KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - The Weekly Mitzva Chukat
KMTT - The Weekly Mitzva Chukat, by Rav Binyamin Tabory
Shabbat al-Bruchima Baeim to another week of KMTT, Kimi Tsiyeon Tetsay Torah, and this is Eswapik. Today is Lamid Sivan, Alif Roshshalish, the first day of Voshshalish Tamuz. And today's year by Harabani Mintavori in the weekly Mitzvah, for Parashat Rookat. I remind you again that the weekly Mitzvah, after Vosh, is following the schedule of the Sissel. And therefore he's in Parashat Rookat, although in Khuzlarets the Kriyatta Torah is the Pashat Karach. After this year I'll be back with the Medrash Yomi, the daily Medrash, which will be for Pashat Karach. And now, Harabtavori. In Parashat Rookat, the Torah tells the story of the Nehashim, those poison mistakes that poisoned many Jewish people. Vayamot Amrabmisa, Al. Many people died. The people then came to Mosheh, Paraikrav Alif Pasukzayim, Vayavrah Amrashheh, Vayamot Hatanu. The people came to Mosheh, and admitted that they had sinned, qidibannu vashem vavach. We had spoken against God and against you too. Hidpale al-Lashem, please daven to Qadish Barakul, Vyashem miyalaynu atanahash, that he should remove the serpent from us. It is interesting to note that Mosheh did not daven until Bene Israel asked him to. Why did he wait for them to ask him? We know from other places in Ramaish that davening for someone is the sign of a Chutzadik. The people of Stom who seem to be a city of total evil, totalish hut, was destined to be destroyed, and immediately Abraham turns to Qadish Barakul and davens. On the other hand, Noah was told that the Mabu will be coming, and he did not daven. It is traditionally explained that Noah was actually blamed for this. The Pasukani Ishaiahu says qimayim Noah Zotli, the Mabu is called the water of Noah. Qazal explained that it is sort of blamed on him, Nika Imashimo, the flood itself was named the Mabu of Noah. The fish shall load paleil al-Bene doro, because he did not daven. Why did he really not daven? What was the reason that Noah didn't daven? Abraham did daven, and we see here that Mosheh does not daven until Bene Israel asked him to daven. What's the reason for it? The Ghemara in Brakhos, Dafyud Bezim would base, says a very strong comment, a very meaningful comment is made on the Ghemara regarding someone who doesn't daven it at all. But the Ghemara is an interesting phrase. The Ghemara says qal shaifshalu, the word fshar means anybody it's possible. Qal shaifshalu le vache shrakhani makhha veru, anyone who can ask for mercy for his friend, or verinam, vercays, but he does not do so, nikrahote, he himself is a sinner. Shannemar gamanukhi hali lee mihatol ashemihatolil paleil, the Ghemara qal to the pastak and shmuel that has for shalom, God forbid, that I should do it asin of refraining from prayer, from tphila. alma rava im tamed krakham utsali qia qalaat smalaf. Not only should a person daven but he should be filled with such empathy, he should he himself feel the pain and become ill in order to daven as part of his expression of his feelings for the other person. This of course makes it even stronger. Why is this not done in the case of nawak, in the case of moshah, where as we see be averham, it was done. The rambam does not quote this halacha exactly, the Ghemara in Brakhos that says anyone who doesn't daven for his friend is actually a sinner, that phraseology will not be found in the rambam. Later we'll see what the rambam does say in a slightly different context, but perhaps this is not a normative halacha, it's only a sign of extreme piety. The ghemara means it as more as a musaralacha as the question of ethics rather than as normative halacha. This would not explain yet why moshah did not do it, even if we would assume that it's not required by halacha, but it's certainly in the character of a person of the stature of moshah, or even the stature of nawak in his generation to accept the medot, the characteristics which the ghemara says are proper, even if it's not actually required. There may be two possibilities of explaining why moshah did not happen. Then perhaps you should not daven for a person who has sinned for a sinner, but rather you should try to cause that person to beg forgiveness, to atone, to become a better person. This might explain that moshah, who personally and the cupboard of God was also involved, both moshah as a person, as the leader of Israel, kihatanu lashem vabakh, because they use the phrase we've sinned both against God and against you. So moshah and a karushbaru to say, we're both fronted by the behavior of moshah. Once moshah felt it wasn't proper to daven for them until they did chuva, and as a matter of fact, this could be the explanation of what happened. They came and said to moshah, kihatanu kigibanu lashem vabakh, they first admitted their sin. That admission of sin is itself an expression perhaps of chuva, of repentance, and therefore at this point it becomes appropriate for moshah to daven. This might explain why noahtind daven, because he knew that the people were rishahim, he knew the people were evil. And in a sense, it may be that he encouraged them to do chuva by the fact that he was involved in building the ark, it obviously took a long time to prepare the ark. People kept coming over to him according to the madrish and saying, what are you doing? Why are you building this magnificent boat? And he's answer was, because of the sins of mankind, God has told me that he's going to bring a marble to destroy the earth. And apparently this is a way of encouraging people to realize what has been happening and how they can rectify the situation they should do chuva. Since they didn't, it seems that noahtind daven for them. Avram on the other hand did daven for the people of stone, even though they were rishahim, but it's noteworthy that he stopped at the number of ten. He asked, perhaps the fifties had he came, forty-five, forty, thirty, twenty-ten, but below ten he himself did not ask. Another answer that might be suggested, why the moshah and noaht did not daven, is perhaps one should not daven when you know that its fela is not accepted. When you know fully well that this prayer will not be accepted by God until the people repent and the situation with moshah was such that he understood that only chuva could avert the decree of God and therefore he waited for the people to do chuva. And perhaps that's true of noahtud. The difference between the two interpretations that I suggested is that according to the first explanation, a person should not daven for rishahim. It would seem there that davening for rishahim itself might be problematic. The second would not be that the prayer itself is problematic, but rather it seems useless. Tfilah will not be heard unless a person knows or at least has some feeling that this tfilah will be accepted, then it could daven. Would there be something wrong in davening when you tfilah is not accepted? We have to remember that no matter what explanation I give for the cause that moshah did not daven until b'nayestrel asked him, nevertheless we have to point out that noaht who may have had the same reasons or whatever reason it might be for refraining from davening was castigated by hazal, as I said he may know exactly the puzzle says, and hazal explained that noah is somehow blamed for the mabu because he didn't daven. Why should he daven? Perhaps the people are rishahim, perhaps he tried to encourage them to do chuva, perhaps he knew that tfilah would not be accepted, so why should he be blamed for it? If we justify the reason for his refraining from prayer that is difficult to understand why hazal somehow blamed him for not praying, perhaps the answer is that sometimes according to the second explanation I gave, prayer may not be heard, and maybe I know it won't be heard, but a person should daven, nevertheless. When something hurts you, badly, a person screams give out, ouch, it hurts. What's the benefit of saying that? What's the benefit of complaining about it, of crossing, of feeling some feeling that is expressed verbally as an expression of pain? This is a natural reflex of people when they react to pain. Something hurts, you verbalize it. You scream oi, you say give out. If something hurts, then a person should daven. Noach may have understood that it won't benefit anyone from his davening, neither does complaining, neither is screaming, but if you really feel the pain, then there has to be some expression of that pain. Noach seems to have ignored that totally. On one hand, he can't be blamed totally for not davening if we can justify his reason for not davening, but the fact that he didn't daven apparently shows a certain lack of empathy and the feeling for the travai and pain of the rest of civilization as he knew it. Avram on the other hand davened immediately and he expressed his true feelings. Once he reached the number 10 and he knew that the Tvilat will not be accepted any longer, below 10 he knew there was no chance of his Tvilat being accepted, so therefore the obligation or perhaps the privilege of prayer of Tvilat is no longer there. But the criticism of noach was that he didn't express any empathy. Avram did, Avram did daven and we felt we understood Avram's feelings very strongly when he prayed to God and in fact he was almost afraid of overdoing it. He hoped that Akhosh Brak would not be upset with him for asking again and again and again. A person who asked again and again and again certainly expressed his feelings, certainly expressed his sympathy, his empathy. There comes a time when he knows his Tvilat will not be accepted, Valido. Now is the time to be quiet, but to be quiet from the beginning to the end may reflect a lack of empathy, a lack of feeling for other people. So we have seen that the halacha quoted in the Gmara, although not quoted in the Rambha, that a person should daven and not only daven but we pointed out that the Gmara said it in a negative phrase. The Gmara said, "Someone shaifshala la vakesh rachamimaha vero, someone who theoretically is possible to daven for his friend, the eno, and he does not do it, so the Gmara very strongly criticizes him." And the Gmara said, "Nikra hote, he's called the sinner. What is the word of the phrase koshe efshala la vakesh rachamim, someone who can? Is anyone not capable of prayer? Efshala, everyone in the world can open his mouth and pray your to God. Kiyata shaifshala tvilat kol paht, is the text of many suduim. So the Gmara shaifshala, who listens to prayers, hears prayers, shaifshala, why can the Gmara say koshe efshala la vakesh rachamim?" So one very simple explanation might be that it means a person who is aware of the problem involved, he is efshala. It seems, however, that the more poignant explanation would be, according to what I said, koshe efshala la vakesh rachamim would be there are cases where you made that from someone else. The case would be when you know that there is a possibility, at least, of the Tfilah being accepted. But if you know in advance there is no way of this Tfilah being accepted, then the statement of the Gmara would not apply. If a person is a rachah, maybe that situation is considered shaifshala tpala. He is not capable of prayer, he should not doven at that time. Even before that this halacha was not quoted in the rambam. But there is a halacha that is quoted in connection with dovening for your friend. And this question exists in regards to bikrholi. There is a mitzvah of visiting the sick, the rambam in hilchos avir, in a strange place. The rambam mentions all the halachos which fall under the general category of the after le rachah kamocha, the rambam uses the laws of avir, to include other laws. And the rambam says mitzvah says they should devray him. There is a mitzvah de rabannam, shaif devray him, midrabannam, le vakirholiim, le nachim avirim, let's say a mate, lach nisa kala, le la vota ochim, le daseg bechot sorhekh voorah, et cetera, et cetera. The rambam says there is a mitzvah say midrabannam, a rabbinic law, to visit the sick, the ill, to comfort mourners, to take care of funerals, to arrange weddings, to accompany guests. All the mitzvahs that we generally included under the laws of bin adam lachavirah of being good to your friend. The rambam says these are all a mitzvah de rabannam. But then the rambam goes on, very well-known phrase, afapisha comets vot eil mitzvah de vray him, harein bechloudi af tala reacha kamocha. Even though these specific mitzvahs, the requirement of bikrholiim is the one that we are going to talk about. The requirement to bikrholiim specifically is the he of the rabannam, is the rabbinic ordnance. Nevertheless, the mitzvah says it falls under the general law of viyohaftala reacha kamocha. The Torah told us, the famous principle that was stated afterwards, to be a klaugadobatara, a very important principle, maybe one of the most, or the most important principle in the Torah, love thy neighbor as thyself. Is this just an idea, is just a concept, or is it translated into action? So the rambam says that the biblical law, evaath reacha kamocha, will be a generic law which midrabannan is explained to do A, B, C, D and E. But when you do the mitzvah, when you do bikrholiim, you actually fulfill a biblical law, according to the rambam, evaath reacha kamocha. The rambam argues with people who counted bikrholiim as a separate mitzvah, say midraysa. There are, Rishonim who said that there is a separate mitzvah of bikrholiim. The rambam did not list the mitzvah bikrholiim, as a matter of fact, he enters into polemics with those that do, he said, it's not that I don't think it's a requirement to do bikrholiim. It's a specific obligation that rabannan placed upon you, but it's in the general rule of the Torah of after eacha kamocha. Now, the question exactly for our purpose today is, what is this mitzvah of bikrholiim? How do I fulfill this mitzvah? So the rambam says, in that parak of hilchos aviel, the rambm gives the laws of bikrholi. And he says, bikrholi mitzvah la kol afilu gadomah vakirata kattan. Everyone is obligated in this mitzvah, even gadol should visit a kattan. This could mean in age, it could mean in stature. A person who's greater, whether it be in age or stature, must also fulfill the mitzvah of bikrholiim for someone who's lower, perhaps younger, or mevacrim habepamimbayo. And a person should visit a number of times, kola moseif meshubach, ubladach leatriach. Whoever does more, whoever visits kolim more is more meritis. With the stipulation that he does become a burden on the person whom he's visiting. Vihrhola mevacirata kolleki ilunat al-hilikmi kolyo, vakim yalath. Someone who visits the sik is as if he took away part of the illness and made life easier for him. And then the rambam says, vihrholi shayainom eevacir ki ilu shawfiktami. And a person who does not visit the sik. This is if he spilt his blood. Very strong statement for a person who refrains from bikrholi. Now what is the mitzvah of bikrholi? Is it merely to walk into the kolleh, to walk into the room, to say I hope you're feeling better, to just smile, tell a joke. The rambam only has one halacha in this regard. There's only one thing that the rambam says is the requirement of the mevacirholi. The rambam says, hanniknas le vakirata kolleh, the one who comes in. So the rambam has a negative exactly where to sit, how to sit, to be in a par with the kolleh, to be in a position that he can speak to him. But that issue was also not my issue. The rambam at the end of the halacha parak, yudala, vihr has a vihr, halacha, vhav, says el amit atayv, viyoshayv le matamim roshotav, um vakesh, alav rachamim viyotse. The rambam says, the person should be mit atayv. A person who visits the kolleh should actually put on atayv, according to the rambam, mit atayv. Itof, we usually interpret itof to mean putting on a robe, putting on something in your head. Viyoshayv le matamim roshotav, you sit below the head of the person who is sick, apparently is bedridden lying there, and then the rambam says, mevakkesh, alav rachamim viyotse. You have to ask for rachamim, you ask for mercy for this kolleh, and all event can you leave. The rambam did not say anything else, any other type of service that should be done for the kolleh, but he did say you should dive in for him. In the shulchanara, they have a little bit of a more lengthy description of what a person should do when he is mevakkesh, the shulchanara adds that kesh mevakkesh, alav rachamim, when you do ask for mercy, when you ask for him, so the shulchanara rules how to do it, exactly what kind of words do you say. But the ramah adds that a person who does not ask for mercy, he does not dive in for the kolleh, did not fulfill the mitzvah. The kol should be cared, the lobeekesh, alav rachamim, lo kie mamitzvah. This quote from the ramah is based on the rambam in toratah adam. It seems according to this that the essence of the mitzvah of bikrolim is to dive in. Apparently, somewhat of an offshoot of that gimara and brachas that we quoted, kol she is referring to the person who is mevakkeshola, a person who came to visit the sick, at which point he is obligated to dive in for him. And that prayer itself seems to be vikkiyum, this is the main fulfillment of the mitzvah bikrolim. So how much so that the rambam says if a person does not do that, he did not really fulfill the mitzvah. Are there other parts of the mitzvah bikrolim? Well, although it is not stated categorically in the shulhanara, it obviously seems that the mitzvah bikrolim is not just to come in and visit or to dive in. The purpose of bikrolim is to check to see what the hola needs, what physical service you can do for the hola, sometimes even to adjust his pillows, to adjust his blankets to bring him something that he can't reach himself. All these are services that should be done for the hola. And obviously this seems to be part and parcel of the mitzvah bikrolim. Without filah, the rambam said you did not fulfill anything, but it would be difficult to imagine that that's the only characteristic of bikrolim to come to dive in. As a matter of fact, this question of what the essence of the mitzvah of bikrolim is became more relevant in the modern society when communication became advanced and will discuss a long time ago invention when they began the telephone service. And the question was raised, and there are many chuvas about this, if bikrolim can be done through the telephone. A person does not come in person to visit the hola, but he calls, he inquires us to his health. Does he really fulfill the mitzvah of bikrolim? But Moshe Feinstein discussed this in Igras Moshe, Yorideya, Simon Rachev Gimmel. And before we read, discuss what he actually says, let's remember. If the mitzvah is to dive in for someone, if that's the ikrolim, that's the main aspect of the mitzvah, it does seem logical that a person could do this by the telephone. I ask how you're feeling, I hear you sick and I dive into a cottage bar. That is the ikrolim. On the other hand, obviously I can't be of personal service. I can't offer to help you with any physical thing if I'm not there. So what did Ramosha say? So Ramosha says, "I'm in general that Ramosha says I have a problem with this Ramban that's coded by the Ramah. Bikrolah nyud dati ain shayak lo masha ikarubish vilat vila." It's difficult to me to say that the essence of bikrolim is only davaning, which is what the Ramah implied is the intention of the Ramban. How kolin yanu kashev mitzvah ratsmall, everything is important. And he says, doing personal service, which is mentioned in Gimmel. The Gimmelir says that the Ramam quoted that if you do not visit him, it's as if you spill his blood means because you could have helped, you could have done something. But he says, "There is a difference, vila must be done by the person himself. The personal service that's required, I could send someone to do it." Let's say that an older person finds it difficult to go to the hospital to visit someone whom he knows who is ill in the hospital. But we learned in the Ramban, a philo gudalitz ala koten. Even the older, and I said older might be in age, older might be in stature, has a mitzvah to visit the one who is lower than him either in age or in stature. In this particular case, could a person ask someone else to go to the hospital to be, as it were, the shaliyach, the agent for the person who finds it difficult to go? If the main purpose is personal service, perhaps you can make a shaliyach. If the purpose is phila, then obviously you can't make a shaliyach. It's true that the shaliyach could have him, but I still can't have him. Every phila is important. Everybody would have him as important. You can't ask someone else to dive in for you, because then your phila is missing. So Ramachah thinks that I think both of these aspects are a keem of bikahole. The ekar of personal service, as well as Davening fame. Now Ramachah then discusses, could a person really do this by telephone? From service, obviously you can not do. It's phila, perhaps you can, but Ramachah has one additional point, because the idea of visiting a person to dive in for him is not just a theoretical concept that now I am efshah le vakke shraqimah, now that I know about it. It's more than that. The person that goes and actually sees the person who's ill, has a closer feeling. The feeling of empathy and understanding of the pain, truvai, which is felt by the hola. This should cause you to dive in in a more meaningful way. I mentioned before the Ghemeri says, in Brahma, Stafid Beis, if someone who can dive in for someone else and doesn't, is a hote. This might apply to anyone. But then the Ghemeri says, Atamid Raqam sir qiyakla Atsmalaf, a person who's of a higher stature, should actually empathize to such an extent that he himself becomes ill. In a way he takes away the illness from the patient, somehow he himself is afflicted, affected a little bit by the illness, but then he davens better. So it could be that even the mitzvah of davening for the hola can only be done, at best, le chattrila, under the best circumstances, when you actually visit him. Is there a partial qiyam? Is there some sort of a qiyam? Some sort of fulfillment of the mitzvah, bikaholem, by a telephone, that I said is a discussion of a grown-in, different people have argued this point. Sometimes that nobody thinks that it's a total fulfillment of the mitzvah of bikaholem, but perhaps there is a partial qiyam, because we'll just summarize what we've said so far. The mitzvah of davening for someone else is to be done when the prayer may be heard. Perhaps not for ershayim, perhaps we should try to get them to dutruva before we daven for them. Nevertheless it's extremely important to daven for someone, specifically to daven for holaim, and this is part and parcel, perhaps the ikar, of the mitzvah of bikaholem. You've been listening to Harabani Mintavori in the weekly mitzvah for Pashat Rookat. And now, at a couple of minutes, the daily medrash, daily medrash from Pashat Kora, in the beginning of Pashat Kora. It says, "Baiqar Kora, benni tzah." "Baiqar" means, and he took. It doesn't say, "What he took." You never have the verb "laqarqat" to take without a direct object, but here you do, "Baiqar Kora, benni tzah benni tzahat." "Benni vi," with the tandra viram, "von ben palat." And then it says, "He went and he did things." So what does it mean that he took? The medrash says, medrashraba, "Baiqar" and "Baiqar el amishikat" had the viram, rakim. She named Shekhul called Gidorei's service and had the autakharab. What does "Baiqar" mean? "Baiqar" means, I'm translating literally, taking with soft words, pulling, pulling with soft words, drawing is better, drawing with soft words, for all of the leaders of Israel and leaders of the Sanhedrin, the leaders of the different courts were drawn after him. So "Baiqar" here means that he beguiled or I think it means he seduced to speak with soft words. He seduced the people to whom he spoke. So the next person says, "Baiqar halu," that he gathered a big gathering. So "Baiqar halu," he spoke softly and made a big gathering. He drew people with his words. That's the first shot that the medrash gives. And let's start with a list of other places where it says, "Baiqar" in all those places, there is a direct object, but one person took another person. And for example, if you took another person, literally "Baiqar" had to pick him up. So it means he drew them on with his words here, there's no direct object because it says, "Baiqar halu." So this medrash presents Khorach as a seducer with his speech, a fancy talker, and therefore leading other people, other people astray. The very next medrash, that medrash was Odbet, Od Gimmel in the medrash, has another shot for "Baiqar" and meaning the entire medrash because it's a little bit long and interesting until we get to the actual shot in the word "Baiqar" "Baiqar" "Baiqar" the previous pasture in the end of Prashat Shlakh was Prashat Shtiht. What's the connection between Shtiht and the story of Kaurach? Kafat Shkaurach, the Ama, the Mosheh. Kaurach heard the Prashat Shtiht. He jumped him and said Mosheh. Talid Shkula Trevat, Maoshat the Heep to Ramanat Shtiht. The expression in Ramanhebhu. Talid Shkula Trevat. It's misuse. It means that somebody who is a great sadhic. But in fact the phrase in Khazam is the opposite. Kaurach asked. He was supposed to put on a Talyt. He was supposed to put white strings and one blue string. So suppose the Talyt itself was made out of blue wool, out of treylet wool. So as she said, you have to put on Shtiht. Kaurach said to him, Talid Shkula Trevat ain't put on the Talyt. If the entire Talyt is made of treylet, you stop to put on Shtiht. Then how can four treylet strings fulfill the application? In other words, he was drawing a logical inference. If you have to put treylet on a white Talyt, then surely a blue Talyt, you don't have to put anything on it all. Let me give another example. "Bait, Maoshi, Maoshi, Moshi, Potuminazuzaa." Suppose you have a house that's full of books. It's a library, well-stocked personal library. It's full of spallib. Sif et hola, a la sifreik du shah. Doesn't need a mizuzah. Maoshi habein, we gave him the Avi Sansa. He said yes. It requires mizuzah. Kaurach said him. Kaurach, taurach, hula, raish, ayin hae, pauch, yort, enapot terra tatabai, pascha, kachach, muzapot terra tatabai, it's an entire safe for Tala in the house. Does not fulfill the obligations. How does one little pansha and the door fulfill the obligation? This was Kaurach's questions to Moshi Rabbano. What sorts of questions are these? The famous shares the loved ones gave about Kaurach. We said basically Kaurach was the first conservative Jew. First you're building it against Tala Thari. In our logic, if we have an idea, that having a mizuzah on your house is to make the house Tala Dec. Give the house a certain connection to the Tala. So if the house is full of Tala, it doesn't need a mizuzah. Similarly, whatever the reason is having one string of treylet on your Tala is, I mentioned this in last week's Medrash. Perhaps reason is treylet connects it to the sky, connects it to the kasekah, it doesn't give us what the reason is. But you figure out what the reason is. So if the whole bag is made of treylet, what more do you need? It's logical. It makes sense. You look for the reason and then you fulfill the reason in your heart in one way or another. But the answer is Halacha doesn't work that way. Moshi Rabbano is a stem. This is what God said. You do it this way and you don't finagle and try to draw the conclusions based on your understanding of the mizuzah. Well, it's Karach's conclusion. Amalot verim agu lond insta vayt alem. Karach proves you were never commanded by God to do these things, to make no sense, in my opinion. They're not from God. Ummili prah ata boda and you made them up. And this was Karach's argument against Moshi Rabbano, who's trying to prove through ridicule, that Moshi Rabbano had made up the mitzvot that he was given. That's the ultimate rebellion against Moshi. He's not rebelling against Moshi's political power. He's rebelling against Moshi's position as the mouthpiece, as the wire, the telegraph wire between God and the jewish people. He means he separated. Or he disputed. The word "plegah" means one of two things here. It means to be separate, two sides, two plagim, or plukta in Khazan means an argument. They're two sides, so there's an argument. So "vaikach korach korach disputed." That's why it doesn't need a direct object. Because "vaikach" means you took yourself aside. You made yourself separate, and therefore you dispute. "Shelibol likachol," his heart, took him away, took him aside. In other words, what Chazar saying, that korach's basic problem was that he wasn't part of the collective. He was standing aside, being critical, perhaps critical in a good sense, but you're being critical. In other words, you're critical to stand aside. When you stand aside, you're critical. You'll find things to be critical of. It's not hard to find things which, in one logic or another, appear to be a stranger, absurd, or to you, understandable, and not clear, and not logical in the Torah. But only if you've stood aside. "vaikach korach," he took himself aside, and then everything appeared and looked, and looked differently. "The quinanchen emar, pasuchen eor, maikach achagali pral," "to where does your heart take you?" "Hushim o'Sheer o'Mellaham, sheen emar, hama atkiv dil el ochais el." And of course, it's a proof. The fact that Mosher of Benel later on says to them, "Is it not enough that God has separated you?" He's talking to Benayl Avi, to the Levites. "Is it not enough that God has separated you from the rest of Israel, that you should serve before him?" And you also want other special things, will be custom. "Gangkhunah," you want to be calling in. What's the connection between the last pasuc and the midrash? So the first one says that there's not enough written here, what you have to keep reading. In the end, Mosher of Benel says to them, "No, no, no, no, no, that they shouldn't rebel." And "korachos rebeler," Mosher says to him, "I have to rebel." I think the shad is different. Mosher of Benel is saying to them, "Hama atkiv dil ochais el." To be separated, it could be a good thing, it depends how much. You are the VM. You are separated from Israel, but you're not separated out. Isn't it enough to you that you are separated a little bit within the collective? Do you also want to be separated like korach, separated completely, looking from the inside out, and then everything becomes distorted the way it is? So we see two people. Shim here, Baikach, he seduced others with his words, he was a sweet talker, or Baikach korach, he took himself. He separated himself, and the whole pattern begins when you're standing outside, your whole outlook on Torah is different when you're standing outside than when you are inside. That's it for today. You've been listening. To KMTT, kimitzian, tae tae tara, we heard the shear avar after vore, the weekly mitzvam, for Baikach tara kat. We began the midwashiyome of Baikach korach. This has been as a week, wishing you a call to tomorrow, we'll be back with the shear avar aftertaregan in the essentials of a vadata shim. And until then, we will kat a tara, nitzian, kwaitim la tara, we'll be back tomorrow. [BLANK_AUDIO]