KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Berachot #10
KMTT - Berachot #10, by Rav Ezra Bick
KMTT and today's Wednesday, the 16th day of Tambuz, Tethsein Tambuz. Today's share, which I'll be giving, this is Azubic, is on (speaking in foreign language) Today we're going to look at a well-known (speaking in foreign language) The (speaking in foreign language) has two statements, which basically say the same thing, they call it together in (speaking in foreign language). The first statement is (speaking in foreign language) (speaking in foreign language) This is a (speaking in foreign language) There is no (speaking in foreign language) This actually is the classic example, quoted by the (speaking in foreign language) (speaking in foreign language) A love, which includes many things. Usually that happens because it doesn't have any one obvious (speaking in foreign language) But (speaking in foreign language) You should not eat over blood. So there are a number of interpretations given by (speaking in foreign language) And one of them, the one that's given over here, somewhat more far-fetched from the point of view of (speaking in foreign language) And others, you should not eat over blood. (speaking in foreign language) You should not eat, you may not eat. Before you have prayed for your blood, prayed about, about your blood. In other words, about your life. So this is the source of the prohibition to (speaking in foreign language) (speaking in foreign language) It sounds like (speaking in foreign language) That is the (speaking in foreign language) Almost all we shown him saying that this is not the right, that this is very too far-fetched to be shot in the (speaking in foreign language) The (speaking in foreign language) But this is really only a (speaking in foreign language) A reference to a (speaking in foreign language) But it's really (speaking in foreign language) And the (speaking in foreign language) Called this interpretation as one of the interpretations, which renders this (speaking in foreign language) A lot of that includes many (speaking in foreign language) Although (speaking in foreign language) And there's some (speaking in foreign language) Many scripts which don't include it. There's a (speaking in foreign language) But almost all we shown him say is only the (speaking in foreign language) But nonetheless, the (speaking in foreign language) The (speaking in foreign language) Although it's not a (speaking in foreign language) You should not eat before taking care of your blood. (speaking in foreign language) Now is it the same person, the same list of people saying the statement, but a slightly different statement. (speaking in foreign language) He eats drinks. And afterwards (speaking in foreign language) (speaking in foreign language) Someone like that who eats and only then (speaking in foreign language) And you have thrown me behind your back. (speaking in foreign language) The (speaking in foreign language) The (speaking in foreign language) Not that you throw me after your back. (speaking in foreign language) You have thrown me behind beyond your pride. (speaking in foreign language) After this person has expressed his pride, has puffed himself up, has taken care of his own majesty, so to speak. (speaking in foreign language) Only then does he accept upon himself the (speaking in foreign language) of the heavenly kingdom. So we have a two different (speaking in foreign language) Both (speaking in foreign language) They both say the same thing. Did you not already eat before you (speaking in foreign language) Both of them are connected to a (speaking in foreign language) One is a (speaking in foreign language) One is a (speaking in foreign language) And I think if we examine the (speaking in foreign language) We get two slightly different pictures of what's objectionable about eating before (speaking in foreign language) The first (speaking in foreign language) Which is interpreted to mean (speaking in foreign language) You should not (speaking in foreign language) You should not eat before you have prayed for your blood. What's the picture again? What's wrong with eating? The person wakes up in the morning and he has nothing. If we add and remember the (speaking in foreign language) Sleeping as a kind of death. Language of (speaking in foreign language) Was one-sixteenth of death. So we say (speaking in foreign language) in the morning. God has returned our souls. You were dead at night. And now you first get up. You have nothing. You have no oxygen. You have no air. You have no life. You have, everything has to come from God. And what do you do? You're worried about, about, about a pretzel. As (speaking in foreign language) You are condemned prisoner. You are, you are about to die. You have no justification for living. It's the first, you just come out into the world. It's your first second of breathing. The first thing you have to do obviously is to go and dive in and to pray. Because that's the only way that you'll survive. You're like a drowning person. And you're gasping for air. And what do you do? You say, "Oh, and by the way, I think I'll have a, I think I'll have a little sandwich." It makes no sense. It shows it's a lack of priorities about what about yourself but your existence. It shows, obviously it's really just a transgression. The dressing is that you think that you are alive and well and self-sufficient. You dive in because they told you to dive in but, but you're not desperate to dive in. And so basically it shows your total misunderstanding of the priorities of your own existence. The reason is in truth because you have to run relationship with God. But, but the, the error is based on a misunderstanding of what it means to be, to be alive. You wake up, the first thing you do is press that oxygen button. You have to worry about other things such as mere food and drink. That's the first verse of the quote. "Al-Haddam, don't engage in eating and drinking." When your real problem is blood, meaning life. Remember in, in, in, in the Torah's already. Surely in Chazal, blood and life mean the same thing. Ki ha-damhu an afesh. The blood is the soul. It's the life. As lit paler al-Haddam means to, to pay for your very life. And instead of that, you're, you're eating, you're eating and drinking. It's as though the picture is, as though someone has been granted an audience with the king. And attempt to save his life because he's been condemned to death. And when the king is sitting and he's about, it's time to speak to him. So he, he, he, he's busy, he's busy eating a very, an ice cream card. He says, "The king, wait, wait, wait, I'll get you in a second. I have to first finish this, this little repast that's been given to me." It makes no sense. It shows a total lack of understanding of who you are. Second, mama, I think has a different theme all together. It's connected to the pasoco tí, he schlachte, achare, achare, achare, achare, achare, achare. The truth is the, the correction that Chazal make to the word, the altiquary. Do not read it thus at a, but read it another way, which is a form of, of Jewish adding an extra meaning to a word. Here, it, it, it doesn't introduce a new understanding. I think, I think it merely, it deepens or explains what the true understanding of the pasocos. But if we look in context, it's quite clear. The pasocos is found in Ma'chim'al if you doubt it. And the Navi is telling the, the wife of Avi'a, Med'a Chisrael, son of Yuv'am, who has a sick child. And she comes to speak to the, to the prophet. The prophet was basically betrayed by Yuv'am and, and his children. And she wants to know, what can she do? What's the future of a child? So God answers how that, basically a lot of huts for coming. And, and, and the pasocos says that God, through the instrument of the prophet of the Navi, says to him, you know, I made you king. I, I, I split the very kingdom into two and gave you the northern kingdom. I split the very kingdom and gave it to you. But you were not like David, who followed my mitzvoth. What did you do? Vatera das, so you've done terrible things worse than anyone who came before you. And you went and made other gods and, and images in order to anger me. Votih ish lakhta achare gavera. And, but me, God is speaking, but me, you have thrown behind your back. In other words, it's, it's an affront. God is so to speak, speaking as one who's been, who's been insulted. He's been, he's saying, I did all this for you and what have you done? You've made other images, but, and, and myself, you've tossed on the, on the garbage heap behind, behind your power. So, so, achazal strengthening a petition. I say, what does gavera mean? It means, gay echah. How could someone do this? It's because, not because you really think the other gods are more important than God. He was a Jew, he grew up. He had the Navi speak to them and to be promised in the kingdom and gave him the kingdom and gave him the kingdom of God. He knew who God was. But the reason why these sorts of sins take place, in the case of Aviya, the king of Israel is because he's really valuing himself more than God. And that, although it may be paradoxical, in fact, psychologically is much more understandable. It's not a theological error of saying there are more important values in the world than God, namely other gods or other values. It's a psychological error, a psychological misstep that the most important person, naturally speaking in a man's world, does himself. And it's a constant effort to subjugate oneself to God. And if one doesn't do it, then one ends up valuing oneself. And therefore, the hunger, the slight hunger one has in the morning, I first have to stuff myself. I have ideals, then I'll come to speak to God. So, that's gavera instead of gavera. But the basic principle is what it says in the pursuit itself, that we've cast God aside on the heap. If this is the source, for this particular prohibition of eating before diving, so it's not what we had before. That indicates a distortion of human priorities, taking care of the unimportant before the important. But in fact, it's directly a religious affront to God. Eating before diving is saying, "I'm more important than God." Notice that in the first episode, both sides was "I." Do you take care of your life, your blood, or do you take care of your hunger? What's more important? Your heart, meaning your blood, or your stomach? So you're not, because you feed your stomach before ensuring a decent blood supply. But here, it's not the important part of my life as opposed to the less important part of my life. It's God before myself. So we've changed the focus. It's an affront to God. It's an insult to God to eat before you dive in. Not because you should be so desperate to dive in. It's supposed to take care of unimportant things, but because as desperate as you are, maybe you're starving to death and you really want to eat, but God is more important. And what has to pay one's respect, so to speak to God. What it was, therefore, now what is the Davening represent? The first Davening of the Tohlu Al-Adhan represents getting and taking care of our basic needs. Oxygen, blood, life itself. This one is not talking about our needs. It's more a matter of respect. You are a bargiver. You are a proud and puffed-up, self-centered individual, unless you first relate somehow to God. The English word, I think, is a nice expression. When pays one's respect to God, and only afterwards goes and eats. The language of the 'Gma' is, 'Amar Akhilosh Bakhul Akhashinidukha Ezzah, Kibera love, Malhut Shemain.' This bad person who was eaten before he diving after he has fed his own pride, taking care of his own majesty. He goes ahead and accepts upon himself the kingdom of heaven. Now, it's not a matter of davening in the sense of getting the most important things. Its davening is, here called, Kabbalat, Malhut Shemain accepting the kingdom of heaven. Showing one's allegiance to God, one's respect to God, one's connection to God that has to proceed, one's allegiance, respect and care of oneself. Is there a difference between the two sources? Remember, both sources were said by the exact same person, the 'Rasabanyakov.' Even the 'Mursar', the tradition of transmission, is identical in both cases. If you have to be a 'Biyokhanan' and if you have to be a 'Biyokhanan', then you should be a 'Rasabanyakov.' 'Amar Akhil, in a case like this, we have two 'Mama' rim next to each other, especially if they are said by the same person. So we're not going to have real controversy, dispute, but the details of 'Amar Akhashin.' So anything which you could infer from one of these statements will be 'Cholakhlamisu' according to the other as well. But nonetheless, there is a difference of emphasis here. And if we can learn a certain halakhat from one of them, it will be applied to the other one as well. It will be applied to the bottom line, but it does derive for one. So for instance, from the expression - roti schlachda, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega vech, acharega ve before Daven. This is called a lokha lamais in the shokhanar. The shokha has passed in this way. There are apparently a shonen who disagree. The vamafits in simply says, one is not allowed to taste anything. It doesn't have any distinctions and anything I think means anything. But to have your sajjuraj drink one, his reasoning is very simple. Drinking water is not gas. It's not a matter of pride. He interpreted it not that you've taken care of your needs. Water is a very basic need. Everyone has a need for water. It has to do with stuffing yourself. In other words, sitting down and eating and enjoying, it's specifically not the basic necessity of food that is a contradiction to paying one's respect to God. Nobody would say that not just because a lokha lamais is impossible. I think even ideologically it wouldn't say it's also to breathe before Davening. But it has to breathe. But on the contrary, it's sitting there and having a nice meal. The original language in Nervia is, he says it's also to drink only by drinking and not by eating. It's also to drink wine. You need the mischaka. It's intoxicating. It doesn't even because you'll get drunk. But it's a special kind of enjoyment. A fancy, it's a mischte. Right? It's a, it's a, it's a, you've got to a kiddish before, before you dive in. But water, he says, is permissible. This is the basis for the subsequent discussion, very long and convoluted discussion in the acronym. So, there's a quote to that. Can you drink tea or coffee? Because it's not just water. It really has some flavor. It has something added in it. So, most of the time say it's okay. Can you add sugar to your tea or coffee? The second thought was assure. Sugar very involves, involves, it's substantial and not merely water. But then they said that since nobody drinks coffee or tea without sugar, today, so maybe that's okay too. Can you put in milk? There's other discussions where the exact border is between just water and, and, and something that involves gay echas, something that involves prideing oneself, feeding one's pride, showing, puffing up one's pride. It's not important that Al-Aqalamites are now exactly where it goes. Discussion is, is well known. But it's all based on the second person. The first person, you would not have reached his conclusion and, and it was just explicitly that he's basing himself on the second person. Low tuk rue alladam. Low tuk rue kalun shit ba lua dum haem. You should not take care of any secondary need before the very basic need of having God in your life. So, nothing should, nothing should perceive divining. Al-Aqalamites are, since you can prove it from the second one, he thinks that water is okay. So you'll say, it's not so bad for the first one as well. I'm saying, Al-Aqalites were not going to have different, uh, Al-Aqalah, were not going to create a controversy between two different memories with the same person. But there's a difference in conceptualization based on these tuk sukim. Is it a prohibition of thinking about oneself before one thinks about God? In which case thinking about oneself, the rue argues involves a certain kind of thinking, a certain amount of, of thinking about oneself in a luxurious manner, and not in a very, very, very basic manner? Or is that a prohibition of, uh, concerning myself with, well, our own minor, relatively minor, private needs, rather than getting straight at the heart of the matter, our very, our very existence? This is makhloket between the, uh, we've shown in between the rash and the rashpah. As to whether or not if one begins to eat before one can dive in, before it's mutta dive in, whether one can continue. The ascension of all, the, we've shown in is that this prohibition only begins if you could dive in. The diving can only be done, uh, from Al-Aqalah, from, uh, from dawn. So from gets up in the middle of the night, it's okay to eat. That's understanding that the prohibition is eating instead of diving, if you can't dive in, and there's, uh, in Al-Aqah diving, it's not time for diving yet, there's no problem eating, but there's makhloket, whether or not, if you begin to eat shortly before dawn, can you continue eating when dawn, when dawn comes about? This is based on imseqhem and in, uh, in shabbat that says concerning other mitzvah, concerning mitzvah, just to eat before you dive in, just to do, just to eat before you do any mitzvah, which is time to do. But there, Al-Aqah says if you begin to eat when it's mutta, and then the time comes, you begin to eat before this man, the type of mihlah, and then time inhah arrives, you may continue. So we shall not ask, what about this Al-Aqah, and then we shall say the same thing, so if you begin to eat before Al-Aqah, then you may continue to eat after Al-Aqah, but the verse says no. The verse says no, because the personk says, "Lotoh-lu-al-adam." What's the vash's point? If we would look at merely the second verse, "Votish-lach-tah-hare-kave-hah," there's a difference between someone who is facing two possibilities. Does he check in with God, or does he check in with his stomach, so he's insulting God. But if you're in the middle of eating, and you begin when it was permissible, it's not the same thing to say that, "Oh, you have to stand up right away." It came tight, "Stand up right away and speak to God." Of course, it could be that way. But we see that in other places, Khazal have the attitude that says that if you're in the middle of something, it's not so terrible to continue, even though you could do a more important thing. Because if it's a matter of the relative importance of myself versus the relative importance of God, of course God is more important, but if you're in the middle of something, you're allowed to continue. It's conceivable that one could continue to eat, and everyone was finished since one already began. But if the prohibition is based on a lack of understanding of one's own priorities, we engage in trivia when one is about to die, and one is perched over the abbess of death, and one needs to plead and beg, and some will ensure that God give us life. So we'll make a difference, which is that what the verse is saying. Since the pussuk says a lot of hula dahm, the verse admits that the pussuk is not the right to it; it's only in a smachte, but it still expresses the idea. The idea being that you are perched over in abbess, and now you have your chance to grasp at life, and you eat. If you started eating beforehand, you're still not, you're still acting in a manner that's totally incompatible with understanding of the nature of life and the relationship of life to God. And therefore the verse is explicitly, because of the first pussuk he says you have to stop even though normally in other mitzvot there would be no problem to continue, but here it's not a prohibition of engaging in A or engaging in B, in which case precedence, beginning something changes the relationship between A and B. Here it's a question of engaging in anything when you are simply seconds from what basically means from what basically is death. Another possible distinction between these two sources, is it a front to God to not pay one's respects to him before paying one respects to oneself, or is it a lack of understanding of one's needs, would relate logically least to what exactly is prohibited. If it's a prohibition of lot of chlural adam, taking care of food before one takes care of one's basic life, then it's clearly talking about tremendously. How does one get one's blood, how does one get one's life, by addressing God's financially, we ask for our basic needs. So by standing before the king, and paying, that's the blood, and eating is taking care of relatively minor needs. However, if it's the sur avotee chlach, it doesn't appear obvious that it's directly connected to Shmanessi, as I use the expression a number of times when it has to pay one's respects to God. Well, the Akwana want to know, is this prohibition, would it be self perhaps by other fellot, or for instance kriyachma, specifically kriyachma. In fact, the language of the Gamara is, when it expresses what God says in that pasuk, quoted from lachim, after this person has prided himself, he accepts upon himself the yoke of heaven. The kingdom of heaven is in expression normally associated with kriyachma. Kriyachma is kabbalat al makhuchamain, here it says kibel makhuchamain, the word old does not appear. Mr. Brewer, in fact, passed against that way, says here it's not necessarily Shmanessi, but it's kriyachma as well. It's also to eat before Shmanessi, it's also to eat before kriyachma, which makes sense, because you first have to fulfill your obligations to heaven before filling your obligations in quotation marks to oneself. Some of them disagree, the fact is that the Gamara does in this statement, not in the explanation, but the statement uses the language of tafila. Kaulha ochrel vakhakachmit palal, a la vacatubo mervioti, schlachtach rega verg, he who eats and afterwards lit palal, tabbing, and lit palal in the sacre blechot always means, or almost always means, saying shmanessi. Understand, logically, it would depend on which source we view as being sensual. If it's do not eat before praying for your blood, it's clearly first Shmanessi. If it's do not eat before, do not feed one's own pride before subjecting oneself to the kingdom of heaven, in other words, first bow to God, and only then bow to yourself, only then serve God before you serve yourself. Then Kriyachma is a candidate. That's what the Mishnah burr paskas is. I suspect, because the Gamara is quite explicit, they're talking about tafila, that there may be a different concept here of kabbalat malchut-shamayim. It's true that Kriyachma is a statement of allegiance to God. Shmanessi, shamoten-sham-ah-had, you are our God, and we are subject to you. That's why it's followed shortly afterwards in the second paragraph. I am Shamara with what's known as kabbalat mitzvot, you are our God, and therefore we do. We do your bidding, we do your mitzvot. But I suspect here the Gamara is thinking not so much of saying that we do what we're told, but the idea of being will be belonged to you. And that as we've said previously in some of the shum here in Bukhot, Shmanessi, davening, even though we asked God to fill our needs, or perhaps precisely because we asked God to fill our needs, is essentially an act of service, of a vodata-sham. We say we belong to you. I'm basically making this second interpretation closer to the first, and the first matriya though, distinction is still clear. But you should first indicate that our focus, our world depends on God before taking care of it ourselves. So it's not, you don't have the desperation expressed in the first person. You're about to die, what are you eating for? No, no, it's a question of, do you take care of yourself, or are you subject to God? But the true subject to God is in Shmanessi. It's not merely saying the rah-sham. It's in showing that everything we have comes from you. And that statement, that everything comes from you, ain lannu ella, vinu-shamayim, which is the central theme of Shmanessi. That is the, is the actual, which then allows you to then go out and, and, and take care of yourself. Okay, I merely suggest that as a suggestion because the muah says, tufila, as I mentioned in the Shnabur, paskans explicitly, that it applies to kriachma as well. Now, you might raise the point in your own mind. It's all very nice, what I said, and I said it so, so poetically, it would seem that what I'm saying should apply to anyone who gets up in the morning. After all, let's say the first person, rah-sham, person gets up from death and has to begin to live. What's his life based on? Only God. The statement found in all we're showing him, that this only applies from the time of tufila, from a lot of shah-chan. It appears to be a little strange, suppose you get up before a lot of shah-chan, you're still getting up from death. You're still planning to, to, to live the whole day. How do you go about your day and eat before you, before you appeal to God? So you can't appeal to God because it's not the time, but you surely shouldn't be taking care of yourself. So, all sham-sham saying out the way, and the answer is, because of a taktak-koh-hah, the understanding, if you can't dive in, then there's nothing wrong with eating. Because it's the relative, the relative choice on your part, that's so problematic. But the truth is that the zoha does not, based himself on a lot of shah-chan, on doing. The zoha says explicitly and, and the magna-vam brings us lah-hah-hah. Then if you get up in the middle of the night, you may not eat. You can't dive in yet, but you still may not eat. Because the idea of eating, when you haven't yet, it's not the choice between diving or eating as problematic. It's, how can you eat if you haven't yet spoken to God about the, the truly important connection, which is, mentioned by the word 'damn'. The second, 'Perserk' would surely not support this. If it's a question of 'Otish, Lakhdach, Rege vercha', it only, you're only giving yourself precedence over God, if it's possible to speak to God. If I've been invited to the king's house and I choose to go to my own dinner, then that's a problem of 'Otish, Lakhdach, Rege vercha'. But if the king would only mean to his house, in the meantime I eat, that surely would not be a problem. So again, it would be distinction between the two sources, although it's not Lakhdach. In other words, in normal, it's clear that 'Otish, Lakhdach, Rege vercha', but again, suppose you think that one should try to fulfil the zoa as well. The zoa says that when they not eat from once, one has woken up. The day begins, first, ensure life, ensure connection with God, connection with God is life, and only afterwards can one take care of oneself. It's worth noting that the Vambam, who, as we've seen previously, organises the 'Maivir hal-Ahot' or 'Bissar hal-Ahot' into categories that are a tremendous amount of editing work here. The Vambam quotes this hal-Akhav, not eating before davening together, literally, in one breath, together with 'Al-Akhav', and a few dalads, of not doing lakhav, not engaging in any activity. Not taking care of tasks, not taking care of tasks before davening, which will indicate it really is different than the Supreme Court in here. It's not because you're eating and drinking, you're stuffing your stuff before speaking to God. It's simply that the first thing you do should be to speak to God, one takes care of God before one takes care of oneself. It's closer to the second person. If you eat before davening, it's a sort of fix the air conditioner, before davening. You're taking care of yourself before speaking to God. The first person, Lord Tohru Al-Adam, I think it's clear that the relationship there is eating as opposed to breathing, as opposed to actual life. So the Vambam, he doesn't actually quote Dub-Sukim at all, but he categorises in a manner of the first thing you do when you get up in the morning is davening. After all, you have other problems, eating, going to do your work, the next Lord Vambam is taking a trip, which is a different gama. He puts all these hara-kha together, and that's the way it's quoted in shu-kha-nara-kha, in shu-kha-nara-kha as well. That's it for today. Thank you very much. I'll be back next week with another show in this series. And that was the show on the second rakh-rach-rach-rach-rach-rach-rach-rach-rach-rach-rach-rach-rach-rach-rach-rach-rach-rach-rach-rach-rach-rach. And now, for the midrash-rach-rach-rach-rach-rach-rach. Before we read the next midrash, I just thought of something about the midrash, which we read in the last two days, the double midrash. As I pointed out, the midrash was out of place. I apologize for dealing with the midrash, which dealt with a section in the pan-shala. When Moshe Abeinu asks G-d to a point of successor, who we know will be your shu-kha-nara-kha-rach, appears in the beginning of the pan-sha. I told you I was doing it according to the author of the midrash, the normal explanation found in the midrash-rach-rach-rach. Is that a mistake? The manuscript somehow got jumbled, and this midrash, it's the out bet. Number two, in Seidr-pingchas, should have been placed much, much later and somehow wandered into this location. That's probably the real shot, but I was thinking that maybe not, after all the location in which the midrash is found, the midrash before it, out alif. In the midrash, afterwards, I would deal with Pingchas, who is the beginning of the pan-sha, that G-d sends his message of peace to Pingchas, and gives him a brit, special covenant. Very, very warm words about Pingchas. I think maybe, maybe, the reason why the midrash, that we read yesterday and Sunday, which explained how the leader of the Jews must be, someone who is like G-d, el-kay-hu-khot-le-khot-ba-sar, in the words of the midrash, somebody who is, sovel echad-de-de-fit-de-to. A person who knows how to bear, how to suffer, how to be patient with each one in each individual, according to his own individual personality. Why is that midrash placed here? It's coming to explain that it's not Pingchas. After all, Pingchas has replaced Moshe Rabbino in this particular incident. Zimbi Ben-Salu had brought the midr unit to Moshe, and said to him, "Look, I have this girl, what are you going to do about it?" The Moshe Rabbino had no answer, didn't know what to do. The midrash explains it explicitly, but he actually quotes it. Moshe Rabbino was speechless, but Pingchas got up, and he smote Zimbi and saved the day. He shivit khamatimi al-banaysv, he prevented, he kept God from being cross-at-banaysv, by turning the whole picture around. So he had shown great leadership abilities, and in fact, had he placed Moshe Rabbino in a crucial time. He asked, "Maybe he should be the person who will replace Moshe Rabbino after Moshe's death." Why is Moshe asked God to choose somebody else? And the answer is because, and okay, he will hot-le-khot-le-khot-ba-sar, because although Pingchas has great qualities, they are specifically and deliberately not the qualities of a leader. A leader who is patient and bears with each person according to his personality. Pingchas' personality, that of the kanai, that of the zivat, is specifically not that of the true leader. He is crucial for that one special moment. When someone has to burst out of the bounds, not foul the rules, save the day by an act of great bravery, and courage, and spontaneous reaction. But in the day-to-day bearing of the tribulations, the somewhat unruly troublesome, not always nice people bearing with them, not striking them down, if that need be done. But bearing each one so very, very hard to feed that term. So Pingchas is precisely not the proper personality, and that's what the Midrash is trying to tell us. It means he juxtaposes the Pasuk, and the Midrash which explains how Pingchas was a great person with a Pasuk taken from the same pasture, but somewhat later, how Mashar Abena was looking for the ultimate manheg. He who carries, he knows to make peace with God, not by wiping out evil, but by helping God or helping the Jews view God and helping God view the Jews. If you remember yesterday's Midrash, the man, the king, with his wife, how they make up and get together despite the irritations between them. So that's a word of ending concerning yesterday's Midrash, but where it's placed. Again, the obvious Shadd explanation, that's all a mistake, is surely plausible. For a new Midrash, for today I turn a little bit later in the Midrashraba, going back indeed to the original Pascha, the Pascha about Pingchas. After God complements and opens his covenant of peace to Pingchas, the Pasuk, reviews for us the persona, the actors in the drama that was at the end of the previous Pascha, in which Pingchas had been one of the great actors, and we've just talked about him, who the others were, the shame. Isha Israel, Abu Khashir, Hukha, Eta Midyanit, Zimri Ben Salu. It was also that the man who had been killed, who was unidentified in the previous Pascha, the man who had been killed, was Zimri Ben Salu, a leader of the tribe of Shimon, and it tells the name of the woman. Cosby Batsu, the Midyanit woman from Midrash, and so the Midrash states as follows. The shame is Israel, the shame is Israel, Abu Khashir, Abu Khashir, Hukha, Eta Midyanit, Qashim shakadosh baohur mith asek bish bachan shatadi kim mith asek bachan shatadi kim mith asem baoholam. Qashim baoholam, Qashim baoholam, just as God, makes a point of publicizing the good deeds of the righteous, as we saw about Pingchas, and that's many, many part short in the Torah. The whole saver bachit is a tell us of the great deeds and the wonderfulness of the tzadi kim. Qashim baoholam, Qashim baoholam, which makes a point of publicizing the disgrace, the the opprobium of the evil. Pingchas, pilsamodish bach, bizimri lignai, that's why Pingchas, the very same Pascha, where Pingchas is getting his compliment and being publicized, what a great person he was, there's this Pascha, which really has no pshat need for us to know. No, no, it's important to know the details and to the Pascha, to publicize the name of the evildoer, of the evildoer. Allehemne amar, zecha tzadikliv rachhah, vishayim rachhahim yil kav. Just as we know, zecha tzadikliv rachhah, you mentioned, it's not exactly the same, you mentioned, it's the pascha. There is the opposite, it's the same Pascha, it's the same Pascha, it's the same Pascha, it's the same Pascha, to finish it off, zecha tzadikliv rachhahim yil kav. And then the Midish continues, that this applies even to the family. It says about zecha tzadikliv rachhahim yil kav. He was the leader of the Prince of Shimon, why is it necessary to know? You might think it's because it's something about him, maybe we should realize, wow, even though he was a great person, he still did wrong, it had something to do with the pshat, and his personality with this Midish gives a different explanation, since the whole Pascha is not to tell you about him, that was the previous Pascha. It's merely to mention his name because it's important to publicize evil, and attribute it to evil people. So here it says, chakolak pogemat, that's mopogemat mich bhaktogimo. We publicized his tribe because that's part of the opprobium. He who ruins himself, he who displaces himself, displaces his tribe as well. And then specifically about Shimon, the Midish adds, that Shimon, whatever you might think of him, but Shimon had been Mosanefa. She had gone out of his way in the context of znut, of promiscuousness, when he went out to revenge his sister in a story of Shrem, and his grandson, Izmiri, had done the opposite, and that's why it's even a greater disgrace to his Shavet, than he had disgraced his Shavet by doing the opposite Midah of his Shavet. That's it for today. We heard today the Shiro, given by myself, on a sakhad bhaktog. Hara khaba rak, wa agadah, followed by the Mishnah Yomit. You've been listening to KMTT The Total Podcast. This is Azubic wishing you a call to the bhaktatoramitsion. KMTT, kimitsion teceitoram, udvarashambirushalaym.