KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - The Weekly Mitzva Shelach
KMTT - The Weekly Mitzva Shelach, by Rav Binyamin Tabory
Brouchima Baeem, welcome back to KMTT. Kimich se onte se tora another week, and we're continuing with a regular set of shurim. And this is as we're being speaking. Today is Monday, and we'll have another episode of the weekly mitzvah. I'll be back with another installment of the Halacha Yomit. This is the mitzvah of Hala when we enter to Israel. Rashi in Ramesh points out that the mitzvah of Hala obtained, as soon as Bene' Israel entered to Israel, as opposed to the mitzvahs of Tummo Samasros, which were applied only after the years of kibush yorushah yushiva. After the years that they divided the land and set up the land, but the mitzvah of Hala was given to us as soon as we enter to Israel. It seems that the mitzvah here is tarim uturmah la shim, remove or actually the translation be raised Hala. And then the next part says, Hala tarim uturmah tit nulashim tumma, and give it. This might be considered as two mitzvahs or one mitzvah. We'll discuss this according to the rambhaam and the rambhaam. The rambhaam in Safrah mitzvahs in Shorushid Bayes explains that mitzvahs have various components will be counted as one mitzvah. He gives examples of kachim. What you do with a carban is not considered a separate mitzvah, but rather the carban in general is one mitzvah. As regards to our mitzvah, the rambhaam says very clearly in mitzvah kuf la mitzvah in Safrah mitzvahs. The rambhaam says that altogether there's one mitzvah of Tumma. The way the rambhaam phrased it is the mitzvah of Tumma, mitzvah kuf la mitzgimah. The rambhaam says, shitzivah nulah afrish halaamih a risotenu verlitt nala kohang. It's a mitzvah to separate the hala and give it to the kohang. And that's all included in one mitzvah. The rambhaam again in the introduction to the laws of hala, which are found in hilhos bikouim. The rambhaam lists off in hilhos bikouim nine mitzvahs, and one of them is la afrish hala la kohang. In three succinct words, the rambhaam seems to have included something which we could actually count as two mitzvahs. La afrish hala la kohang to separate the hala to the kohang. So it seems obvious that according to the rambhaam, there's only one mitzvah in keeping with his principal and chosen base, and which he says specifically in connection with hala. The bahag, another rishonin, counted the mitzvah of hala as two separate mitzvahs. Interestingly enough, the bahag quoted one mitzvah as a mitzvah's assay, a regular mitzvah of giving hala, of being mafrish hala, of separating the hala. And the second mitzvah, he put in a section of mitzvahs of parsios. The bahag, in the rambhaam, inside your garden, and other rishonin, have three categories of mitzvahs. The category of mitzvah's assay, a category of mitzvah's low assay, and the third category of mitzvah's, of parsios, mitzvah's which apply to the principal, to the klau of the Jewish people, but not to individuals, laws that apply, for example, about punishments, of bezden, and such, are included in this third category. The bahag put the second mitzvah in the category of parsios, of general parsios, of giving it to the kowang, but he doesn't say why he does so. We have a purlau, and we are going to use his work in this particular mitzvah extensively. In his edition of the Safer mitzvah's of Abinu Sajigon, he explains that according to the bahag, the second mitzvah is not a mitzvah in the individual to give the hala to the kowang. In principle, the bahag might agree with the rambam, there is one mitzvah of being mafish and giving it to the kowang, but there is another mitzvah, which is incumbent upon the seabore, to allot the mat nouskuna, to allot these presents, these gifts that are given to the kalim, to some to the viem, to allot them in a proper fashion. This mitzvah would not apply to the individual person, but it would be a general responsibility of Thaisvail to see that these mitzvah, that these mat nousk, these gifts that we do give are given to people who are proper recipients, and their decision would be important in deciding how to allot the mitzvahs, the mat nous. And according to this, really on the individual, there is only one mitzvah, the mitzvah of being mafish, hala. And apparently giving it to the kowang is included in that. The rambam in Seyfera mitzvahs disagrees totally with this approach. The rambam in showish youth bays, in his critique, when the entire concept of counting parts of a mitzvah, as a mitzvah, says in regards to the specific mitzvah of giving mat nouskah, we should differentiate between two different types of giving mat nouskah. There is a case, there are examples, where there's a mitzvah to give certain things to the kowang. And it gives an example of zro'a-la-la-ha-yayim-ba-kava. There are mitzvahs that you have to give to the kowang, as a gift to the kowang. But in brisker language, that mat nah would not be a mat here. It doesn't mean that something is tray for, something is not kosher before you do it. It's simply a mitzvah to give this to the kowang. In such a case, the rambam would say, of course, there's one mitzvah. The mitzvah is to give it to the kowang. However, in things that are tevel, tevel is food that is not yet, we would call it an English fixed in Hebrew mittukan, that you cannot eat it. It's actually trayth, until you give the mat nah, it's called tevel. In such cases, the rambam thinks there are two mitzvahs. One is litakain. One is to fix, to be mat here, the particular item in question. The second is to give it to the kowang, and there are two separate mitzvahs. The first would be just to fix it, and the second mitzvah is to give it to the kowang. And he uses as one of his primary examples our case of hala, because hala, as is well known, is forbidden to eat until we're a mafresh, until we separate hala from our dough. But once we do that, the Torah has to tell me what to do with it. You think that, okay, you can separate the hala, and now you can just throw it away, put it in the fire, not do anything. The Torah says, no, tittnul asham chumah, you're supposed to give it, we derive that you give it to the shavit of Yim. But and the same thing he says, by chumah, the Torah says, be mafresh, chumah, and then tittnul, give it to him, and in our parasha, vayyaba hakamele chamar es tarim utrumah al-asheb, raishit ari sautehem hala tarim utrumah, qitumah, qitumah, qitumah, qitumah, go and kentarim, what are you supposed to raise it, and then give it. So he said it simply to mitzvahs. The rambang goes on to explain his proofs that they're to mitzvahs. The first proof that he brings is that there's a bracha to be recited when a person is mafreshhala. And he quotes the mishnah, that there are people who cannot make the bracha, and therefore the mishnah says it would be better for them not to give trumah, but if they do, it's valid. If you do a mitzvah without making the bracha, the mitzvah is valid, but you have not fulfilled the bracha, which is a dindirabana and a mitzvadirabana to make a bracha, that you haven't done. Therefore, a person who can't make the bracha shouldn't be mafreshhala le khatrila. However, if he does, it is considered hala, and when do you make this bracha? So the answer is mishas, mishashe fresha, at the very time that you're mafreshhala. And that is the opinion of the rambam as well, that the rambam says clearly that the mitzvah is the bracha is to be made at the time of the haphrasha. In parake, a villechos bikouim, halachiyud alif, the rambam mentions the law of making a bracha. And the rambam says, qala mafreshhala mavar trila asha kachanimasu asha vitzivannu lafreshhala. This seems to be in accordance with the opinion of the rambam, that all mitzvos, all brachos should be made prior to doing the mitzvah. The rambam in hilchos bracha's parakeud alif says that even if a person forgot to make the bracha before doing the mitzvah, you cannot do the bracha afterwards, unless it's a mitzvah which continues. In our particular case, the rambam does not refer to this particular halacha of if the mitzvah continues, but the rambam says, in general, mafreshhala mavar trila. You make the bracha before your mafreshhala. And the bracha, by the way, in the rambam is lafreshhala, there are a number of different texts as to what the exact text of the bracha is. The rambam says the mitzvos lafreshhala. And the rambam says that the bracha to be made on the bracha before your mafreshhala is the same bracha that you make on whether the hala is Torah, whether it's tameyah, whether it's pure, whether it's impure, whether it's in Israel, and ayrets, whether it's in chutz ayrets. In both cases, in all cases, the rambam says you make a bracha. The rambam proves from here that the bracha is made at the time of froshah. It seems that that froshah is the mitzvah. Of course, this is not so conclusive. For example, the rambam, the rambam himself would not say there are two bracha's. If the rambam really thought there should be two mitzvos counted here, perhaps one could say that, okay, that according to the rambam, we should make two bracha's, one bracha at the time of dafreshhala, and one time at the time of nessina. Thus, I assume the rambam would not agree with, but perhaps for general reason. In general, we do not make a bracha on any mitzvah bin adam lahavera. There is a principle, first stated, to the best of my knowledge, by the evudraham, and the rajra bin adhirishannam also discuss it, that we do not make a bracha generally on any mitzvah bin adam lahavera. Mitzvos bracha's are only made in mitzv bin adam lahmaka. So the haphrasha, which is the mitzv bin adam lahmaka, vadai in the sea, and you'd make a bracha according to the rambam. But on the nessina, you won't make a bracha. So if that's true, what is the rambam arguing with the rambam? The rambam seems to argue that according to the rambam, if it's one mitzvah, you shouldn't make the bracha at the time of dafreshhah, because you haven't finished the mitzvah until you do the nessina. And since the, in general, we would try to make the bracha as close as possible to the main section of the mitzvah, mitzvah, which would perhaps have two parts. According to the rambam, maybe you should make the bracha at the time of the nessina. As we pointed out before, at the time of the nessina, it would be difficult to make the bracha, because in general, I said we don't make a bracha on a mitzv bin adam lahavera. So the rambam's question is not so clearly understood. What did he want? He perhaps felt that if the afreshah is not a separate mitzvah, then you can't make a bracha at the time of dafreshah. But it seems then that the result would be you wouldn't make a bracha at all, because at the time of the nessina, you can't make a bracha mnessina, because it's bin adam lahavera. You can't make a bracha mnafreshah, because it's after the mitzvah is done. According to the rambam, you can't make a bracha after mitzvah is done. So what did the rambam really want from the rambam? He wanted two bracha's, the rambam himself didn't have two bracha's. He wants to know why you make a bracha at the time of dafreshah. Apparently, the rambam thinks since dafreshah is part of the mitzvah, it's part of the nessina mitzvah, even though this mitzvah is not completed until it's given to the kowain, but you make a bracha on the nessina mitzvah of being mafreshtrumah. So therefore, it's hard to understand exactly what the rambam wanted by this argument. Be that as it may, there is one bracha at the time of dafreshah. This bracha, apparently both the rambam and rambam would agree that it's at the time of dafreshah, but there is no bracha at the time of the nessina. The second proof that the rambam argues and says that there is a mitzvah of the two separate mitzvahs, the rambam says, because the kowainim themselves have to be mafreshtrumah. The past Luke says, "Kain Taremugamattam", now the dracha of Kain Taremugamattam is well known from the Denim of Shrikhos. The Torah says, "You don't have to do this mitzvah by yourselves. You can appoint an agent to do it for you." But the rambam quotes a past Luke, this past Luke, to teach us that Kain Taremugamattam elukwanim. The mitzvah of chumasamasaros of dafreshah of kala and chumasamasarah is the place of the kwanim as well. Now since the kwanim and the Vim own it, they don't have to give it to anyone. There's no mitzvah of nessina at all. If there's no mitzvah of nessina, so according to the rambam, the rambam asks, "Why do the kwanim live him have to do it?" There is no mitzvah of nessina. At first glance, this rambam also seems rather strange, because the rambam never said that there's no mitzvah called afreshah. The rambam said, "When there's afreshah and nessina, I counted all those one long mitzvah." The afreshah and the mitzvah together are considered the mitzvah. But if there's no possibility of nessina, or in our case, there's no need for nessina, so it doesn't mean that there's no din of afreshah. There would be a din of afreshah in any case. So the afreshah is a mitzvah. It's not the end of the mitzvah when there's nessina to be concluded. But if there's no nessina at all, in the case of the koan, then the mitzvah is complete at the time of that afreshah. Again, the question is, "What did the rambam really want?" Rabbi Pirla suggests that the rambam is asking a question on the rambam from the very, very law itself that is derived from a pasuk. The pasuk says, "Kain tareemu atem," we learn gamma-tem, the kain tareemu gamma-tem that kain tareemu laviimahayav in the mitzvah of afreshah. Perhaps the rambam thinks that if the mitzvah of afreshah and nessina is one mitzvah, according to the rambam, what would be the point of the tare telling us that kain tareemu laviim have to do afreshah? The rambam thinks this might assume that there are two separate mitzvahs, one called afreshah and one nessina, and therefore what the koan im do is one part of the mitzvah, whereas according to the rambam, in such a case, one would argue whether you really do need afreshah, what the tare meant in telling us afreshah, but the law itself is simple. A koan im laviim do afresh, according to the rambam, it would seem to be that that itself is a mitzvah and the rambam would agree, the rambam would agree it's a mitzvah because these are their two separate mitzvahs, but the rambam would say it's a mitzvah of afreshah when there is no nessina, when there is no need or necessity or perhaps even possibility of nessina, the mitzvah could be done by afreshah. Another proof of the rambam is by truma tmeya, hala tmeya. In the case of hala that is not richly pure, tameya, and therefore you don't give it to the koan, you burn it. The in such a case the gimmeri says, he quotes the gimmeri in bhara stuff, rabzayin, that there is a mitzvah of afreshah's truma in such a case too. If you learn again that the mitzvah is one mitzvah, the afreshah nessina, he says why would there be a mitzvah of afreshah without nessina. Again we would say the same argument that according to the rambam, it's true that it's one mitzvah, when there's afreshah and the sina then there's one mitzvah in afreshah and part of that mitzvah, part of the mitzvah of afreshah is to do the nessina as well. But when there is no possibility of nessina, then afreshah is a mitzvah. The afreshah of afreshah would also be afreshah. It seems that the rambam's question would not be so much as why we're mafreshah, but the question is why do we make a brahah? Because the rambam phrases the question, haribha, afreshah, afreshah, afreshah, afreshah, afreshah, afreshah, afreshah. It seems that the rambam's question would not be so much as why we're mafreshah, but the question is why do we make a brahah? Because the rambam phrases the question haribha, afreshah, afreshah, afreshah, afreshah. And why would you make a brahah when there's no possibility of giving it to the coming? As we said before, this could be explained by the fact that whenever you can't do nessina for whatever reason, you make a brahah on afreshah. Today, bismana zet, we're mafreshah, and what do we do with the hala? We burn the hala. Today, we do not give mat nascuna to kuani. So today, the people who are mafreshah-la, when they have a shiyur of hala, yanti mafreshah-la, when they do that, they burn it. And yet we make a brahah even though there's no possibility of nessina. So it could be that the brahah of afreshah, afreshah, afreshah, when there's no possibility of nessina. As we said in the case of the coming, the difference is in the case of the coming, there's no need for afreshah. In our case, there's no possibility of afreshah, there's no way of doing afreshah of tumatmea. Rabinu, the raf purlau, in his, say for mitzvahs, says that perhaps the whole din of being mafresh on tumatmea is only a dindirabana, and which would really fit in with the rambam, but the idea would be the mitzvah on the mitzvah drabanan, and quote Rabinu, "Rabbat, Rabbat, Rabbat, purlau. Hathaam, in a brahah-laam shuma mitzvah, mitzvah, mitzvah, mitzvah, mitzvah, mitzvah, de meah-hai de tiknurabana, froshah-tah-la, zu-shal-ur, zay-hala-hala-doraytah. Since the kah-raamim enacted the concept of being mafreshah-la, shal-ur, apparently, hala that's going to be burned, hala of tumatmea, zay-hala-hala-doraytah. It's only a drabanan in order to remind us to keep us aware of the basic mitzvah-laam mitzvah doraytah, so then he says to una brahah-kesham-it-sa-tah-dorayam, because then it's like any other drabanan, and you would make a regular brahah, but the brahah is, in this case, not in a mitzvah-dorayt-sa, but it would be a mitzvah-dorabana, according to this argument, even if you would have theoretically, according to the rambam, not made a brahah when there's no possibility of nessina, for example, in the case of kah-anim, but in this particular case, perhaps you'd make a brahah-kesh, this is a mitzvah-dorabana, and a mitzvah-dorabana, and you'd make a brahah. And then he adds, shah-rein-ni-kah-ra-hih-tik-nur. Originally, this was the takrana, this is what Hazal said, la fishelor, the Hazal said, this is what you do with trumat-maya, your mafish trumat-maya, and halat-maya, and you burn it. So that is the mitzvah-dorabana, and therefore he adds, mitzvah-s-dorayam, since it's a mitzvah-dorabana, by a brahah, you require a brahah-kesh any other mitzvah, vamim vitzivana, numilotasur. Like the rambam, like the gimmerah says, in shabbis, in flukah, the gimmerah says that we make a brahah on every mitzvah-dorabana. So according to this, there might be a mitzvah-dorabana to be mafish-halah, even halat-maya, and therefore the argument of the rambam, that this shows that there's a separate mitzvah in the sina, can be refuted, and we can go back to the rambam's opinion, that there's really one long mitzvah. The mitzvah of Afrasha and the sina, when the sina is possible, then the mitzvah is not completed until the naseenah. We would not negate the fact that Afrasha is part of the mitzvah. It's actually a mai-samitzvah, when a person is mafish-halah, it fulfills the mitzvah of Afrasha's-halah, but he did not complete the mitzvah of Afrasha's-halah, which is only completed when he gives it to the kawai. The interesting point is that hala requires no shi'ur. The Torah says "mei rei shi'it arisatecha" from the first of the crap you're supposed to give a mitzvah, you're supposed to give it. But we know in general that mitzvah doesn't vow the shi'ur. When you say you have to give tittain, when the Torah says "give somebody" something, there has to be a shi'ur of nittina. The famous idea, for example, by get, that we say venas-an-bi-yada, in that particular case, the kjos, the famous kjos, says venas-an-bi-yada means to put it into her hand, not to give it her, the kjos thinks that a get does not have to have any value because they are the Torah said to put it. The word latait matana could be a gift, something that you're giving which is as money value or the word latait could be a monetary value, a gift of money. The kzot said in the case of get that it means to put and therefore you don't have to give a get which has any monetary value. But in most cases, when the Torah said latait, the Torah meant to give something and has value, and therefore the question could be asked, obviously, how could it be that a person can give any shi'ur and be fulfilled the mitzvah with any amount, and we say, for example, tah-hat poter-takhe, one grain is given, if one grain is given, that's enough to exempt the entire crap. But the Torah says, teetang. The Torah said, you have to give it. And how can you say you can give something when there's no shi'ur of natina? The Torah's read in Kedushin asked this question, and he said a very famous point of his. He says, yes, it's true, there's a mitzvah to give it to the koei, a vomiyu, afro-pishim mitzvah-tobekhe, im ein no ratsalekhe imitzvazu, vitteram-chitah-hat-mikolakri, yatsai-miday-tiv-lo, Ela shalokhe imitzvat-natina, said a person who decided really the Torah says really a person should give, a shi'ur-natina, leh-hat-ri-la, the correct way would be to be mafish, shi'ur-natina, mafish enough, that has a value of which we can say that you can fulfill the concept koei-natina, however, if a person did not do this, a person just gave shi'ur-nat, he just gave a minute amount which is sufficient to pat-to-the-kri, so it tells us that he fulfilled the mitzvah and therefore it's no longer t'avel, the matir of the t'avel is to give the shi'ur-natina, to give the shi'ala, and once you do it, then shi'ur-tah-hat-pote-tah-tah-kri, then the entire crap is fulfilled by giving this shi'ur-nat, but you do not fulfill the mitzvah-natina-adayin, yet you have not fulfilled the mitzvah-natina, and a person who wants to fulfill the mitzvah should not give such a minute amount, this obviously would fit in very well with the rambhan, according to the rambhan, there are two separate mitzvahs, there's one mitzvah of haphrasha, and one mitzvah of nutina, so the mitzvah of haphrasha could be done completely with shi'itah-hat, when the Torah said shi'itah-hat-pote-tah-kri, the t'avel meant that you have to separate one shi'itah which will fix the t'wah, which will make it now, out of t'avel, and now it's permitted to eat, but the second mitzvah of nutina, that mitzvah you don't fulfill, according to the rambhan, it would be a little bit more difficult to use this principle, one would have to say, according to the rambhan, you can give truma, which should be given to the koween, but in this particular case cannot be given to the koween, and yet you've fulfilled the mitzvah, even though according to the rambhan, it's one long mitzvah, somehow you would have to differentiate and say that the mitzvah of nutina means that you did not fulfill the entire mitzvah here, but yet you could eat the truma, perhaps in such a case a person could say a big hiddish, then according to the rambhan, you didn't fulfill the mitzvah at all, according to the rambh, to the ritosus read, the mitzvah of t'avel, maybe of haphrasha, maybe you've fulfilled, maybe you hold like the rambhan, that there is a mitzvah that you fulfilled, going to the rambhan, you might say that a person did not fulfill the mitzvah at all, on the other hand, it's possible to say that even according to the rambhan, ita haphrata kree, so I did not fulfill the mitzvah, but yet I was mostly mideh havel, of course, the better approach would be to being the kind, the mitzvah to fulfill this mitzvah, the way mitzvahs should be done in a more correct and proper way to give a proper shi'ur in order to give it to the kohain, in bismana'se, in the generation in which, unfortunately, we are not mafrasha'ala to fulfill the mitzvah daraysa, because, for example, in ritzards, we, the mitzvahala, we're passing this drabhanan, therefore, when we only burn the hala, then in particular, in such a case today, we're probably passing that the khatrila, there is no nessina, so therefore, rita haphrata kree, this law would be a law today, the khatrila, and not just, well, your yotse, technically the mitzvah, but you didn't fulfill the mitzvah of nutina. You've been listening to the weekly mitzvah, rabhanan mintvore, for pasha'a chlakh, and for today's hala hai yomit, rather shortly, like to take the opportunity next day or two, to sum up your khatrila that apply after shahrila, namely, minhra'a bin mahariv, fila'a'a minhra. There are three t'fila'a today, shahrila'it minhra'a, and mahariv, the kmarin bahrat gives two different explanations for why there are three t'fila'a, one is that the three t'fila'a'a vot tiknum, each t'fila'a was instituted by a different one of the avota'a vota'a vaham, shahrila'a, it's shahrila'a, it's shahrila'a, it's shahrila'a, it's shahrila'a, it's shahrila'a, or it's ganagat kobanat, there are two kobanat today, two t'midim, that's shahrila'a minhra'a, and aariv, is an additional t'fila'a, kinagat, srefata'i vahrim, the parts of the animal that was brought as a sacrifice, were placed on the mitzvah and burnt all night. The koban was brought in the day time, let's say the second t'mid was brought in the afternoon, t'fila'a minhra'a, but it remained burning on the mitzvah or night, t'fila'a minhra'a, the time of t'fila'a minhra'a, is the time of the sacrifice of the second kobanat. Therefore, the time is from half an hour after katsalt, after noon. Remember that all times as we discussed in the beginning of shahrila'a, all times in hala'a'a, ash'a'ot is mani'ot, the day is divided into 12 equal parts, and that's considered to be one hour. So, one half hour after mid day begins the time of t'fila'a minhra'a. The extra half hour is a haqaka, it's an extra half hour, basically the kobanatamid of the afternoon, we brought from high noon, but because time was judged in the vatimic dash, visually. So, they had half an hour to make sure it would really be done on time. This engenders a makhalaka, and if a scheme of somebody could bid the evad, d'hava minhra'a immediately afternoon without wearing the extra half hour. A pre-level one agrees, this mani'ot is from half an hour afternoon, after mid day exactly, there were different opinions as to whether or not bid the evad. One would be yachtsai, if one d'hava minhra'a, many people can say, "No, even with the evad, you're not yachtsai." So, therefore, minhra'a is, so to speak, 1230, assuming that noon is at 12 o'clock, noon is not usually at 12 o'clock, since we are within your time zone. Here, in the extra sail, noon is approximately 15 minutes before 12, but now on day like sevens time, 15 to 20 minutes before one. So, you have to add another half hour, and therefore, as an example, the earliest minhin' for minhra'a'in alan shvut, where I'm speaking now, is at 1.15 in the summertime. Zman minhra'a is 'til shkiata khamma'a 'til sunset. Kontamani poskim must be said before sunset, and not after, and therefore, one should make a great effort to say minhra'a by sunset. Halaikri, there were two different times for minhra'a, which is called minhra'a'a, and minhra'a katana'a. minhra'a katana'a. The khatula begins, the time I just mentioned, half an hour after mid day. The time that's called minhra'a katana'a begins at nine and a half hours into the day. In other words, two and a half hours, shkiata is my new year, two and a half relative hours before sunset. And there's a mahra'a kat, and they'll be showing him as to which is a better time for minhra'a'a. The ramam prefers minhra'a katana'a. You should have a later in the day, not early afternoon, but late afternoon. Two and a half hours from two and a half hours before sunset. Although Rashi and Tosvoth are the opposite opinion, that it's better to dive in earlier, because the time has come, and if we should dive in now. Al-Lakhan Amisa, because of the difference of opinion, and because one has to dive in whenever one can, and it's the middle of the day, and sometimes it's difficult, so it's not the kubal, it's not accepted to make a big deal about it. If you have a minion, you dive in it, the main thing is to dive in one of the two times. But there were different opinions as to which time would be a better time, a better time to dive in. However, one should dive in before Shriya. Mr. Naboor, they're for Pascans, that if, as sometimes happens, was in a minion, and they called minhra for five minutes before Shriya. Then people don't show up on time, so minhra is about to begin one minute before Shriya. In other words, they're going to dive in after Shriya. Mr. Naboor, Pascans, it's better to dive in the aridut, and finish your s'moresce. Before Shriya, then to wait for Aymanyan to wait for its sibo. If for some reason one has not done it before Shriya, so it's accepted among most of the Pascans, that bid the eva and one kendaman for a few minutes after Shriya, approximately 10 to 15 minutes after Shriya, it's not yet Saita kogabeim, it's not for tonight, and one kudama minhra bid the eva. However, the proper time for minhra is before Shriya. The reason is because the kobanha tamid was, how do we go before Shriya? Since this halacha in kachim, in kobanhot, in sacrifices, shahadam nisal bishkiyatachamah. The koban becomes pasal if this is vikatadam, the throwing of the blood on the mizbeach was then accomplished by Shriya, tachamah. And therefore, it makes sense that minhra is parallel to the second tamid, tamidcha minhra, and therefore, you have to follow, you have to follow the same rules. And that's it for today. We'll be back tomorrow, Tuesday's Shriya of Harav Moshe Taragan on the essentials of Avavadata Shem, of Taragan celebrating a Brit this week, and a baby boy was born a week ago. We wish him was out of, it should be Bhito, Ubisha Atal, it should be in the proper time, and he should be Zokra, the Gadlot, the Torah, the Kupala, the Massim tovim. Despite the Simhra, maybe because of the Simhra, he will give the shear on time, it will be sent out tomorrow, and this has been KMTT. Kimi Tseon, Tetsay, Toral, Dvarashem Yushalayim. KMTT is the daily Torah podcast, five times a week, half an hour a day. It's open to subscription by everybody everywhere. Because Vatashem, the Shuram are delivered at night, and are ready for you to listen to every single morning, whether you're walking, jogging, taking a train, driving, or just sitting in front of a computer in your lunch hour, an opportunity to be Koveya, Itim, Lat Torah, to have regular Torah study. We invite everybody, those who are listening, obviously are doing already, but you have friends, and if I repeat the web address, to please give to your friends, acquaintances, co-workers, family, strangers you meet in the street, give them the web address, www Kimi Tseon org, that's www.kimitseon.org, that's www.kimitseon.org. It follows the instructions on the page, and they will have the Shuram delivered directly to their computers, and from there to their iPods and MP3 players, and MP3 enabled phones, whenever other new devices I haven't heard about yet, that enable one to get Torah anywhere, anytime, everywhere, directly from our Yeshiva to the rest of the world. Wishing you a kultur of till tomorrow, vibhakat at Torah, mitziyon, ume etsiyon, kultur of the Hishtameh, we'll be hearing, you'll be hearing us, hope to hear from you, tomorrow and every day, kultur. [BLANK_AUDIO]