KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Avodat Hashem #07
KMTT - Avodat Hashem #07, by Rav Moshe Taragin
KMTT. Kimi Tzionte Tzeitura. Today is Tuesday. Today's year by Harav Moshe Tarragan and the essentials of Avodata Sham. After this year, I will be back with Al-Akhayomit. The previous two shiurim addressed three different foundations for the world of Khassad. The first foundation is based on the Pasuk in Parshaski Doshim, Viyyavthala Rahakamocha. Primarily Khassad, inasmuch as it serves, provides assistance to someone who is deprived. The Pasuk in Bracious Parake, Zhe Safar, Taldos Adam, Bitmosilokim Asa also, which are going to be an Asai, suggests or portrays Khassad as a replenishment or rejuvenation of a lost divine spirit or divine dignity. And the third pillar for Khassad stems from the Pasuk Zheke Lilivian Vaiho, Akhreshim Lokicim Telejo. Khassad has an opportunity to fashion the human image and the human heart similar to the model of Akharsh Barakou, his morality, his ethics in Matatsyar Dei, Mahuracham Avataracham. Mahurachanun Avatarachan. I would like to discuss an additional feature belonging to the world of Khassad, belonging to the world of Anadhamla Khavero. This concept is known as Lefnim Mishirashadin, the opportunity, the value for an individual to behave primarily interpersonally in a manner which exceeds his legal responsibilities, to behave not as he must, but as he ought to behave. The primary source for the world of Lefnim Mishirashadin, acting and behaving beyond the letter, the legal mandate of Halaqah, primarily in the world of Anadhamla Khavero, the primary source is found in Dvarim Parakvav. Parakas Vaischanan, the Torah writes, Shamarti Shmarun Esbitzvossa Shaimalakiham Beedosav viklukavashirzivach. Vyasisa Hayashar vihatov beyeneashem. Imaniitavla Khuvassa virashtasaratatovash urnishvashim la Vossaqah. The Torah employs two very interesting words, Yashar and Tov. Evidently the Pasak, Akrashbar who expects more from us, than the minimal responsibility of Halaqah. Rashi comments on that Pasak in Dvarim Parakvav, Pasakugras, Hayashar vihatov, what is right, what is ethical, what reflects that which reflects integrity and sensitivity, not just that which is legally binding. Zupshara, one example would be to compromise rather than prosecute, a monetary case, perhaps, towards the absolute detriment of your fellow litigate. Zupshara, Lefnimishirzidin. The Rambhan of course, in Dvarim, greatly elaborates the idea which Rashi expressed in that kernel of three or four words, Pshara, Lefnimishirzidin. The Rambhan writes Zayyangado, a very important concept. It's impossible, he writes, for the Torah, to comprehensively legislate the world of morality, interpersonal affairs, daily intercourse. It's too vast, it's too relative. None of these issues can be mapped concretely or precisely, it depends upon context and degree. Instead, the Torah listed some very, very general, universally applied guidelines for morality. You shouldn't steal, you shouldn't speak slander, you shouldn't bear grudges, take revenge, affect those who were vulnerable, Hayash, the flavourless city of Mitchell. The list, which I've talked about two shearam ago, in Pasha's kiddoshin, capped with the pinnacle of this pyramid, the after the recha kamocha. But then the Rambhan writes, towards the end of the Torah, in Pasha's veschanan, Khazar Lomar Baderachlau, the Torah now generalizes Shiyyasah Tovahayashar Bakhal Dava. Do not just adhere solely to the letter of the law, but try to aspire to that which is not just legally binding, but good, just, moral, compassionate Tovahyashar. According to the Rambhan, this Pasha kiddoshin veschanan vesisahayashar Vyatov serves as a tandem Pashaq, parallel to another famous Pashaq which suggests, which endorses, religious behaviour, which reflects the spirit of the law, not just to the letter of the law. Pashaq kiddoshin begins with a very famous Pashaq, Pashaq, Yutess and Vyikra, Vyatovahyashim al-Moshilimur, Davaer al-Kolandaspini, sir al-Vyamartaliham, kiddoshim tihiyu, kikadosh aniyashim al-o-kihim. Having extensively listed the halakhos of miktash and miktash on the tura dictates, instructs us to be holy. Rashi interprets this unique, almost special mitzvahs, referring to sexual question. A person reaches a unique level of holiness and sanctity through his interaction with matters relating to sexual attraction and relationships. Raban takes a very different track. Raban claims, and one can conceivably adhere to every single letter of shulhanaref, every single detail of halaha, but behave in a manner which is uncharacteristic or even a betrayal of the purpose of halaha. The purpose of halaha is to be noble, to install moderation, dignity, restraint, spiritual consciousness, studying a karish bharkos war, performing for others, conceivably an individual could flaunt all these values, while still remaining strictly with the letter of the law. Rambhan coined a very, very famous, one could say, infamous phrase. That person would be called a nava al-birshasatara, literally a scoundrel. Nava would be a scoundrel, a villain, with the tower's intrimatura, with the tower's permission. It's spend as time as the Rambhan writes, eating and drinking, but scrutinizing the food and wine that it should be kosher l'amadrin. It's spend as time overindulging and sexual activities, but perhaps within a holocically permissible fashion. The tower is not interested in converting religion solely into a system of do's and don'ts. Obviously, basic kabbal's mahoshamayim, kabbal's al-mitzvos, the life of a mitzu viviosa, has to be firmly founded, won an identity or an attitude of being commanded and, of course, the willingness and the effort to implement that attitude into day-to-day obedience and to maintaining the strict laws of shuhanara. But halibha vahas, that habona sasham, should end in the details of shuhanara. There's a broader fabric. There's a broader fabric when it comes to minardam lamakam, not just the halacha alone, but a certain lifestyle which halacha's meant to facilitate, to catalyze. And similarly, the Rambhan writes, although he doesn't equate the tupsukim, the pussukim, the pussukim, the pussukim, the veskhanan, but there's some very, very sharp structural similarities. Similarly, when it comes to ethical behavior, morality, and personal affairs, the Torah's primary interest is that we act appropriately and sensitively. And perhaps, if human beings had more integrity, there'd be no need for laws and rules. Given the fact that pettiness, jealousy, strife, will ultimately overcome every human being, the Torah could legislate some various general guidelines. But lest we adhere too closely to the law and ignore the spirit, the Torah reminds us via sisahayah shar vahatov. One can find some very similar tones in a very famous section of the Magyad Mishnah. The Magyad Mishnah was one of the supercabinaries on the Rambhan. And in the Magyad Mishnah, towards the end of the Hoshreinim, Perik Yud Dalid, Halachahe, he summarizes the Rambam section of Shreinim. The Rambam, very interestingly, in his say for Yat Khazakah, very often develops topics that are not naturally delimited by Shaz. For example, the laws of qidushin, vesus, be more or less be found than misechos qidushin, and the Rambams listing of those laws is not creative in the sense of establishing a topic out of nowhere, ex-neal but rather, summarizing and cataloging the various halahas which misechos qidushin lists. So the Rambam circle's issues is not a topic which he created. But oftentimes the Rambam created topics, of course, drawing extensively on sources of qazal, but topics which the Gomara did not classify as independent. For example, the laws of shreinim are not localizing one particular misech that there's no such thing as misechos qidushin. Some of the laws appear in the end above misea habayas for haliyah. One could say vernical shreinim. People own gardens on top of one another, terraced gardens, one owns the garden on the top of the mountain, one owns the garden on the bottom of the mountain. The first two prachin of the Bhagavastra, parachashutfim, describing neighbors who want to divide a joint courtyard, other social communal norms, the second parach, what types of activities can or may not be performed in private if they produce negative or detrimental effects upon neighbors. So the Rambam witnessing these halahas condense them and created one of his sections of hilchas in the zikian is called hilchos shreinim. So towards the end of the hilchos shreinim, parachudalid, the magid mishna claims his follows. The magid mishna more or less restates the Ramban's theory in parashas vesranam. Interestingly enough, he actually highlights the parallel between the paasag vyasisa hai asher vyatov and the paasagavqidushin to you, he quotes the paasag. More or less capturing the spirit of the Ramban. The tarah is absolute and timeless, but morality is transient and ephemeral. So therefore the tarah could not legislate in a timeless and eternal fashion. More laws which would change from moment to moment from context to context. So therefore the tarah demands behavior which may transcend the letter of the law. Then the Ramban, interestingly enough, concludes that the very fascinating and famous Russia. The beginning of shreishirim, the second paasag states his follows. Isha kani minashikos pihu. Kitoim dodachamihayun. Literally the paasag writes that he kissed me for his, for his sweeter than wine. Kazal darshan kitoim dodachamihayun. The word dodachak can refer to literally its uncles or our uncles. Now traditionally this drashak kitoim dodachamihayun was employed by Kazal to articulate the significance, the authority of Kazal. Kazal are perhaps captured in the metaphor of dodachar uncles. Individuals who associated the delivery of the tarah, adding their oral tradition to the written law, and summarize kitoim dodachamihayun. Shlomo is in effect signing importance, not just the tarah shibhksav, which the metaphor here is yayun. Yayun is bigamatrya. 70 tarah was translated to 70 languages. Other ways in which tarah and yayun are comparable. But kitoim dodachamihayun. Our uncles are superior to wine. Of course the statement rendered in hyperbole to lend greater emphasis, greater stress. The maginizna claims that the drashak kitoim dodachamihayun have even divrayedodim yosim yena shaltara. The words of the dodim are more precious than the wine of tarah. Again a statement which traditionally speaks to the importance and authority of Kazal. The maginizna adopts this phrase as referring not to the general statements of Kazal, but to the overall tendency or the overall wishes that Jews behave morally even when the law doesn't call for it. Now we do exactly which have even divrayedodim yosim yena shaltara. And he sees that as a reference to divray shasidos. The tarah represents, or the yena shaltara represents, the basic requirements of law. And kitoim dodacham divrayedodim, perhaps not just referring to uncles, but in some way referring to friendship and fraternity dodim yosim yididim, sometimes that's equally or perhaps more important than halacha, general ethics and morality. A very famous introduction to Safer Baracious. Safer Baracious was called, was referred to by Kazal as Safer Ayusharim. Why was it cool, Safer how you sharim? So the natsiv elaborates on something which appears almost obvious, certainly after the natsiv highlights it. That the evos and their interactions with their neighbors, their colleagues, their acquaintances, their enemies acted in a moral manner which perhaps far surpassed their required, responsible, legal duties. Avraham's treatment of the people who he had redeemed, the people of stone who had redeemed through it liberated through that great war, perhaps he could have been more adamant about receiving compensation. He showed a level of generosity. Certainly Avraham's responses to Paro and the Melach after they had violated his own marriage and his own relationship. Yitzhak's reconciliation reproachmont with Avimelech after the wells which Avraham had dug had been ruined. Yaakov's various interactions with Lavan, with the individuals whom he interacted with in Eritskinan Vaishan that's been here, Kazal tells us he built various shops and stores and assisted them in their financial dealings. A Yashar, based on the Pasuk in Pasha's Vesshanaan, is not someone who immediately adheres to Halacha, but who surpasses or transcends Halacha by acting literally beyond the letter of the law. Interestingly enough, the Halacha of the Phnimisurasadin, behaving in a moral fashion, not just in a legal fashion, may be something which is not just voluntary. The most extreme version of the Yashar of Atal over the Phnimisurasadin is stated by the Smok, in the Safer Mitzvaskatan, the Smok lists as Mitzvah memtess, the 49th Mitzvah, a Mitzvah to act Lefnimisurasadin beyond the letter of the law. This is of course a very enigmatic phenomena. To actually incorporate the Mitzvah of the Phnimisurasadin with the entire Admitvos, it's a very, very intriguing prospect. The Phnimisurasadin to a degree suggest that we not break the system, but surpass the system. How could that dictate, how could that request or command be part of the system? The entire Admitvos represents the system of Halacha. How can that system contain the responsibility to surpass itself? So from a nominal standpoint, it's a very interesting phenomena. But morally, the Smok statement is very compelling. It isn't an option. It isn't something which is just requested or expected of good Samaritans. But every person has a Mitzvah as a Minathara akin to Trillin and Sika and Sitzvah. Define the moments in which he may act Lefnimisurasadin, which he acts morally, not just legally. Of course, we traditionally, conventionally, don't accept the Smok's opinion. But there is a Shita, which does perhaps reflect the spirit of how the Smok viewed the Sika Yashir Vatov, Lefnimisurasadin. The Mordechai in Baba Mitziya actually suggests that based in, will enforce Lefnimisurasadin. It may not enforce it as universally and as concretely as it will enforce the law. The law is more or less universal. It applies equally to have a human being in every context. But based in, based on its discretion, has the ability to impose certain solutions based on Lefnimisurasadin. Mentioned earlier that Rashi and Vesshanan doesn't merely cite Lefnimisurasadin, but mentions Pshara. Various Sika Yashir Vesshanan, Daflama Bayes, derive the concept of Pshara, based in, as a Mitzva, when two litigants approach a court, instead of prosecuting the case, to the absolute benefit of one party and the absolute detriment and defeat of the other. Bayesan is a Mitzva to attempt to locate some middle ground, to locate a possible Pshara. The Umaran Sanhedrin derives this from the Pshara in Zaharia, M.S. and Mishpach Shalom Shif Tubhishar Echaam. How can the Torah request, how can Zaharia mention an expectation of both Mishpach and Shalom of justice and harmony, if justice will be rendered and to centrally merge, if harmony will be protected, then perhaps justice will have to be momentarily ignored. Komakom Shiyesh Mishpat, Ayn Staka, Staka Ayn Mishpat. Sligamar finally concludes by reconciling Staka and Mishpat Ela Ezair Mishpat. Shiyeshbot Staka, what is a form of Mishpat which incorporates Staka? Have they alma zubitsua? This is a form of Pshara. The Ramah in Shofanarak simen your days, cites two opinions as to where the Pshara can be imposed, can based in, impose a compromise upon two litigants, each of them solicited based in, expecting to emerge completely victorious. In fact, even within Halacha there are moments in which aspects of the Fimishurasadin are imposed. Hazal felt that there were certain varieties, certain moments of the Fimishurasadin which are mandated for every man, which shouldn't be left to the realm of volunteerism and option. This set of halachos, Hazal mentioned, referred to as Midasdal. The Mishnah in Perkyavos is a very interesting description of Stal. The Mishnah writes, "Shely Shely, Vishal HaShely," that's a Russia, person who sells selfish, insatiable appetite. But what happens if a person says, "Shely Shely, Vishal HaShely, Respects the law, Respects property, Respects boundaries, I won't steal yours, I won't violate your resources your time, your home, your state, and you don't violate mine. Shely, Shely, Vishal HaShely, an absolute respect for the law, Zumida Stone." This seems to be a bit incongruous, with our opinion of stone. The terror rights of the people of stone, Vianshay Stone, Reimachatayim Hashem. Terrible, wicked, exploitative. How can the city of stone, the warrant, the severe punishment which they receive simply because they adopted perhaps an insensitive, but certainly not a morally criminal attitude of Shely, Shely, Vishal HaShely, it's in a very famous section. The Maharal in Neseba's Olam in the Neseba of Gamilah's Hasadim Parake, the Maharal writes, that the disintegration of the society of stone was a gradual process. Our first impressions of stone is of affluence and wealth. Low chooses stone because it's green, it's lush, and presumably not just green and lush in agricultural sense, but successful, comfortable financially. He chooses this when he departs from Avramavino. According to the Maharal, because the citizens of stone were so self-sufficient, they abrogated the sense of need and of supporting one another beyond the letter of the law. They had no need for need. Each person could afford to attend to their own needs, their own dependencies. Once they lost the sense of dependency because they were so affluent, they didn't have to build a community based on mutual support and personal assistance. They were at the first stage of their moral decline. Shely, Shely, Vishal, HaShely. They They were not, so to speak, immoral. They were not criminal. They were what one could say, amoral, non-moral. Each person, law and ruled throughout the city of stone. Once they reached that moment of shalisha, the shalisha, the shalisha, the shalisha of Midas Stone, then it was a quick and irreversible slide into immorality, exploitation, a community cannot survive solely on law. Communities are built. Human lives are redeemed based on Khassid, the willingness of people to act outside of the box, to behave not just in response to legal responsibilities and legal duties, but in response to a moral impulse, to help beyond their obligation, beyond the law. Mircha Shem towards the end of this week will celebrate the Khagav Shivos, a very, very famous sort of summary of the book of Rus, which we'll read on Shivos in Mircha Shem. Rabbi Zerah says, this safer seems to be empty of halachic details. Truth is, it isn't because there are some halachas which are derived from Safer Rus. Certainly halachas don't serve as the fulcrum of the Safer. Rabbi Zerah says, Safer is a imbalot, it's a imbalot, it's a fulcrum, it's not a Safer of halacha. Allah, Khassid, Allah and Khassid Yibana. Human beings are redeemed. Communities are built. Nations are launched. Safer Rus is not just about redeeming individual suffering, repairing broken families and suffering communities, but about launching Jewish monarchy, Jewish redemption. Safer Rus occurs during a very sad point in Jewish history, Vahibimesh Rata Shoftim, sad period of sarcasm and cynicism, a breakdown of authority. And the entire book of Shoftim is a book which presents historical stagnation, where no closer towards redemption, spiritually, morally, nationally, in the end of Safer Shoftim than we are at its outset. Two steps forward and one step back, one step forward and two steps back. And parallel to this very, very frustrating, almost lethargic Safer. Safer Rus occurs chronologically parallel. It occurs during the time of the Shoftim, but it's not incorporated within Safer Shoftim because it doesn't suffer the malaise of Safer Shoftim. It's the redemption of Safer Shoftim. And it launches Safer Shmuel, of course, in Jewish monarchy, in Rusping, the matriarch of Jewish monarchy. A community cannot exist solely on the rule of law. It will collapse under the weight of its own, of its own insensitivity. It's a very interesting Gemmaar and Bhavimeshiya. Daflaminam and Baiz, the Gemmaar writes, amir bhiyokhanan, loharva yu shalayim, el al-shaddanuba, din tara. City of Yu shalayim was decimated because they applied tara law. The Gemmaar is astonished. They're being punished for applying tara law, el adinidim, because I silly dainat, where they should apply some other culture as law, some other system of law. Same war says, el-aimah, shahimidu, din tara. They were punished because they exacted, and they demanded the application of the law. For law, al-dulafinimeshya ar-saddin, they didn't have the heart to act beyond a strict legal responsibility. In the spirit of Anche Stone, the spirit of what happened to Stone according to the Maharal, one current perhaps could read this Gemmaar not as a punishment, but as a consequence. Shalayim wasn't only punished for their, so to speak, legal, non-moral behavior, but the community crumbled. The fabric of society disintegrated. Communities are built on the thousand points of light, of community organs, and families, and individuals, who have the courage, who have the conviction, the selflessness to act beyond their own self-interest, beyond their own needs, to redeem people and suffering, to relieve distress, to move a community forward. And you shalayim lost that sensitivity. Having lost that sensitivity, they ultimately were doomed. They were doomed for destruction, even if it hadn't been divinely imposed. Very interesting, Madras. And Avra meets Malchizedek in Parshas-Lachani, meets him in the city which would one day be named Yushalayim. It's a very fascinating meeting, it's a very mysterious meeting, it's that altogether clear what transpired during this meeting. But according to this, Madras, Malchizedek happened to be one of Noah's children, Shalayim. And Avraham, Madras mentions that Avraham was jealous. He was jealous of Malchizedek of shame. He asked him, how did you exit the table? How was your secret for survival? What allowed you to live that year or so? And there's those trying conditions. So Malchizedek responds, the charity, the generosity which we displayed to one another. So Avraham inquired, how could you possibly perform charity in the table? Were there anyone, was there anyone who was poor or indigent? In Mia sees him stalker, who did you perform stalker towards? So Malchizedek said that, of course, shame responds, would perform stalker towards the animal community. We didn't sleep until we fed them, we attended to their needs. That point, Avraham reckons to himself. Without this stalker, they would never have emerged from the Teva. I will try to build a world fashioned when stalker and headset and, of course, Avraham launches. Jewish history, moral history, the history of safe or boracious, the history of safe for how you shine. The experience of Avraham in building his world, noachin, launching the renewal of our world. Russ, thousands of years, hundreds of years later, Russ and Nami launching Jewish monarchy by acting outside of the box, selflessly from one another. The story of the Gomar and Babmysia, that vomit of a day, is of the ultimate destruction of usual volume. And, of course, the very, very tragic events unfolding through the people of stone. All highlight the value of Nami Shurasa didn't have ethical behavior in building a firm and stable, morally just society. And Hazal detected certain moments in which selfish behavior is so severe, is so insensitive, that it borders on the behavior of stone. And it should be denied, it should be restrained. Hazal developed the following legal and enforceable concept of kulfen or midah stone. For example, the Gomar and Babmysia kufres decides that if I sell my field, I have to give the first right of purchase to my neighbor, because potentially he buys my field, he can consolidate my field with his field, and benefit by the proximity of two fields. You can send his workers together without having to pay access, resources for transportation, for tirtha. I don't have a free, capitalistic right to sell to him every juice. Such behavior, Hazal feel, would be stone-like. And Hazal is kulfen on midah stone. It enforces against the behavior, which was evident in stone. She'll leave she'll leave she'll crush her. Now the Gomar and Babmysia kufres describes someone who's homeless, who squats in an unused apartment building, belonging to someone else, or at home. Doesn't have to pay any money according to one position. Zen the hand of Azel Ahasa. I don't have to pay any money to the person, even though I derived Hanau from his shelter, because it's no money out of his pocket. It wasn't planning on renting it. It wasn't planning on living in it anyway. For him to demand money of me, when do you reflect the other behavior, which occurred in stone? Hazal do not want this behavior to proliferate. And this is the type of extra legal. If Nymysia said in behavior, which Hazal don't just suggest, don't just expect us to volunteer ourselves towards, but actually enforce Kofen al Midas stone. So this could be called a fourth wing of Hasid. General moral sensitivity. A sense not just of what Halacha demands of us, but with the human heart, expects of us. To be attuned not just to law and duty, but to need, to morality. I'll conclude with a very, very famous Mishnah in Perky of Us. The Mishnah narrates that Rabbiokrem Menzakai dispatched his various Tamidim to discover the central trait, which a person should condition. [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] So one Tal Midrably, as I suggested in Aintova, generosity seeing the positive in others, who sure suggests to be a Havertov, a good friend, [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] Abshiman said to be prescient, [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] Belazor said [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] have a good heart. [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] Respondent to his Tamidim, [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] is [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] instructed his Tamidim that the fundamental element of a [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] to be immense, to exhibit [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] not just to perform [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] based on the demands of [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] but to sense the moral needs and the moral duties of the heart, [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] have left and seen once relay the following story to us. He was once walking down a street in Yushalayim, and he saw an Arab merchant pull his car up to the side of the road, and he stopped suddenly, and his merchandise fell out of the back of the truck, and splattered all over the floor. Immediately, a group of Yeshiva Bachram surrounded the merchant and began deliberating whether they had a legal responsibility to a system. After all, he wasn't Jewish. Perhaps he was considered a [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] if he lived in the land of Israel, except the Jewish law maintained certain basic standards of [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] His Islam considered paganism, all types of questions were engaged in order to determine the [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] status of this merchant, and whether they were obligated to assist him. Religency mentioned to us that he reckoned, how sad it was, that these boys possessed the halochic knowledge to tackle this scene, this scenario, but not the basic decency just to help. Sometimes he felt sadly enough, and ironically, in our own community, we have the basic decency to help, but perhaps not the halochic knowledge to deliberate upon the situation. Why can't we produce both? Religency lamented us. Why can't we produce people of high and upstanding moral sensitivity, who help without questioning, as well as individuals who are aware and familiar with the halochic details, the sophisticated halochic knowledge? Why can't we have both? In that point, someone in the back of the room raised their hand and said, but Rabbi, if you could only have one, which would it be? Ideally, you should have both, and it's sad that you can't, but if you could only have one, which would it be? At that point, we're looking to see, in the corner, this mission at Dostin Perkyevils. Laved of Olaga Bayon. Religion starts with menstrual chite, with decency, with morality, with sensitivity, and that sensitivity should encourage a human being, not just to act in a manner that law dictates, but the sense need, and to respond to it, with selflessness, with sacrifice, and with ethical commitment. You've been listening to Rabbi Moshe Tarugan, the weekly sure on Essentials of the Data Shem. This is as a back and for the halochi omit. We have a minra, and now we're up to Arvid. The makhloket dispute in the Gmara if Tfilat Arvid. That Tfilat said at night, is hovah or luschut, is obligatory or voluntary. Makhloket tanaim, and makhloket tanmara im. Now, the chai is that, by definition, Tfilat Arvid is luschut. Literally, that means it's voluntary. To spot claims, that it doesn't mean that it's actually voluntary, that you can simply ignore it. To spot claims, you have to dive in Arvid, but the chut means that it's not as important as other things, and therefore, it could be set aside if you had something more important to do, meaning amidst the nature. That's the chitar of Tfilat. In any event, all the posts could bring down a statement made by the Vavran, in the name of Haigon, that Amisul has accepted upon itself the daven of it. So, that, practically speaking, you have to say it. Nonetheless, the minute Amisul has a custom and accepted custom, of saying of it, but that doesn't change the nature of the Tfilat. There's an accepted custom to daven the Tfilat, which is the chut, and therefore, there could still be distinctions. But Yosef, for instance, rules, hadakhal amisah, that you can set aside Mariev, if it's difficult to dive in. If something else to do, that's another mitzvah, normally you'd have to dive in right away. Even though the mitzvah, even, he says, if it's very uncomfortable, that by Yosef says, that if you've gone to bed, and remember that you didn't dive in, he claims you don't have to get up out of bed to dive in Mariev, because you were very undressed and gotten into bed. And other parts can disagree. But there is this opinion of the Beijerseif, that because it's by definition of a chut, which we've made obligatory on ourselves, so it's still the different nature than that of a Tfilat, of a regular Tfilat of it. A regular Tfilat, excuse me. Another distinction, based on whether it's krova or a chut, is implied by the gamma-vah, that the question of whether or not you have to be some gulalet phidah, where you have to connect the bakhab, gali-sail, to schmanesser. Now, if it is dependent on this question. And therefore, according to the simple temptation of the gamma-vah, if we rule that phidah-tah-vit is a chut, you don't have to be some gulalet phidah. Based on this, that's our third experience, that's the reason why you say euro-anayno, it's an extra bakhah in mariv, after hashkivayna. The gumara says the hashkivayna is part of gula, that doesn't consist in interference. But there's another bakhah, which is not even found in the gumara. It's a mimic of the gonim. It also says, it's because you don't have to be some gulalet phidah, and if we can say euro-anayno. That was the mimic in ashkanas, to say along bakhah-yir-anayno, and many psukim, after hashkivayna, before hashkivayna, because you're not really being some gulalet phidah, because phidah-tah-vit is a chut. The gar-objected, another psukim as well, and it's well today. It is not customary to say euro-anayno, in order to have at least a chaprida, so hulu gulalet phidah. What is psukim in the psukim, is that it's supposed someone comes into mariv, late, and he comes in after the very sad kriachman, and they were about to start shmana, say. See, if this was shahkharit, you would not say shmana se, bitseebah, because it's more important to be some gulalet phidah. You have to say kriachman first, with bakhat-kai-sal and enshmana se. But in of it, since according to many opinions, one is not, some gulalet phidah, one doesn't have to be, some gulalet phidah. Therefore, if one comes in and it's seebah, it's saying shmana se, so they recommend you say shmana se, bitseebah, and then you say kriachman, and it's balahat. After shmana se, giving up completely on the chance of some gulalet phidah, since phidah-tavidah is not sure, you don't have to be some gulalet phidah. That's it for today. We'll be back tomorrow, tomorrow's shir in masaka bakhat-kal-tah-tah-dah, which I will be given. You've been listening to KMTT, The Total Podcast, KMTT, The Total. And this is, as a bik, wishing you kultov, we will be back tomorrow. We'll be back tomorrow. Kultov.