KMTT - the Torah Podcast
Weekly Mitzva - Korach
The Weekly Mitzva for parashat Korach, by Rav Binyamin Tabory. The topic is the mitzva of the Leviim
(speaks in foreign language) Today's show, today's Monday. (speaks in foreign language) Today's show be by (speaks in foreign language) the week limits for (speaks in foreign language) This year and this week, the entire week, are dedicated by the Gutenberg and Kellman families in the memory of Ruth Kellman (speaks in foreign language) who seventh year outside is this Shabbat (speaks in foreign language) the 28th day of Sivan, a woman who valued learning Torah and imparted the love of Torah to her children and grandchildren and all who knew her. (speaks in foreign language) After the share of her after worry, I'll be back, we're going to be switching from the (speaks in foreign language) the next couple of weeks to the end of the (speaks in foreign language) instead of the (speaks in foreign language) we'll be doing (speaks in foreign language) in the extra five minutes after the share. But now, the share of her after worry, the week limits for (speaks in foreign language) - After the incident with (speaks in foreign language) the Torah gave us all the laws of (speaks in foreign language) Torah said that they do not receive (speaks in foreign language) however, they receive (speaks in foreign language) they have their (speaks in foreign language) as (speaks in foreign language) The Torah mentions a long (speaks in foreign language) that the (speaks in foreign language) will join together with the (speaks in foreign language) the (speaks in foreign language) the your brother, (speaks in foreign language) you should bring them to you, and they will accompany you, (speaks in foreign language) the via accompaniment, and they will serve you. And the Torah told us that they receive for this work, (speaks in foreign language) in remuneration for their (speaks in foreign language) for their service, they receive (speaks in foreign language) that's their (speaks in foreign language) After the Torah told us this, the Torah says again, (speaks in foreign language) the (speaks in foreign language) should work in the (speaks in foreign language) should do the service in the (speaks in foreign language) The order of the (speaks in foreign language) that first comes the (speaks in foreign language) and only afterwards comes the obligation of the (speaks in foreign language) to do the work is commented upon by the (speaks in foreign language) They explain that the Torah promised a reward to the (speaks in foreign language) a payment as it were for doing a (speaks in foreign language) If a (speaks in foreign language) would say I would prefer not to do the (speaks in foreign language) and a (speaks in foreign language) on the (speaks in foreign language) I don't want any gifts, I'll work regular type of work and I don't want to receive the mass there. And therefore I don't want to do the (speaks in foreign language) The Torah points out, no, there's a (speaks in foreign language) the (speaks in foreign language) he must do the (speaks in foreign language) The (speaks in foreign language) has to accept upon himself the (speaks in foreign language) as a matter of fact, we would coerce him into doing the (speaks in foreign language) There is a (speaks in foreign language) to do the (speaks in foreign language) The Torah mentions four separate times that the (speaks in foreign language) goes to work. (speaks in foreign language) Twice the Torah uses the phrase that he will accompany the (speaks in foreign language) And twice it just says he will do the service. The (speaks in foreign language) wrote a commentary actually a (speaks in foreign language) on the entire (speaks in foreign language) As opposed to the regular (speaks in foreign language) The (speaks in foreign language) also dealt with the laws that do not apply (speaks in foreign language) and he has what he calls the (speaks in foreign language) the laws that will be in the future. In the laws of (speaks in foreign language) in (speaks in foreign language) in (speaks in foreign language) the (speaks in foreign language) explains the laws of (speaks in foreign language) And he points out that there are four different times where the Torah told us the (speaks in foreign language) do the work, do the (speaks in foreign language) because there are actually four different types that (speaks in foreign language) that they do. We knew that the (speaks in foreign language) they protect the guard, the base of (speaks in foreign language) perhaps it's an honor guard, perhaps it's a real guard. They open and close the gates of the base of (speaks in foreign language) They also are the (speaks in foreign language) they are the singers who sing while the (speaks in foreign language) is being done. And there are (speaks in foreign language) and he points out that there's a fourth of (speaks in foreign language) responsible that they have namely that of being (speaks in foreign language) the secretaries, the treasurers of the (speaks in foreign language) The (speaks in foreign language) says the reason the Torah said four times that the (speaks in foreign language) took correspond to these four types of (speaks in foreign language) He also adds that twice of the four times the Torah mentions the verb (speaks in foreign language) which means that the (speaks in foreign language) actually accompany the (speaks in foreign language) and he pointed out that in two of these (speaks in foreign language) namely in (speaks in foreign language) and the (speaks in foreign language) the (speaks in foreign language) actually do accompany the (speaks in foreign language) The other two are done by the (speaks in foreign language) as their particular (speaks in foreign language) but (speaks in foreign language) guarding the (speaks in foreign language) is a combination effort of the (speaks in foreign language) and the (speaks in foreign language) so the (speaks in foreign language) and the (speaks in foreign language) have the (speaks in foreign language) and associate themselves with the (speaks in foreign language) and the other (speaks in foreign language) of course is the (speaks in foreign language) the song that they sing when the (speaks in foreign language) or doing the (speaks in foreign language) the (speaks in foreign language) accompany them by doing the (speaks in foreign language) so the (speaks in foreign language) there's four times that (speaks in foreign language) that the (speaks in foreign language) work with the (speaks in foreign language) two eyes they actually work with them and the other two they do their (speaks in foreign language) but there's a (speaks in foreign language) for them to do their (speaks in foreign language) not only does the (speaks in foreign language) that the laws of the (speaks in foreign language) but here we see there's a specific (speaks in foreign language) a specific requirement for the (speaks in foreign language) for the (speaks in foreign language) to do their (speaks in foreign language) in (speaks in foreign language) he says (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) the (speaks in foreign language) to do the (speaks in foreign language) of certain (speaks in foreign language) certain work service in the base of (speaks in foreign language) for example closing the gates and for example the (speaks in foreign language) and the (speaks in foreign language) the (speaks in foreign language) quotes this if free (speaks in foreign language) is it possible to think that if he wants to work to serve he will and if not he doesn't have to. (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) quoting the (speaks in foreign language) that the (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) against this will (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) it's an obligation, a commandment which he is required to do. And he says this mitzvah was repeated a number of times as we saw even in our part it's repeated a number of times but it's also repeated other places in (speaks in foreign language) the Ramban in Safar in his (speaks in foreign language) in the introduction (speaks in foreign language) the Ramban also says there's a mitzvah for the (speaks in foreign language) when he recites, when he lists off the mitzvahs in the (speaks in foreign language) interestingly enough the title of this section is called (speaks in foreign language) that's the name that I remember being used in my entire life of learning. And I always thought the recently (speaks in foreign language) are included, the laws of the (speaks in foreign language) are included in this section is because the (speaks in foreign language) are actually (speaks in foreign language) the (speaks in foreign language) and the (speaks in foreign language) who serve in the (speaks in foreign language) while they serve in the (speaks in foreign language) are calim vessels which are used in the (speaks in foreign language) of course they're people and they're different than just pots and pans. But yet they are themselves (speaks in foreign language) The random Franco has the full title which pre-empts this explanation by saying that the title is actually (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) the laws of the (speaks in foreign language) and those that serve in them. So the laws of (speaks in foreign language) are not necessarily here because they are (speaks in foreign language) but because they serve in the (speaks in foreign language) although the idea that a coin in (speaks in foreign language) might be clear, (speaks in foreign language) might be a true idea, but nevertheless, the title of the (speaks in foreign language) of this particular (speaks in foreign language) is (speaks in foreign language) in the introduction the Ramam always lists off the (speaks in foreign language) that are going to be in this section. And he says (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) the (speaks in foreign language) the (speaks in foreign language) and again in (speaks in foreign language) a (speaks in foreign language) she recites. The Ramam says (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) who is (speaks in foreign language) the whole (speaks in foreign language) is separated to do the (speaks in foreign language) in the (speaks in foreign language) and he quotes the (speaks in foreign language) and then he says (speaks in foreign language) it's a (speaks in foreign language) to have the (speaks in foreign language) available and prepared to do the service of the (speaks in foreign language) whether they like or whether they don't like. (speaks in foreign language) our past look at the (speaks in foreign language) must serve a (speaks in foreign language) a (speaks in foreign language) has a specific topic, a specific responsibility in the (speaks in foreign language) the (speaks in foreign language) were divided by groups. Some were given one responsibility and some were given a different responsibility. The lady who accepts the responsibility, actually accepting is not the correct word because we said it's (speaks in foreign language) he is given a responsibility and it's not his to choose which is his responsibility. Once he is given this (speaks in foreign language) the random says that the lady might not do, may not do the (speaks in foreign language) of another (speaks in foreign language) the in general, we learn in our partial again that the (speaks in foreign language) and the (speaks in foreign language) must be separate. The random says in (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) that (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) the (speaks in foreign language) must do their (speaks in foreign language) they cannot do the (speaks in foreign language) and the (speaks in foreign language) to do the (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) the (speaks in foreign language) themselves are enjoined not to partake in the (speaks in foreign language) and the service of his friend. For example, the one who's a (speaks in foreign language) a singer should not assist the one who is the gatekeeper and the gatekeeper may not assist the (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) each one has this particular responsibility and this law is a particularly stringent law. (speaks in foreign language) if a lady does the service of a coin, (speaks in foreign language) if a lady would do the (speaks in foreign language) or if he does the (speaks in foreign language) with different (speaks in foreign language) he is actually to be punished by death, not in a human court but at the hands of heaven. This is (speaks in foreign language) which is obviously reflection of a very severe (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) a coin who does the (speaks in foreign language) the service of a lady so he is transgressing, he does transgress the (speaks in foreign language) of a coin doing the service of a lady but it's not as severe (speaks in foreign language) and (speaks in foreign language) he does not have this punishment of death. Derived disagrees and he says it seems to be the penalty of death applies to both a coin and a lady. (speaks in foreign language) So it seems that the (speaks in foreign language) if you do your service and don't do someone else's service then you won't die. We can infer from here that if you do someone else's service you do die in this (speaks in foreign language) but did not differentiate between (speaks in foreign language) Derived wants to know why did the (speaks in foreign language) think that the punishment of a coin doing the service of a lady is not a death penalty, it's rather an (speaks in foreign language) like any other reason. (speaks in foreign language) We have learned that the (speaks in foreign language) have specific responsibility in the base (speaks in foreign language) in the base (speaks in foreign language) The lady has to be prepared to do any of these (speaks in foreign language) If a lady would say I only want to do one particular type of a (speaks in foreign language) we would not accept it. The ramen says again (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) and (speaks in foreign language) The lady who says I will accept all the responsibilities except I do not want one particular job. You do not accept him until he agrees to do any function which is given and then he can be given one specific function. It's not up to the lady to determine what his function is and therefore he has to be prepared to do any function of the theme. These laws of a lady doing the service of a (speaks in foreign language) are again mentioned in the Safer Amitzos of the Ramban in (speaks in foreign language) in the section of the prohibitions in (speaks in foreign language) The Ramban there says (speaks in foreign language) The Levine may not be involved in any of the (speaks in foreign language) and they cannot, he also adds, as we said before, they cannot do their (speaks in foreign language) because it says (speaks in foreign language) and the ramen relates the story of Rabbi Yeshib and Hainanya that wanted to assist (speaks in foreign language) using or closing the doors of the (speaks in foreign language) and they said to him, you go back refrain from this because you would be (speaks in foreign language) in other words, you'd be guilty of a death penalty because I happen to be one of the gatekeepers. You are the singers and you can't switch (speaks in foreign language) But interestingly enough, we've studied the laws of the Levine and we've explained that there is an (speaks in foreign language) for a levy to do someone else's (speaks in foreign language) even another (speaks in foreign language) and there's a (speaks in foreign language) on the (speaks in foreign language) on the levy to do the (speaks in foreign language) What is interesting to note is that we do not find a parallel section by the (speaks in foreign language) The random in the (speaks in foreign language) in that headline (speaks in foreign language) mentions that the levy must work, (speaks in foreign language) but he doesn't say that the coin must do the (speaks in foreign language) He just says (speaks in foreign language) The coin, we should be (speaks in foreign language) we should prepare the coin to do the (speaks in foreign language) And the random in (speaks in foreign language) explains (speaks in foreign language) There's a separate (speaks in foreign language) to separate the coin to sanctify them, to prepare them for doing their carbon (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) The random (speaks in foreign language) that we should be (speaks in foreign language) we should separate him, we should sanctify him because he's going to do the (speaks in foreign language) because he does the (speaks in foreign language) But it doesn't say that the (speaks in foreign language) Apparently the (speaks in foreign language) There's a (speaks in foreign language) community to have a coin prepared ready to do the (speaks in foreign language) But there's no (speaks in foreign language) in each individual (speaks in foreign language) to do the (speaks in foreign language) A coin also has no specific (speaks in foreign language) We said that the levy is given one specific (speaks in foreign language) True, he has to be prepared to do any (speaks in foreign language) But then he's given a particular task and he is not allowed to switch it. With a levy, we see pro-such a prohibition but there doesn't seem to be such a law by a coin. On one hand, a coin does not seem to require, be required to do the (speaks in foreign language) On the other hand, a coin who does an (speaks in foreign language) someone else seems to be a coin for the (speaks in foreign language) I'm totally legitimate. And the truth is it makes a lot of sense because a levy is given one particular responsibility. Once he has that responsibility, that's his. And if he does not do that (speaks in foreign language) which he is required to do, he's (speaks in foreign language) He negates the passive mitzvah that he's supposed to do. On the other hand, if he does someone else's (speaks in foreign language) be it a (speaks in foreign language) or be it another (speaks in foreign language) He's (speaks in foreign language) But there is no specific requirement of a coin to do any specific (speaks in foreign language) The parallel (speaks in foreign language) by a coin would be to say that there's one particular (speaks in foreign language) that a coin should do, but this is obviously not true. The different (speaks in foreign language) can be done by any (speaks in foreign language) at any time. In fact, in the (speaks in foreign language) they had (speaks in foreign language) They had a lottery to determine who would do the (speaks in foreign language) in a particular day. Obviously, the (speaks in foreign language) were given to all the (speaks in foreign language) So every (speaks in foreign language) could do the (speaks in foreign language) whenever he felt like it. In which (speaks in foreign language) could he do apparently any (speaks in foreign language) there's no specific (speaks in foreign language) relegated to any specific (speaks in foreign language) So therefore, there's no (speaks in foreign language) on any (speaks in foreign language) to do any specific (speaks in foreign language) More than that, we've seen there's no (speaks in foreign language) on a (speaks in foreign language) to do (speaks in foreign language) at all. And a (speaks in foreign language) can do the (speaks in foreign language) of some other coin he can't do the (speaks in foreign language) he can't do the service of another (speaks in foreign language) but he can do the service of a coin. All this, I've said in accordance with the opinion of the (speaks in foreign language) the way I understand it. However, it's interesting to point out that the (speaks in foreign language) seems to disagree with this position. The (speaks in foreign language) in (speaks in foreign language) in (speaks in foreign language) Last week, we use the same (speaks in foreign language) in relation to the (speaks in foreign language) the general principle of (speaks in foreign language) you'd base in the (speaks in foreign language) is to explain that in (speaks in foreign language) it has different parts. You do not count each individual part of the (speaks in foreign language) And last week we talked about if (speaks in foreign language) and the same as (speaks in foreign language) two separate (speaks in foreign language) or not. If separating the (speaks in foreign language) and giving it to the (speaks in foreign language) in a really two separate (speaks in foreign language) so we counted on to the rubric of one (speaks in foreign language) because it's one (speaks in foreign language) which has different parts. The Ramban gives his whole theory of a mitzvah in tailing separate divisions, separate parts. And we do not count each individual part as a separate mitzvah. Then the Ramban says the Ramban disagrees with the entire principle. He mentions many things, many arguments of about which he disagrees. And then he says it's true that I agree that there is no mitzvah on a coin to do an Ola as well as another mitzvah to do (speaks in foreign language) as well as another mitzvah to do an ashram. I don't think that we should count each separate mitzvah as a separate mitzvah. The coin has to do with the (speaks in foreign language) However, he says, but there is one generic mitzvah. (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) He quotes the pastor again in Kaurach, (speaks in foreign language) that is the mitzvah vatim which is given to the Koani. (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) He learns vatim as a tzivli as a requirement. You must do the service. (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) That you should do any service, all the service of a coin, (speaks in foreign language) because it's a (speaks in foreign language) So according to the Ramban, it seems that there is a mitzvah for the Koani to do the (speaks in foreign language) The Ramban, as I said, does not have such a mitzvah. There's a mitzvah in the Levine, but there doesn't seem to be mitzvah in the Koani. It has been suggested that this makhlokas between the Ramban and the Ramban can be explained in light of another famous makhlokas in the Shas. There is a makhlokas and (speaks in foreign language) as well as other places where the Koani (speaks in foreign language) or Koani (speaks in foreign language) The Koani, when they do the service (speaks in foreign language) should they do it as our agents, as agents of (speaks in foreign language) a point the people, the Koani to do their (speaks in foreign language) or do we say the Koani (speaks in foreign language) are actually the agents of God doing (speaks in foreign language) as it were in God's name. The entire Sugya is a little complicated because there is an obvious problem here. The Koane acts as a shaliach. The Gomara suggests, according to one opinion, he acts as the agent of Kalyasrael. I bring a carbon and then the Koane takes over, it takes my carbon as my shaliach and performs all the avodos. The problem with this interpretation, with this opinion in the Gomara, is you know that a person can only appoint an agent a shaliach if he's capable of doing the very same thing. Something that I can do, I can appoint a shaliach, but if I cannot do something, it seems very strange that I have the power to appoint a shaliach to do something which I do not have the power. I don't mean the physical power. Let's say I can't, one of the examples that you could discuss is that I myself cannot do a brit. I do not know how to circumcise a child. But perhaps I could appoint a shaliach to do it. I don't know how to do it, but the mitzvah applies to me. And theoretically, I could do it if I knew how to do it. Such a case, of course you can appoint a shaliach. I can appoint a shaliach to write a get, to write a divorce document, even if I don't know how to write. I can appoint a shaliach to deliver the document. But to appoint for Israel, to appoint a Koane, when Israel cannot do the Aveda, but he appoints a Koane to do, that seems problematic. That issue is to be discussed in the Bishan name, the Gomara, on that particular Sogia. But nevertheless, there isn't a makhlokas in the Gomara. If Kwan and Mishluch hadidan, are they our agents? Are they our shaliachim? Or shaliachid arachmana? They got shaliachim. So one could argue like this. According to the Ramban, there's no mitzvah upon the Koane to do the Aveda. The Torah had never required them to do the Aveda. They're not shluchidarachmana. They're not sent by God, as it were, to do the Aveda. They simply are doing a favor, acting in behalf of other Jews, who asked them to do their carbon for them, to do the Aveda for them. In which case, they're not actually obligated. The Torah never placed a he of upon them. And that might be the opinion of the Ramban. Whereas according to the Ramban, one might say that Kwan and Shluchidarachmana, the Torah told the Kwan and Shluchidarachmana, for the Israel. In which case, it would be a separate mitzvah's essay. What about the other fact? A Koane cannot do a Levi's Aveda, but a Koane do another Koane's Aveda? Well, in the Ramban, we saw no such Easter. It seems fairly obvious that a Koane can do any Aveda. And logically, it should be that way, because there is no specific Aveda that's relegated to a Koane. A Koane is capable of doing any Aveda, even though one day, perhaps he did Zwicka's Hadam, one day he sprinkled he threw the blood. The another day, he could do a different Aveda. There's no reason to think that a Koane is, once he's appointed, that's his position. As opposed to a Levi, he's a, who is a show-air, a show-air, a gatekeeper, then he has a position of being a gatekeeper and he maintains that position. A Koane is simply available for any Aveda. So therefore, it doesn't seem that a Koane should be, should be enjoined from doing any, anybody else's Aveda. However, the Ramban seems to think that there is such an Easter on Koanim as well. In Mitzvallamit Vav, in the Seifran Mitzvas, Mitzvallamit Vav is the Mitzvall where the Ramam discusses the concept of having Mishmalot. That there are divisions, times of labor that we give to the Koane. That the Koane do not work together, but the Torah ranges them by periods of time. Then the Ramban there says, that at the time of the Mishmalot, each Mishmer has its specific time and then he quotes the Paslok in Nassau, each, each Al-Aveda, Tova, Al-Nasa'ol. Each person has his service to do, his package is pecco too, as it were to do. Then the Ramban says, "Vouss-a-ubu, mitalu shavalu dorot." They are enjoined with a threat of death penalty at this time and forever. This is the Mitzvallamit Vav's new name, the name of the Lord. She lo yi karev echadlem lechad kaveiro. That one should not involve himself in the avode of his friend. Kimo shadar shu vile mutha gamengamatam. From the phrase of houss-a-ubu, mitalu, referring to all of them, levim and conim, it seems that the Ramban really thinks that the Easter applies to Koane as well. Not only is a levy not allowed to do avode as a Koane, but a levy is not allowed to do an avode as a levy. But apparently, he thinks that a Koane is also not allowed to do avode of another Koane as well. And this seems to be the opinion of the Seferachinuch as well. The Seferachinuch in Mitzvashin-peite, Arparsha, the Mitzvallamit Vav shaloyita squa konim bavoda talavin. The Mitzvallamit Vavang should not involve himself in the avode of a levy. The Hinoach, and we know that the Hinoach usually follows the opinion of the Ramban. The Hinoach ends this Mitzvall by saying, levi ha o ver al zevas abba miktash m'lechat Koane, o a fi lo m'lechat ravero, halevi, haem et abdishamayim. The law that we've seen before a levy who does either avode at Koane, or an avodev another levy is guilty and responsible, is will be punished. This death penalty bidetionai. And then he says, the same as the Ramban, the Hinoachinuch avar, vasabim lechat alvi, avar alav, the same thing is true, a Koane who then does the avode of a levy, would transgress this particular isr ava enoch hav mita, but he says, like the Ramban did, a Koane is not hav misa on this. But then the last line of the Hinoach, mena doma, mena doma could be by comparison, or it could be, it seems to me, domani, in modern Hebrew, it seems to me. Mena doma, it seems to me, or similarly, kia kowane, sia bim lechat ravero a Koane gamkin bimita. The mena kasrinuch says, vasabim lechat ravero a Koane gamkin bimita. Who did, someone else's avode also, reiv misa. The mena kasrinuch comments on this, and says, hav de valimba luimvena im lemisha amara. The idea itself is clear, and is appropriate for the author. Kamal levi reiv mita, like a levy doing the avode of a different levy's reiv misa, the same would be true of a Koane, doing the avode of another Koane. The addition of the mena kasrinuch published by Mahon Yushalayim has a footnote quoting the kavitzreim. In lekutte harachos, at the end of Masechostamid, the kavitzreim said, ula niyos dati a no domeko kach. I, in my opinion, the comparison is not so valid. (speaking in foreign language) The Veeam were given an individual responsibility. There is one levy who was more appropriate, he has a nice voice, he can sing well, he's more appropriate to be a misha reiv. He's given that responsibility. Another person who's very strong would be given the responsibility of closing and keeping the gates. (speaking in foreign language) But the Koane were actually prepared to do anything and they had no, that they actually had these lotteries daily that you could do anything. Ummisha loa savodas shall tell the Veeam. If someone did not do the avode, to which he was called, after us to avode, he says it's, it's something wrong. He's careful, I think, to say, not that he was mevato and I say, there doesn't seem to be a bit less say if the Koane doesn't do the avode. Even if the Koane was privileged and given the price, it's not right for him to abandon the responsibility that he was given, but he's not really muhreiv to do this particular avode. There's no key of according to the Ramban, but he says, "Some but certainly, (speaking in foreign language) It doesn't seem to be that he should be (speaking in foreign language) So the Ramban apparently disagrees with both opinions of the Ramban. The Saverakhinach, and with this point, agrees with the Ramban. There is a mitzvah on le Veeam to do the avode. There's no mitzvah on the Koaneam to do the avode according to the Ramban, apparently according to the Ramban. There is, the Lavi cannot do the avode of another Lavi, but the Koane, according to the Ramban, could do the avode of another Koane. It seems to be that according to the Saverakhinach and according to the Ramban, a Koane cannot do the avode of another Koane as well. Interestingly enough, the Ramban and Muhrein de Vooghim seems to take the position which we have attributed now to the Ramban, rather than to his own position in the Halacha. In Hailek Schliche, Parakmein Hei, in the third section of Muhrein de Vooghim, chapter 45, the Ramban writes, (speaks in foreign language) We were warned all the those who serve in the mikdash to do someone else's avode. (speaks in foreign language) The avode, which was given to the community if a person would not be designated. To do this specific avode, I'm afraid that it might lead to a laxness, to a weakness that people won't do it properly. Since the Ramban here says (speaks in foreign language) the Ram says any one of those who serve in the base Hamikdash is enjoined from doing someone else's avode. It seems that the Ramban and Muhrein de Vooghim concurred with the Ramban's opinion that everyone must accept their responsibility and due to their particular responsibility. Obviously, this is referring to a situation where a coin was given a specific responsibility because in a general day, everybody should agree that a coin could do any avode for which he won the pious. On the other hand, once he won the pious, apparently somebody else cannot do the avode according to the Ramban, according to the Ramban in Muhrein de Vooghim, according to the safe Raheenor. And it seems according to the Ramban and according to the Ramban and the safe Raheenor, it would seem that you actually have Misa. So the idea of understanding that each person is given a responsibility and it's our responsibility to fulfill each person's individual job is not only to do my job, but not to encroach upon someone else. - You have been listening to (speaks in foreign language) As I mentioned in the beginning, we'll be taking a break from the (speaks in foreign language) and instead we'll have a (speaks in foreign language) every day, short couple of minutes of (speaks in foreign language) after the main share, we'll be doing (speaks in foreign language) to the (speaks in foreign language) couple of minutes, a different (speaks in foreign language) some of these (speaks in foreign language) are so clear, I wouldn't have to add a word of explanation. And somehow, I always have (speaks in foreign language) all of a sudden to say, if you ask me, why am I switching from a (speaks in foreign language) to (speaks in foreign language) the answer is totally personal. I'm tired of a (speaks in foreign language) but you'll say, but you're not tired of a (speaks in foreign language) why do you have to switch? The answer is obvious, it's my microphone. But we'll be getting back to the (speaks in foreign language) I hope after the summer break, this is its summer time. And for the rest of the summer, this is what I'll be doing. (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) Littlely translated means the strong of heart, perhaps the courageous, the strong of heart, were disturbed, and their sleep was upset. (speaks in foreign language) Who were the strong of heart who were disturbed? (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) They sent these spies, and they returned and spoke, (speaks in foreign language) about (speaks in foreign language) Below how you did (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) did not know what to do, if you look in the pasture, you find that there's almost no response, there's no response of (speaks in foreign language) to the initial report of the spies, or even to the tomot of Benais Sa'el after hearing the report of the spies. They go on the four on their faces before God. (speaks in foreign language) But he says nothing to Benais Sa'el. (speaks in foreign language) Littlely translated, (speaks in foreign language) and were negligent, they were weak. (speaks in foreign language) and because of the (speaks in foreign language) what did happen? (speaks in foreign language) called (speaks in foreign language) but Calave, he got up, and he quieted, he silenced all those people as it says, (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) I am indebted. I have a great death, a great feeling of gratitude to him, to Calave. (speaks in foreign language) God says that all of the (speaks in foreign language) and the entire generation will die. Except for (speaks in foreign language) wants to know (speaks in foreign language) why does it say (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) or (speaks in foreign language) it's an unusual word, an unusual form of a word. So the (speaks in foreign language) darshans the word (speaks in foreign language) as (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) I make a word, came the 60,000, 600,000 people. He was able to attract and to control 600,000 people, and that's why God says I have a special death to him. (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) you couldn't find your hands, couldn't find what to do. You failed, (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) That's what it means, that the strong of heart, (speaks in foreign language) here, they (speaks in foreign language) they were negated, a little translation, perhaps of the service (speaks in foreign language) they were negated, they were blanked out. They were upset and disturbed. (speaks in foreign language) but why? Why would more (speaks in foreign language) who's after the history of standing up to (speaks in foreign language) meeting (speaks in foreign language) and being (speaks in foreign language) strong of heart before him. Why here did they fail (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) amazing explanation because the spies were (speaks in foreign language) they were foolish messengers. They'll say, why is that so disturbing? (speaks in foreign language) King (speaks in foreign language) the wisest of all men said (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) literally translated, you wear out your legs and you drink (speaks in foreign language) you drink antagonism, violence, if you send things with a fool. That's the end of the marriage. The singularity of the response of (speaks in foreign language) the lack of response of (speaks in foreign language) is explained by the (speaks in foreign language) because (speaks in foreign language) because they sent foolish messengers. As some more (speaks in foreign language) you wear out your legs and you drink violence, you goon, your mental equilibri, if you send things in the hands of a fool, I don't think we use the thinking of the (speaks in foreign language) them as being foolish, we think of them as being perhaps evil, perhaps weak in their own strength of character, but why (speaks in foreign language) I think we might do actually a sexual (speaks in foreign language) because it wants to cause more (speaks in foreign language) wants to explain the response. Had the spies been bad, (speaks in foreign language) it would have been good. (speaks in foreign language) has a history of standing up to the challenges of evil. The challenges of rebelliousness. But the (speaks in foreign language) were foolish and what's more, they were messengers. They weren't spies, they were messengers of (speaks in foreign language) and there are a number of factors I think we can think of and I invite you to think of more. But I think in my opinion, the point is that you've sent them. (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) was counting on them. Wasn't it said a bunch of people, (speaks in foreign language) the (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) Somebody stepped on (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) and made sure the people didn't follow him. But these were (speaks in foreign language) people, he had sent them. And he had told them what to do. And if they weren't able to do this because they were foolish because they didn't see what he wanted them to see, they were blind. They weren't really bad. If they were bad he wouldn't have sent them, he knew these people. He counted on them. He knew the strength of character. He didn't know they were gonna be blind. And that is so disappointing. When somebody you've counted on comes back and you don't even know what to say to him. He just, he missed the point. And you were counting on him. So (speaks in foreign language) you can send them again. (speaks in foreign language) You wear out your legs because you keep sending them again and again and again until he gets it right. But that's the kind of frustration, if they had done that, ruined their hands and they're just thinking about that. That sort of frustration, Moshe Beno has no answer for that. He doesn't, he doesn't know what to do. There's no enemy to attack here. Just an inner frustration which silences him. And then there's only one person, Kalev, gets up and says, "Vayyas!" He says, "Silence!" He doesn't count the argument there. People say he just see us as them to be quiet. Then he tries to encourage the people to go in the right way and to march on Ereti Sal. But firstly, he just bangs on the table and says, "Silence!" That Moshe Beno didn't know what to do. He couldn't just yell out because the inner doubt, the inner lack of confidence because you had placed your confidence in somebody else. You were supposed to be transferred to somebody else and he had wasted and thrown it away because they were tip-shim, because they were kasilim fools and idiots. Moshe Beno had the strength to deal with rebellion, but for reasons Medrash doesn't really explain. He didn't have the patience to deal with fools. I leave you with this thought. Perhaps you can think of other reasons for why the Medrash and Shlomo Melech think there's this particular difficulty for Moshe specifically to deal with foolishness in messengers. And that's all for today. You've been listening today's share about Rabina Mehtavori in the weekly Mitzvah. The first of all, I know we'll show him in Medrash to the Pasha. And this has been KMTT and this has been Ezra Beck. We're back tomorrow, the show of our Moshe Terrigan in Essentials of Audata Shem. Until then, Kultur, Vibakat, Atora, Mitzian, Umea Zian. This has been KMTT, Kimi Zian, Tetsetora, with Vara Shem, Mirushalayim.