently, basically the same idea that we've suggested here. He said the Braha of when Leerling Torah, it's almost irrelevant if it's the Reisa or the Rabana, but the Braha of Leerling Torah is not on the mitzvah of Tamotah, it's the hefts of Torah Christ of Braha. That meeting with Torah, entering the world of Torah, the Dalit Amosh al-Halaqah, to learn Akkodesh Braha's Torah requires the Braha before him. That Braha is not necessarily because of the mitzvah, therefore, if a person would not fulfill the mitzvah, he still would be required to make a Braha. A person who would not fulfill the mitzvah, but yet learned Torah would still be included in the Gomara Amah of the Haaretz. And also, for the same reason, women would have to make a Birhasa Torah because of the Etsim, if Gashim, if Gashim, if Gashim, if that meeting with a Krsbresher's Torah, because of learning Torah, women would also have to make a Braha or learning Torah. In any case, this argument, whether the Braha would have been makkav, in the mitzvah, according to the rash, if we take him at face value, the rash took the Gomara and Braha said, at face value, it would say that if a Birhasa mitzvah, it would be a match. Then, you would have to repeat the Braha, since repeat the mitzvah, since we passed the mitzvah to Rabana, therefore we passed when a person did the mitzvah without a Braha, you would fulfill the abdication. So far, what we've learned is that Birhasa mitzvah, the Brahasa mitzvahs are all Brahasa Rabana. Although we quoted a rashi that seems to say that Birhasa mitzvah, the Braha of Chumasamisvah, is the Reisa, we said that this is probably only the Rabana, it's an Asmaktah, maybe rashi never said it in the first place. But, if it would have been Menatara, it would be, perhaps, a cave, but since it's the Rabana, the Braha is definitely not a cave. Those are the two points that we've made so far. I'd like to discuss now both issues. Is it so simple to say that the Birhasa mitzvah are only the Rabana? Now, it's true that the Gamara in Braha said so clearly, the Gamara said that Brahasa, the Braha and Chumma is the Rabana, and therefore if a person did not make it, he does not have to, he can do the mitzvah without making the Braha with the Abed. However, we have a Yushalmi that says that Birhasa mitzvah, that implies that Birhasa mitzvah, are more than just a regular Dravana. Yushalmi and Brahas, Parakvavah, Halaqah, Alif, says his phalos. Mein nayin shakala mitzvah's tunos, Braha, from where do we know that all the mitzvahs require a Braha? We have Chumma, we have Abba, Baqana, Beshimba, Belesi, we have Nakhala, Eslukhasa, Everna, Taurava, Mitzvah. The Torah said, I'm giving you, the Lughot, the covenant made out of stone, Viataurava, Mitzvah, Taurava, compared to Mitzvah. And then the Yushalmi says, Hikish, Taurava, Mitzvah. The comparison between Taurava and Mitzvah is included in the pastuk. Matora, Tuna, Braha, Afmitzvah's tunos, Braha. The same way that Torah requires a Braha, so mitzvahs require a Braha. The simple interpretation of Yushalmi is that whatever we learn is the din of Beikhasa, Taurava. That same Halaqah would apply to Beikhasa, Mitzvah. The Torah compared them, at Taurava, Mitzvah. If we would say that Beikhasa, Taurava, as I said before, the Rambhan really said that. The Rambhan said, Beikhasa, Taurava is the Risa. Therefore it would follow that the way he would read the Yushalmi would be that, since Beikhasa, Mitzvah, Beikhasa, Taurava is the Risa. So Beikhasa, Mitzvah would also be the Risa. The Rambhan, his opinion, the Rambhan's opinion vis-a-vis Beikhasa, Taurava is rather unclear. The Rambhan did not say, in Mishnatora, or in Safra, Mitzvah's, that is a biblical obligation to make Beikhasa, Taurava. The fact that the Rambhan did not say it does not prove that he thinks Beikhasa, Tauras, Dravana. The Rambhan himself argued and said that Beikhasa, Tauras should be counted as a separate Mitzvah. And he said, "And if you'll argue with me and say that it's not counted as a Mitzvah because it's part of Taurava, I'll give you other examples of Mitzvahs that have somehow have two parts, and we would count both parts, just reading the parasha and doing the Mitzvah." The Rambhan anticipated an argument that learning Torah and making the Brahma might be counted together as one Mitzvah. And that's the reason the Rambhan did not count them as two separate Mitzvahs. The Rambhan rejected the reasoning, but that does not necessarily mean the Rambhan rejected that reasoning. So, it is possible that the Rambhan thought Beikhasa, Tauras, Dvarisa. It is possible the Rambhan thinks really there's a biblical abdication to recite Beikhasa, Taura, before you learn. In fact, that Gemara that we quoted before in the Darim, Amav, Darets, Aashela Beikhasa, Tauratrila. The reason for the destruction for the desolation of Arity Israel was because of not making the Brahma, that Gemara would imply that Beikhasa Taura is a Dvarisa. It would be strange to assume that the Beikhasa Taura is only Dvarabhanan, and yet people omitting Beikhasa Taura would be the cause of such a major calamity occurring to the Jewish people. It does seem to imply that Beikhasa Taura are Dvarisa. So, it is possible to say that the Rambhan thinks that Beikhasa Taura are Dvarisa. However, the Rambhan does not relate specifically to Beikhasa Taura, but in another context, the Rambhan said all the Brakhos in the world. If a person is not sure if he made them, need not repeat them. We passed them two different laws, but now is not the time to explain the relationship between the two laws. But we passed him that if a person is in doubt, whether he made a Brakhah or not, he need not say the Brakhah. If a person, for example, made a Brakhad Rabhanan, for example, let's say he put on Tsitsis, and we are assuming that the Brakhah is only Dvarabhanan. And a person forgot whether he made the Brakhah or not. He should not make the Brakhah, because Sathik Dvarabhanan lakula. And the Rambhan says clearly that all the Brakhahs that if a person is not sure whether he made them, we say they are all lakula, except for Beikhasa Maza. Beikhasa Mazaan benching, which is a Biblical requirement, as the Torah says, when the person eats and satiated, he must give Brakhad Rabhanan's Brakhos, he must say Beikhasa Mazaan, he must bench. So if this Brakhah is the only Brakhah of a person is not sure, a person ate a full meal, and he's not sure whether he bench to not, then he must bench. Because Sathik Dharaisa lakumra, Biblical, Sathik, when we're in doubt, whether about a Biblical law, the law is we have to be more stringent, we have to say the Brakhah now, assuming that we somehow didn't say it before. But the Ramban only said these one exception to the rule of Sathik Dharabhanan lakula. All the Brakhahs that Ramban said are Dharabhanan and therefore if a person is not sure, he does not say the Brakhah, except for Beikhasa Mazaan, which is Dharaisa and therefore if a person is not sure, he should say it, since he omitted Beikhasa Torah, he did not say except for Beikhasa Mazaan and Beikhasa Torah, it implies that the Ram thinks that Beikhasa Torah are also Dharabhanan. The reason the Rambanan did not count and say the Ramban is not because of any unique reason to explain the character of the relationship between Beikhasa Torah and Torah. It's simply because he thought there's no Biblical requirement to make the Brakhah on Torah. If that would be true, it's really Dharabhanan. Then the Ramban would say Torah of Amitzvah, he would interpret the Hushami the same way Torah requires the Brakhah. So, Mitzvah requires the Brakhah as a smarthah, it's only Dharabhanan, even Beikhasa Torah is Dharabhanan. So, if we would take the Hushami clearly, it would seem to say that Beikhasa Mitzvah had the same law as Beikhasa Torah. Whatever Beikhasa Torah is, that's the same for Beikhasa Mitzvah. So, according to the Ramban, one could really argue that according to the Hushami, Beikhasa Torah Dharayssa, therefore Beikhasa Mitzvah Dharayssa. Whereas, according to the Babli, Beikhasa Torah, according to the Babli, Beikhasa Mitzvah is certainly a Dharabhanan. And according to the Rambanan, we would interpret the Hushami, even Beikhasa Torah is the Rambanan, and so is Beikhasa Mitzvah. Interestingly enough, the Ramban has a letter in which he refers to this Ghemar in the Dharim. The Ghemarah says, "Amah of Dharayssa al-Shallabhiha Bhattaritrila." The destruction of the Arach Israel is because they did not make a Brakha on Torah, so we pointed out that if the Brakhasa is only Dharabhanan, it seems a little strange that the Ramban would say, Ram would interpret that Ghemarah that the Brakhasa, only the Rambanan, nevertheless, the Ghemarah says that the "of the Harits" is because of not making a Brakha, which is only Dharabhanan in the first place. In the letter, the Ramban said a novel interpretation of that Ghemarah. The Ramban said that really, according to biblical law, when we read the Torah, the first Aliyah should be given to Atami Traham. The Rambanan Purisham Shnai is from Gittin, as well as in other places. Mention that really, the law that a Coen gets the first Aliyah is only if they are among peers. People basically have the same level, and you have to choose who should get the first Aliyah, so the Kedashta implies that you give it to the Coen first. However, if their objectively is a major Tamitraham, so based on that famous Mishnah in Haurias, that Tamitraham, irrespective of his lineage, precedes a Coen, if the Coen is not of the same level in learning. So really, the respect for Torah means you should give Aliyah to the Israel, to the Tamitraham before you give it to the Coen. The Ramban, therefore, interpreted Ashelo Berghu by Torah, there did not give the first Aliyah to the Tamitraham. They gave the first Aliyah to the Coen, and that was this respect to Torah. So, the Coen Kedashta is requires a Tamitraham getting the first Aliyah. So, therefore, the Coen based Amigda, according to that interpretation, was not because of the Brahma. Ashelo Berghu by Torah, not referring to Birhasa Torah, but referring to the concept that a person should show Coen Kedashta by giving it the first Aliyah. Although this is a very interesting idea that the Raman himself stated in a number of places, yet when it comes to the bottom line, the Ramban in Yara Hazaka, the Raman Mishnah Torah, the Raman codifying the law says that the common practice, which he does not criticize, he just says this is the common practice, is that we give the first Aliyah to the Coen, even if he's not on the same level as the Israel. So, the Ramban, interestingly enough, discussed the theory of the matter. But, practically, Kalakhalamaisa, the Raman, endures the ongoing custom that a Coen does get the first Aliyah. Be that as it may, we've interpreted the Ushalmi that there's a possibility to say that Birhasa Mitzvah would be the Orisa. This could be found, the trace of this, in this interpretation of Rashi. There were Lovati, Mitzvah Sakhlashakh. He's actually referring to the Brakhab Trumah Samasraus. And we said, "I, it's Drahbanan. Everybody knows Birhasa Mitzvah Drahbanan." Perhaps Rashi is referring to an idea that's found in Ushalmi that Birhasa Mitzvah perhaps could be Drahisa. The second point that we said is, would the Brakha be a cave? Would the Brakha hold back a person from fulfilling the Mitzvah? So, we said, if it's Drahisa, the Rashi would say, "Yes, it could hold back the Mitzvah." If it would be Drahbanan, it doesn't hold back the Mitzvah. And therefore, since we pass him according to the Babli, that Birhasa Mitzvah all Brakhas Drahbanan, therefore, if a person did not make a bit, because Mitzvah would say it does not hinder the fulfillment of the Mitzvah. It's not Mitzvah. Why, then, would you say, lo Avarti, Mitzvah Sakhlabalashakh? Why would that be such an inherent part of Uli Masraus to say, "I did not forget to make the Brakha, even though it's an Asmaktah." Even though we think it's Drahbanan, but yet, why would it at all be included in the concept of, "I did not... I gave Trimos to Masraus probably. I did not forget to make the Brakha. Raviakov Kamonezki, the former Rashi Shiva of Taravadaz, Zahrana Levrakhah, the wrote a safer one Hömysch called Emeslyakov, and he quoted the Mishnah in Trimos that we alluded to before, but try to deduct to Mishnah and Nohalah. The Mishnah that we said before quotes, "Hey, lo, you're Trimos. There are five types of people that should not give Truma. Vimtarmu Trumasim Truma, but if they did, the Truma is valid. The first three of this group of five are people that, for one reason or another, cannot make the Brakha. The next two are people who do not know how to give Truma to Masraus properly. Now, I understand, says Raviakov, the second part. There are two people who can't give Truma because they don't know how to do it properly, but if they do it, nevertheless, Truma is valid. But the first three, there are three people who can't give Truma, but if they do, the Truma is valid. Why would I have thought otherwise? I understand that they should not give Truma because they cannot make the Brakha. But, of course, their Truma is valid. Why would you bring these five people together? The second group of people taught me a Hiddish, taught me a new law that even though they did not know how to give Truma properly, the Truma is nevertheless valid. In the first case, of course, the Truma is valid. And Raviakov wanted to suggest that there's a group of mitzvahs that, unlike other birchasa mitzvah, are ma'akev, if you do not make the Brakha. It's true, of course, that most mitzvahs, like I said, by Lula of Shofar, it's filling, matzah, all those mitzvahs. If a person did not forget, for whatever reason, did not make the Brakha before he did the mitzvah, of course, he fulfills the mitzvah. But yet, Raviakov wanted to introduce a category that the mitzvah is more important. The Brakha is more important than by other mitzvahs. He gave Shrita as an example. He says, "It's true that Shrita is a mitzvah." It's a technical mitzvah. A person has to eat, he does a mitzvah, but he says it's more than that. It is matzah, the animal. Before you shaked, before a person would do Shrita, the animal is Asur as nevela. In order to change the status of the animal from that of nevela or anozavuach, or an animal which was not shaked properly, perhaps they're the halos. The new situation that's created by doing the act has to have a Brakha preceding it. The Brakha determines the result of what you do. If a person ate matzah, the result of eating the matzah is that you ingested matzah and fulfilled the mitzvah. But when you create a new situation, perhaps a person could argue and say that that situation itself is related to the Brakha. He says, "For example by Truma Samasros." When a person gives Truma, he says, "There is a mitzvah of removing it, of afrasha, of separating the Truma from the tovel. The part that's teethed, the part that's given to the coin, to be removed from the part that's called tevel. That means before the Truma Samasros were given, that's a mitzvah. But there's another mitzvah as well, to give it to the coin, to give it to the lavy. When a person gives the Truma, so I don't know if his intention is only to give the Truma or because it becomes Truma, the separated section becomes Truma. And actually in a certain sense belongs to the coin, so there is a halos. There is a new situation created by it. And Rabiakh of wanted to suggest that in such a case, the Brakha is, I say, "Loshah Khakti mil vireh." I did not forget to make the Brakha which means I gave the afrasha when I separated. I gave it with the intention of giving it to the coin. I would doubt whether Rabiakh of thought that this idea means the Brakha is the risa. He did suggest that according to you, the Brakha Samitzvah could be a Brakha the risa. But according to Rabiakh of, I think he suggests that even if it's a mitzvah the Rabbanan, even if the Brakha is on the Rabbanan, there might be cases where even a Brakha the Rabbanan could be a cave in the fulfillment of the mitzvah. And therefore, although it's an Asmakta, it makes sense to say, "Loshah Khakti mil vireh." To summarize, we've discussed basically that Rashi thought "Loshah Khakti" is to make a Brakha. That led us to a discussion where the bhirhasa mitzvah is the risa. Although we know the general opinion is that bhirhasa mitzvah are the Rabbanan, only bhirhasa Torah seems to be the risa. We pointed out that in both of them there might be a makhlokas. Bhirhasa Torah, according to Rabban, is the risa, but may be according to Rabban, it's the Rabbanan, whereas bhirhasa mitzvah, according to the way we passkin, according to the Rabbanan, according to the Bhavli, we passkin that bhirhasa mitzvah the Rabbanan. Nevertheless, there might be an opinion in the Wushalmi that the Brakha is the risa. As far as being makhlokas goes, we thought that if the Brakha is the risa, the risa said it might be makhlokas. And we discussed if it's makhlokas in Tamotara. As far as mitzvah the Rabbanan, for sure, a Brakha mitzvah the risa, or mitzvah the risa. But a Brakha d'Rabbanan, for sure, we said it's not makhlokas. But we pointed out a hirhasa riaka of that there might be cases where even a bhirhasa mitzvah the Rabbanan may be makhlokas if the qm mitzvah. You have been listening to Harab bin Eminterpori the week that it's about for Pashat Ki Tava. And that's it for today. You have been listening to KMTT, the Torah podcast, kimitzi on tae tsei Torah. Wishing you a call to it has been as a week. Tomorrow's year is Pashatah Shavua, given by Harab, Alex Israel. Till then, call to it in the Torah, and we'll be back tomorrow. [BLANK_AUDIO]