KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - The Weekly Mitzva Matot Masei
KMTT - The Weekly Mitzva Matot Masei, by Rav Binyamin Tabory
KMTT this is KMTT and this is Ezra Beck and today is Monday, Raffadev Tamuz. Today's year, the year after I've been in Tovore, the weekly Mitzvah for Pashat Matot Massay. After this year of Tovore, I'll be back with the Medrash Yomi, the Medrash of the Day. At the end of Pashat Matot Massay, the instructions are given for Benet's trail to enter her to Israel. Tovore says, "V'rashtemeta a'r'tz vishaftimba." The literal translation is, "You should inherit the land and live within." We will discuss the Mitzvah of Yishvah of Israel, the Mitzvah of settling of living in Ert Israel. And besides the concept of Tamot Torah that's involved in any Shiyur, there's a special concept of giving a Shiyur about Ert Israel, a concept of Dreshakseon. Of expounding upon Ert Israel to be involved with Ert Israel through Torah. The Gomara quotes a pashok that Ert Israel, to the effect that there is no Dresh, Fretzion, no one is inquiring, no one is asking, no one is questioning, no one is involved. We will discuss the Mitzvah of Yishvah of Israel and of course we will begin with the Ramban, who elaborates upon the pashok that we just quoted, "V'rashtemeta a'r'tz vishaftimba." The Ramban, as is well known, the Ramban in Sayfer Hamitzvah points out that the Ramban left out certain Mitzvahs. The phrase that's found in the Ramban is "Mitzvahs al-Sayshe-Sha-Ha-Ha-Sama Ramban." Mitzvahs al-Sayshe that the Ramban forgot. Obviously the Ram did not forget. It's not a question simply of the Ramban was aware of the concept of the Mitzvah. We will discuss later the possible reasons that the Ramban omitted this Mitzvah. But the Ramban, in the end of the section of Mitzvah to say, the Ramban lists off the Mitzvahs that the Ramban forgot or did not count. And the fourth one, the Ramban, as a matter of fact, wax is quite eloquent about this Mitzvah. And he says, "Sha-Nitzvah vinoo-la-Rashitah-Rashitah-Rashitah-Nat-Nak-e-Yid-barach-vitah-la-la-Votenoo-la-Vah-Mitz-lak-Yah-Kov, Velonah-Az-Vabi-Ad-Zulah-Tay-Noo-Minah-O-Mott-O-Lish-Mama. The fourth Mitzvah is that we are commanded to inherit the land, which Akadish Baruchu gave to our fathers of Ramitzah-Yah-Kov, not leave it in the hands of others, of other nations, or of a desolation. Apparently, there are two parts of the Mitzvah according to the Ramban. One is not to leave the land in the hands of others. That means to conquer the land, to inherit the land, take over the land. The other is to develop the land, to live in it and develop it. Do not leave it, Lish-Mama. Do not live it. Do not leave it in a state of desolation. And the Ramban, again, will go through this a number of times. And he will summarize it at one point, "Shnitztah-Vinlu bikibushal bishivatah." We are commanded to conquer it and to dwell in it. And Ramban, as I said, is very eloquent and says that Mitzvah-Shah-Shah-Mim-Mafligba, and he will be the one who will live in the land. The Ramban, this Mitzvah, was so elaborated upon by the Ramban. And so far, they went so far as to say that a person who leaves Erich Israel and goes to live outside Erich Israel, the Ramban is almost as if he served the Vadizar. And he mentions the idea of people who leave Erich Israel of crying, tearing their clothes. And the end of the Ramban is Shkula-Ishivat al-Sisleil-Kinega Kalamitzvachibatara. This is one of the Mitzvos. It's an obviously an arithmetic impossibility. But Hamim mentioned a few times that a certain Mitzvah is equated with the entire gamut of Torah Mitzvah. One of them is, of course, this Mitzvah of Yishvah at Israel. And therefore, the Ramban says it's a very great Mitzvah. Besides the fact that there is a Mitzvah of living in Erich Israel, the Mitzvah of concrete and living it, there are other halakhic ramifications of this Mitzvah. We'll discuss today only one of them. The Gomarin Gittin says that a person who buys land in Erich Israel is allowed even to transgress an Isad Rabbana. According to the simple interpretation of the Gomara, the Gomara says that you can tell a non-jou to sign a deed on Shabbis to transfer property. And the simple interpretation of the Gomara is because of the Mitzvah of Yishvah of Yishvah, it's Israel. No gaza Rabbana. Hamim did not impose the Gzaerah. Normally, there's an Isad Rabbana of telling a non-jou to do work for you on Shabbis. This Gzaerah the Rabbana and this Indra Rabbana doesn't apply. But I'd like to be a little bit more careful. According to the simple interpretation of the Gomara that I said, a person can do an Isad Rabbana. Some, however, feel that this is more than or less than an Isad Rabbana because it's actually a Shvustah Shvust. It's a double Drapana because the writing in this form that the Nanjou writes, according to some we shown him, is only an Isad Rabbana. The writing itself is only Usamad Rabbana and therefore to tell the Nanjou is to tell a Nanjou which is Anistra Rabbana to do an Isad Rabbana. So it's a double Drapana. What we call in Halaha Shvustah Shvustah Shvustah. So some people say that only a Shvustah Shvustah is mutter for Yishvah to say. So the people hold that the Gomara means an Isad Rabbana and one regular Isad Rabbana can be overridden for the purpose of Yishvah to say. Of course, according to the Ramban, this would not teach us anything about other Mitzvahs. You want to automatically say that you can transgress Anistra Rabbana to do a Mitzvah because since there it's a Shvustah is such an important Mitzvah, school there to say, "I can make a column of those." So all we can learn from here is that such a Mitzvah. As there it's a Shvustah the person is allowed to do an Isad Rabbana. As I said before, some we shown him think that it's only a Shvustah Shvustah so only a doubled Rabbana is permitted. This is important to point out because it's a remarkable thing that Rafkuk felt it necessary to point out that only Anistra Rabbana or perhaps only a doubled Rabbana can be permitted because of Yishvah to Israel. Apparently the fellow who wrote to Rafkuk responded to him in his Safer Shilah to Chevat Mshpat Kohang, Siman Kofmam Vav. And it seems from what Rafkuk wrote, what the person who wrote to him had written to Rafkuk, "I don't have a record of what that person wrote to Rafkuk, but it just seems from the answer." Rafkuk said to him, "It's shocking, it's surprising that anybody would think that you're allowed to do an Isad Rabbana for Yishvah to Israel." The Gomara only said you're allowed to do an Isad Rabbana or perhaps even according to some opinions only a doubled Rabbana. But do not possibly imagine that a person could do an Isad Rabbana for the purpose of Yishvah to Israel. Nevertheless, we see a mitzvah of Yishvah to Israel is a very great mitzvah. And according to the Gomara, because of this mitzvah of Yishvah to Israel, look how's Rabbana, the simple interpretation of that Gomara with me because there is a mitzvah of Yishvah to Israel. And that mitzvah would override an Isad Rabbana. The issue that most people have discussed and will discuss various opinions about is the fact that the Ramam omitted this mitzvah. The Ramban said that it's such an important mitzvah. It's not just the mitzvah, it's one of the most important mitzvahs, one of those that are connected, columnists as equivalent to the entire Torah. How could it possibly be that the Ramban did not quote it? Before we even discuss that, we should point out that the Ramam did quote this Gomara in Masah's Gitten. The Ramban in Yishvah is Perik Vav, Halach-Yudalef says, Halach-Yudalef, says, "Alokayach-Bai-Yish-Bai-Yishvah to Israel-Managari if a person buys a home from a Nanjou in art Israel, in Irish Israel, and we know that the ramam considers in Irish Israel, extremely important, and in the Hylchas Malachim, in the section, at the very end of the Mishtahra, the ramam writes a lot about the Ushavites Israel, but the one thing that we will quote right now is in Para K. Al-Aqah, Yudbaiz, the ramam says La Olam, Yidah or Adambarites Israel, if you will be Yisharuba Akkum. He quotes the Gomariq Subis, that a person should always La Olam, the translation of La Olam is a little bit problematic, I just said that it means always, a person should live in Irish Israel, if you will be Yisharuba Akkum, even in a city which is mostly non-Jewish. The Yidah Bukhatsayats, he should not live in outside of Irish Israel, if you will be Yisharuba Israel, even if it's a place where most people are Jewish, and the ramam goes on to explain why this is true. Nevertheless, we see that the ramamam himself, both in Hylchas Malachim, talks about people living in Irish Israel and in Hylchas Malachim, he says you allow to do Yisharuba, to because of Yisharuba Israel, so why is it that the ramamam has omitted this mitzvah? The interesting point is that the answers range from the opinions that Yisharuba Israel is not that important, and go to the extreme that Irish Israel is so important. Let's explain a little bit of those opinions. There are some people who think that the mitzvah of Arashimis, Arashimis, and Shaftimba might have been a mitzvah at that time, at the time of Yishua. And when Yishua comes to Irish Israel, there's a mitzvah to go into Irish Israel, not only to go into Irish Israel, but to conquer Irish Israel, and as a Hylchic concept, when we conquer Irish Israel, we endowed Irish Israel with Kadusha. Yishua was Makadeh's Irish Israel, he somehow proclaimed and designated Irish Israel as the Holy Land, and it became holy, became Kadusha, in a Hylchic sense, from the time of Yishua. So there are some who think that was true at that time that it was a mitzvah, when it was done at that time, it was a mitzvah, but today there's no such mitzvah doesn't exist at all. And it's a mitzvah, aina no echosodaros, it's a mitzvah that's not counted in the list of the mitzvahs, because it's not an eternal mitzvah, a temporary mitzvah. Others have said, and really could, might not contradict the first opinion, but others have said that, according to the Ramah, mitzvah de Rabannan, there is a mitzvah de Rabannan of living in Irish Israel, but there's no mitzvah darayisah, that opinion could piggyback when the first opinion, you could say, really, that in the time of Yishua was a mitzvah darayisah. However, today, this mitzvah darayisah doesn't apply, but nevertheless, there's a mitzvah de Rabannan. Those two answers are fairly well known by people who have explained the safe and mitzvah. And have therefore tried to explain the omission of the Ramahm of this mitzvah. The extreme point on the other side is said in the name of Revkuk, Rabbi Goran has actually written this in two different places. But in his book, Kotorata Shabbat Vamalayd, Revkoran says that I heard from Revkuk, that the reason that the Ramahm omitted this mitzvah is because Irish Israel is included in all the mitzvahs of the Torah and is actually the foundation of the Torah, of the mitzvahs. And therefore, it cannot be counted as a separate, unique mitzvah in one of the six hundred and thirteen. Apparently, this is referring to the concept of the Ramahm in Safar mitzvahs that a mitzvah colales, a general mitzvah, mitzvah, which is somehow the foundation of Torah, the roots of Torah, is not to be counted in the time of mitzvahs. For example, the Ramahm thinks that if the Torah would tell you to be from, to be religious, the Torah tells you and the Torah does say such things, that occasion. For example, the Torah says, "Vavatim esushamolokechim," you should serve God. Serve God means doing all the mitzvahs. The Ramahm happens to think that serving God, when the Torah told you, "Vavatim esushamolokechim," will love the "Bukolavahm" to serve God with your heart, it has a specific connotation, namely that of prayer, of Tfilah. That's why the Ramahm thinks Tfilah is a mitzvah that writes a daily, daily prayer is a biblical requirement. However, had the Ramahm not identified the love of the "Bukolavahm" with a specific calocha of Tfilah, the Ramahm would have said, "This is a general statement which means to be religious." "Love the love of the "Bukolavahm" to serve God with your whole life should be based upon the "Vavatim esusham," that's a general concept that has no specific content, there's no specific thing that a person should do to fulfill this mitzvah. An example can be many places in the Torah, Torah gave you a general statement of, "Be holy and be religious of serving God." The Ramahm would say, "That is not a mitzvah because there's no specific content to that mitzvah." The way I explain this mitzvah, this concept of a mitzvah cloth is, makes it very difficult for me to understand how "Rafkuk" could possibly have said such a thing. The mitzvah of Yishuvari's Israel, I'm willing to admit that it's a foundation of the Torah. In other words, I would say that it's that important to mitzvah that many mitzvahs, and even I could argue that all the mitzvahs of the Torah contingent upon it. We know the famous opinion, as a matter of fact, that opinion was publicized by the Ramban that really mitzvahs only apply to our Israel. That's original intent, was that Torah should be fulfilled in our Israel. And in Hrutsar, we know the famous Ramban, the Ramban made it famous, that calls the Pasakatsivilaktsiyunim. A person should make notations, should make signs, should make marks, and the idea being that in Hrutsar, it's the only reason your person really has to keep Torah and mitzvahs is to remember and be aware of mitzvahs that when you come to our Israel, they shouldn't be completely new to you. Somebody would really use this, a God-dick statement for any halahic purposes. But nobody could say that really, really, in Hrutsar, it's a person who doesn't have to keep Torah and mitzvahs. But conceptually, the idea would be that the real meaning of Torah and mitzvahs is in our Israel. If that would be true, then every single mitzvah of the Torah is based upon the fact that you, of living in our Israel, is that would have cooked meant by mitzvah klallis, the general mitzvah. It's true that it's connected to the gamut of Torah and mitzvahs in this context. But I always felt that the mitzvah of belief in God is more central to Judaism than you Shaveri to Israel. Not withstanding the importance of the mitzvah, Shaveri to Israel, not withstanding the concept of the ramban, that schrulare to Israel, Kenegerkal and mitzvahs, the one where the ramban quotes the metrage, I don't think my zionistic credentials are in question when I say that I think that belief in God is a greater fundamental belief in Judaism. And the ramban does count that as a separate mitzvah. It's not a belief in God, it's not a general mitzvah which has no specific content. It has specific content of, namely, belief in God. And therefore, it seems to me that you Shaveri to Israel, even though it is central to Torah mitzvahs. Even though it's schrularek, Kenegerkal and mitzvahs, but you can't call this a mitzvah klallis because it has a specific content, namely, live and conquer to Israel. Interestingly enough, Rev Gorin, when he quotes Rev Cook, also explains his astonishment. I always, I heard this in the name of Rev Cook many, many years ago and as soon as I heard it, I didn't understand it and I was very satisfied to hear, I was very gratified to read that Rev Gorin also writes avatamsa niflamimani. This reason that stayed in the name of Rev Cook is beyond my comprehension. Kia ramban monem mitzvah sa amunabeluqim kimitzlarishana betayak. Because the ramban does count the mitzvah belief in God. As the first mitzvah. And it's certainly a foundation of Judaism, it's only included in all Torah mitzvahs the person should do to our mitzvah's out of belief in God. And nevertheless, it's considered a mitzvah. So Rev Gorin did not understand completely Rev Cook's theory. Rev Gorin advanced another theory. He quotes the ramban in parishamish nizan hulin to the effect that all the mitzvahs that we do are based upon the Torah as given by Moshe at Sinai. Which means, and this is the point that Ramam emphasizes there in hulin that we do not fulfill mitzvahs today because they were told to avram mitzvah kinyakov. It's true that certain mitzvahs are mentioned in safe abrasions. For example the mitzvah brismila. The mitzvah of puruvuh of having children was originally given to adam and then in ganetan and was repeated to Noah after the mappu. But the ramban emphasizes we do not fulfill the mitzvahs today of mila and puruvuh because of the Torah of safe abrasions saying these amitzvahs. Until Moshe rabbin who came, until the Torah was given by Sinai, so perhaps there was an obligation to do the mitzvahs that were given to us in british. But when the Torah was given in Sinai, a whole new concept develops and this is Torah and mitzvah. All the mitzvahs that were said before have to be repeated and restated in order to make them binding upon the Jewish people. And the ramban says in the introduction in his shahrashim and his principles at the beginning of saver amitzvahs, the ramban says, quoting the text of the gimmerah as he has it, they are various texts. But the ramban's text in the gimmerah in makos, at the end of makos, the gimmerah says shahashim, shahashim, shahashim, mitzvahs, and it's tahfah of the moshimah sinai. There are 613 mitzvahs that were given to moshimah sinai. So the ramban in the saver amitzvahs lists off the 613 mitzvahs that were delivered to moshimah sinai, where have Gorin argues in a brilliant tour of the force, where have Gorin says that the mitzvah of Yishavites Israel was given before the Torah. The reason we have to live in Israel is because it's the promised land given to Abraham Yitzvah in Yaakov. And he points out that there are many times when the Torah talks about coming to their church, it's his bow or shu-a-sar, it's a shan-nish-bash, shahm-la-bash, shahm-la-bash, shahm-la-bash, shahm-la-bash, shahm-la-bash, shahm-la-bash, shahm-la-bash, shahm-la-bash, yaakov. He sent the land, which I could've just promised, to our forefathers of Abraham Yitzvah in Yaakov. There are many, many times in connection with the art Israel refers to Abraham Yitzvah in Yaakov. So he said the reason we fulfilled this mitzvah is because it was really given to the avos. And therefore it's not to be included among the 613 mitzvahs. According to Ralph Cooks, to Ralph Gorin's theory, there really are 614 mitzvahs. There are 613 mitzvahs that were given to moshimah sinai, and there was another mitzvah that preceded mattantara, and it's the only one, it's the only mitzvah that came before. To be honest, I find this interpretation in my other strange also. The Ramth's principle is that what we were given before mattantara is not binding. It's not just that it really creates, not just the coincidence that these mitzvahs were repeated when we got the tar from moshimah sinai. He claims that it's not binding once the tar was given, all the laws that were given before wouldn't be binding if the only reason we have to live in our Israel is because of Ava Mitzvah Yakaov, then it really would not be binding today. Furthermore, the mitzvahs that were given to Ava Mitzvah Yakaov and repeated, so they certainly could be explained to be that the repetition is the Heba mitzvah. As the Ramban says, "Vorashimah sarti shavtim baah, this passekin" in the end of Matus Masai, the rhetorises in Erithalia, that seems to be clear to be a statement of mitzvah. Now, if you hold it, this mitzvah is, no Heguesla dara, it's an eternal mitzvah, it's a mitzvah the writer, it's masa, why argue with the Ramban? Why say it's not a mitzvah that was given after the time of moshirah banu? So I find this reason also difficult. I'd like to suggest another answer, given the Rev. Ghishuni, in his safe ware called Sophia. Rev. Ghishuni was a student of Rev. Cook and very involved with modern halakhic issues, great religious Zionists who lived in America for many years and then came back to live in Arts Israel. And he has another theory which is based upon an idea that I've already suggested two weeks ago in a shi'ur or in KMTT. Two weeks ago, the shi'ur was about the concept of Tzabalihayim, the issue of not causing pain or relieving pain of animals. At that point, I tried to explain that the mitzvah of Yishav of Tzabalihayim or the concept of Tzabalihayim might not be what we would call a classic mitzvah. It's not written in Torah, so any place specifically that you're not allowed to do this or you have to do this. We quoted a revise to the effect that the concept of Tzabalihayim was Afilushumunatoura sha'ur ainbo lavelo asse, is that there's no specific laugh, there's no specific asse. It's just a value that Torah meant. Rev Keshuni explains that every single nation wants a homeland. In order to be identified with your nationality, it makes sense that a national homeland should be established. Rev Keshuni explained it in a way that the Torah does not always feel necessary to tell us certain laws which are so obvious, which are so humanitarian, which are so built into the human psyche that they go without saying. For example, this is the Torah never told you to eat when you're hungry or to drink when you're thirsty, because this is what a normal person would do. The concept of doing things that are built within human personality is also found in another context completely. The Mezhehachma, the mayor Simcha, explained that there is a mitzvah of pro-erval. There's a mitzvah of pro-creating. But men were given this mitzvah. We passkin, although it's a makhlokas in the Mishnah, we passkin that we follow the opinion that women are not obligated in the mitzvah of pro-erval. It's obvious that a man needs a woman to fulfill the mitzvah of pro-erval, but nevertheless, men are commanded and women are not commanded. The reason for this is speculation. The Torah can be interpreted to mean that women are not commanded. But the Torah did not say a specific reason why women would not be commanded in this mitzvah. Rav Mezhehachma and his Mezhehachma has a few explanations why women may not be commanded upon this mitzvah. One of them, he said, is there's no need to command a woman in this mitzvah. The maternal instinct is so strong in women that women want to have children. Apparently the maternal instinct was felt to be much stronger than the paternal instinct. And therefore, the mitzvah was given to men that they should have children. Perhaps they don't feel so important to them to have children. And therefore, the Torah felt it necessary to tell them to do it. That women need not be commanded upon this mitzvah. It's somehow internalized within womanhood, the desire to have children. Therefore it need not be mentioned. Interestingly enough, there are other sources of mitzvahs of ideas that the Torah never commanded us to do because somehow they seem to be self-understood. Another example might be the Ramban in the beginning of Mishpatim says that there is no biblical obligation for a husband to support his wife. In that particular issue, he disagrees with the Ramban. The Ramban explains that there's a biblical requirement to support one's wife, Shayiruk, Susavonasala yikrat. And the Raman interprets that to mean both clothing, both food, and both sexual rights. And all sexual rights are commanded upon men to take care, give, administer properly to their wives. But the Ramban says there's no such mitzvah of supporting wives. And the Ramban says the beginning of Mishpatim that Torah understood that a normal human being gets married, a normal person will support his wife. In cases where normality doesn't apply and we did enter a situation where husband would not support his wife, the Ramban is aware that Rabbanon imposed a law that a man should support his wife. But really that's not the intent of the Torah. The Torah did not intend to command a person to do something which is built into his psyche, which is self understood, which a person should do because it's the right thing to do. Rev. Ghashuni applied this idea to the mitzvah of Yiswah at Israel. The Ramban need not write its mitzvah because it's some inalienable right of a nation to have a country. It's obvious that the people of that nation should live in it Israel and I got it right who meant that to happen. We talked about an erech of the Torah, a value of the Torah which not need be necessarily a specific mitzvah, but it's an erech, it's a value. This theory would say that the Ramban would say that Yiswah is undoubtedly a value and that's why the Ramban did wax eloquent in the end of Ilchos Malachum where he talks about living in Israel and explains why it's so important. He also would say that a person is allowed to do an isha-drah-ban on in order to fulfill this erech. If there would be no mitzvah at all of living in Israel, it would be difficult to say that a person could do an isha-drah-ban on for the purpose of Yiswah. If you say that it's a mitzvah-drah-isa, then it's somehow more logical to think that a person could do an isha-drah-ban on to fulfill a mitzvah-drah-isa. But two weeks ago we saw that even if tabah-drah-im is only an erech, it's only a value. It's not a mitzvah per se, but it's a value of the Torah, nevertheless it can override an isha-drah-ban on of Shabbos. So we saw here that Yiswah-t Israel is a very great value, at least it's a great value, and therefore it can override the mitzvah, the isha-drah-ban on of Shabbos. Our basic topic has been to explain the reason why the ramam omitted the mitzvah of Yiswah-t Israel. The ramban not only counted as the mitzvah, but he emphasized that it's one of the most important mitzvahs in the Torah. The ramban omitted this mitzvah. We've explained a variety of opinions, ranging from those that there's no mitzvah to all of Yiswah-t Israel, that maybe it's only a mitzvah at the time of Yoshua, maybe it's a mitzvah to the ramban on, to the extreme that Yiswah-t Israel is so important that mitzvah, such an important mitzvah, that therefore it need not be counted, it cannot be counted, it's because it's not one of the mitzvahs, it's the foundation of the mitzvah. And somehow in the middle I brought the opinion of Rav-Kashuni, that it is a mitzvah, according to the ramban, but perhaps we could count it more of an arach, more of a value, than a mitzvah. And therefore it certainly is important, certainly the ramban would endorse living in arach, and he would explain that all the laws about arach, even though he would not count it in the million amateurs. You have been listening to Rav-Nimin Tavore, the halakhah of the week, the mitzvah of the week for Pashaat Matot Masay, and for today's mitzvah, we begin the mitzvah shim from Matot Masay. In the beginning of the Pashaat, after the opening section dealing with Nidarim and Shwarat, we have the Khashbokus command to Moshev Abenu to wage war against Median, and the medrash comments his father's. The command that Hashem gave to Mosheh was in the qum, the qumat binayi saumayi atamidyanim, arachate assef el amirah. When Mosheh Abenu speaks to binayi saumayi, he tells them to prepare for war, Mosheh says we're going to have to take soldiers in order to have latte nikmata shimimimidyan. So the medrash says that, on the one hand, Akadoshpoku amah nikmata binayi saumayi. Koshpoku called the action, the military action against Median, nikmata binayi saum, the vengeance of the Jews. Mosheh amah nikmata shimim, Mosheh called the same action, the vengeance of God. Amah Akadoshpoku amahim, God said to the Jews. In no ela dikushalahim, it's your elbon, it's your shame and disgrace and insult. You're taking vengeance, the fact that you have been insulted, you have been affronted by the Medianim. Why? Because the end result of the story with Median that took place two weeks ago was that you were punished by God, God punished you because they led you into sin. So in the end result was that you suffered and therefore it's your vengeance, your revenge from Median. Amah Mosheh, Mosheh said the other way round, ribonadamim, imayinu aridim, or dei abodat kocharim, or kofreimid spout, if we were in Jews, if we were uncircumcised or idolaters, if people had no mitzvot, loyusonimotano, they would be no war, they wouldn't hate us, the reason why there's tension and conflict and persecution and antagonism between non-Jews and the Jews is because we're Jews, because we bear your name and do your mitzvot and worship you. Adhabishvil torahomitzvotch nathatirannu. The whole problem arises, so to speak, problem in quotation marks. The whole problem arises because of torah and mitzvot, hilka hanakha mashal, krada tachnikmatashevimidyan, and therefore our revenge is your revenge, it's revenge of the Torah. So it's not only that each side, God and the Jews, God and Moshehavainu, thought of the other. But look at the reason, the reason it's a twist within a twist, the reason why God calls it nikmat venei sla'am is because the actions of Midyan led God to hurt the Jews, to punish the Jews. The reason why the Jews call it nikmatashem is because the fact that Midyan was hurting the Jews was because of God's name and their mitzvot. In other words, both of them, both God and the Jews actually look at themselves, but they perceive their own involvement as hurting the other. The fact that God punished the Jews, that's what causes the entire story to be an insult and injury to the Jews. The fact that the Jews were hurt is perceived by the Jews to be a an affront and an injury to God. God is looking, of course, at the end result, and the Jews are looking, are looking at the at the cause. And of course, this changes the nature of the word vengeance and revenge, nikmat. According to God's view of it, it indeed is, is to return her to hurt. The Jews were hurt by the actions of Midyan, and therefore Midyan should be hurt by the actions of the Jews. But from the Jewish perspective, and the perspective of Moshevaena and Amisel, it wasn't that God was hurt by the actions of Midyan. It's that God's name was so speak desecrated. The fact, the reason why they attacked the Jews was because deep down at the root of the problem is their antagonism to the presence of God, holiness and sanctity in the world. And therefore, revenge on Midyan is a Kirishah Shem. It's showing that Shemah Shem is here to stay, the Torah it's thought to here to stay. And those who will rise up not so much against the physical presence of the Jews, the physical prosperity of the Jews, but those who rise up against the presence of God within the Jews, so from them, vengeance has to be, has to be exacted. Okay, that's it for today. You've been listening to KMTT, the weekly shear of Harav Tavore, the weekly mitzvah, together with a few minutes Midrash from the Pasha, the daily Midrash. And this has been KMTT broadcasting from Gushit Sion. I want to remind everybody, it's a very, very difficult time. Today was a difficult day, a very difficult day, for the Jews that were out of the sale. There is in fact, a war being waged, everyone should take a few minutes to add a prayer to Khrushboq, to be with Amisul at this time, and then come Nikamat as Shemah Midyan. We just said about Midyan, it's true about the war as well. It's both the vengeance of the Jewish people, and of God's name as well. Nikamat Sion. Khrushboq, who should help us, the man Shemah, for his own sake, and for our sake, and for the sake of the brit, the covenant with Aframid Sahqiv Yaqav, we should all be blessed with Shalom and with peace in Ereti Serin, and in the whole world. This has been KMTT, we'll see you tomorrow, this year of Arab-Tarragon, the essentials of Abu Dattashim, and until then Khrushboq, with the Baccata Torah, Nid Sion, Khimid Sion, Tzeit Torah, with the Vahrashim Mirushalayim. [BLANK_AUDIO]