KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Erev Shabbat Naso Behaalotekha
KMTT - Erev Shabbat Naso Behaalotekha, by Rav Ezra Bick
Friday, Yom Shishi, Arab Shabbat Kodash, Prashat Naseo, in Khuzlaar, Prashat Baudotra here in Ayres Israel. And this is KMTT, Kimitsiyom, Taitsei Torah. And this is Eswabek. And today we have the Arab Shabbat program for today Yud Gimmul Sivan, it's exactly one week since Shabbat, and again very for Shabbat. Today's shear is dedicated in memory of Arahab, Jaime Chihom, Michael, then Arahab, Jaime Chihom, Michael, who's your side for tomorrow on Shabbat. And this opportunity I'd like to again remind you that we are happy to dedicate Shurim of KMTT, either in memory of somebody, you want to do it Lizzi Kogan, I think that the idea of being connected to Fatsat Torah, Babim, to the teaching of Torah, publicly, is an amazing Zikon, an amazing way to memorize somebody. Torah is Natsah, and teach Torah to Amisul, to help teach Torah to Amisul, to put Torah out onto the waves of the air and to the wires of the internet is, I think, a tremendous and much better way of saying something about Lizzi Kogan to somebody and say putting a plaque on a wall. But also, good dedications for Simphus, you have a bad mitzvah in the family, a wedding. So share it by sponsoring a share of a week of Shurim in KMTT and sharing in the schus of the Lambay Torah of the Babim. This week, Arah Shabbat, Kaudesh, Prakshat, in Assalah, we made a decision to have KMTT stick to the Khuzla'at schedule. It's a very strange feeling I have, I know that, I mean, I'm getting ready for Prakshat in Assalah, here in Assalah, and the idea that Amisul is reading two different pastures causes me a great deal of unease. It seems to me that, and if this would be the first time, somebody would just suggest, let's have a situation whereby, in Khuzla'at we would want Prakshat, in Assalah, it's been Prakshat, I think we would all be upset, it seems to be an amazing thing, we've got new students, we've been doing it for thousands of years, but we normally expect that Kriyatta Torah, something which Amisul is really unified about, so I know the reasons why it happens. Second day of Shabbat, Kaudeshat was on Shabbat, we had a regular Shabbat here, so we read in Assalah a week ago, and in Khuzla'at, they read, of course, the Kriya for a Yomtah for the second day of Shabbat, so I know how it happens, but I still don't understand why it happens, why don't we fix it, why don't we have a double pasture this week, so we can get back into sync together, it seems that it just really didn't bother, Khuzla'at that much, there are times when we don't even switch back at the first available normal double pasture, we'll switch back in Khukad-Badak, and that's going to be five or six weeks from now, maybe there's even something nice about it, the fact is that we're learning Torah around the clock, and if someone cannot read this, the pasture because it's Shabbat so we'll catch up later on, the main thing is we'll all meet at the end, we'll all meet on Simkhat Torah, but we've made the decision that KMTT will, in fact, stick to the Khuzla'at schedule on the assumption that most of the listeners are in Khuzla'at, our Hebrew programming called Keshat, this week, we already had a Shire for Pasha'at-Badak, to the consternations of people in the office who were balancing two different Pasha'at and trying not to get confused, if you're listening to both Keshat and KMTT, as I recommend, if you have time for two Shirem a day, I recommend you do, then probably also be confusing because today you'll hear two Shirem, one in Pasha'at and so on, one in Pasha'at-Badak, save the one for Pasha'at-Badak, next week, if you're listening to KMTT and you're hearing Pasha'at and so on, that's probably even more frustrating, but Torah's a Torah to learn about Pasha'at and so on, or to think about Pasha'at and so on, this week, even though we read it last week, it's surely, it's surely no crime, I would like to mostly speak about today in Pasha'at-Nasau is the Pasha'at-Badak, Kha'anim, and so is a very interesting Pasha'at, it's a light in it, it's a light in it, one of the small shakshins of Pasha'at-Nasau is kotabakut pinai selamalda ham yokha chashambi shmarecha, yerha chashambi recha vihunika, y sashambi recha veshambi recha vesim, the Pasha'at-Badak, Kha'anim, it doesn't appear in any particular context in the Pasha, just all of a sudden, it says, right, the Pasha'at-Mashalimal, the bear al-Aranviya-Badadimal, kotabakut pinai selam, this is the way to give a bachah to binai selam, despite the fact that it's so short, or maybe because it's so short, only for Pasha'at-Nasau, there is a great deal of comment, a great deal of Medwish, the Medwish-An-Bakat-Kha'anim is a significant portion of the entire Medwish-An-Pasha'at-Nasau. The first Pasha'at-Badadimal, the bear al-Aranviya-Badadimal, kotabakut pinai selamalda ham, for the words immalda ham, totally unnecessary, it says, speak to Aran and his children, thus shall you bless Pinai selam, you then expect a quote, Ivarasham Ishmaq, it says, no, thus shall you bless Pinai selam, say to them Ivarasham ishmaqut, what's the say to them in Madam? So, Halaqikli, the Gmura, has certain Halaqut which you learned from this. For instance, the Halaqah, that the Hazan leads the Ka'anim, the Ka'anim don't give a bachah, they first called upon to say the bachah, that two different Halaqut, one is you call to them Ka'anim, and then they begin. And two is that each word in the bachah, first the Hazan says Ybalaqah and then they answer the bachah, that they're not staying on their own, so the emalda ham is not, is you, or Shera Beno, or someone in his place, say to the Ka'anim to say the bachah, but that's a certain Halaqah which is learned from this. In Pshato the, the word still, still bothers, and one of the Halaqut learned from emalda ham, it's in a certain different sense than the Droschai just said, is that bachat konim should be said out loud. Emalda ham, qaddanham and the bear al-Habihur. Here in terms of the Pshat, the emalda ham is not Mosharah Beno, say to them the Ka'anim, but emalda ham, you call him, when you give a bachat to Bena Israel, speak to them, don't bless them, speak to them, when you bless them. Hala's want to speak to them, qaddanham and the bear em habihur, the bachat konim should be said out loud. There's a very famous discussion initiated by the bachat konim of the bachat konim using shomerkhone. There's a Halaq principle of shomerkhone, that if I hear you say a bachah with the intention to be, to be healthy, to fill my obligation, it's as though I said it. For instance, on a regular basis, one person says kiddush on a Friday night, and all the people there are yauce, they've all said kiddush, have they all said kiddush, one said it really, and the others are shomerkhone, hearing is like reciting. So to hear a recitation is as though you recited. So the Beitadevi asked, could we have a situation whereby one Ka'an would say the bachat and all the other Ka'anim would be shomerkhone, they're saying it, but they're saying it by hearing it. The Beitadevi assumed that it was impossible, he never really went doing it, and if we went ahead to explain why. As it turns out, later on, we found certain references that at one time at least there was a custom specifically identified as being an Italian Jewish custom of precisely this, of only one Ka'an, the elder Ka'an, or someone who was being honored would say the Ka'anim would go out loud, the other Ka'anim would go up to the Duhran, they would go up to the front of the congregation, they would stand by him, but they would just listen and not say it. The Beitadevi assumed that that was impossible, and he said the reason was because of this Al-Acha of Ka'an, Shomerkhone, he who hears as though he has recited it, but he hasn't recited it out loud, he's recited in silence, because he's only listening, and since the Ka'anim has to be said out loud, so you cannot use Shomerkhone, in order to do it. That's what the Beitadevi said. Many people have asked, it's told that the Osamair, the Mayor Simcha of Duhrinsk, asked the Ka'an, the Beitadevi's son, this question, and it's also found in the Chazanesh. What does it mean Shomerkhone? If you imagine Shomerkhone means that hearing is as good as reciting, then the Beitadevi is right, because reciting is out loud, and hearing is not out loud, so for this purposes, for the purposes of the Ka'anim which needs to be recited out loud, hearing is not like reciting, even though hearing is like reciting in other contexts. But the Osamair claimed, that's not what it means. It doesn't mean that hearing is as good as reciting, it means hearing becomes reciting. When you hear the words, the words apply to you exactly in the same extent as they apply to the person who ordered them. And his proof of it was, we find very often that Allah Khot, which seems to be similar to the case of the Ka'anim, were you not nearly need something to be recited, but recited in a certain way, and the one who hears it is considered to have recited in that way. For instance, Khidosh I just mentioned, this was the Osamair example, Khidosh isn't just recited, it's recited Al-Haiyan, it's recited over a cup of wine. Why do the people who hear it, who don't have wine, how would they all say they may have heard it, and therefore it's as though they recited it, but they didn't recited over wine, they don't have anyone. You see from this says the Osamair, that it's not that hearing is as good as reciting. It's that the words that are being uttered by the recited are belonging both to him and to the hewers. So the words which are over the wine are as though they came out of their mouths. So they've actually recited it over the wine, and therefore the Osamair says so, in that case if they would hear the Ka'anim, say it out loud, it's as though they recited it out loud, what's the problem, why isn't it included in Shomair Khid on that. The Chazon Isha's example was a different one. He said, "You hear Kriyatta Mighilah, Mighilatta stare." The Mitzvah is to read Mighilatta stare. How is everybody fulfilling his commandment, his Mitzvah, by listening to your question on there, but when you read Mighilatta stare, it's not just saying the words, it's reading. The words must be said from the Mighilah, from the cloth, from the book. If the Balkore reads it by heart, neither he nor anybody else is your say. So again, the Chazon is said, if you say that Shomair Khid on that means that hearing is the same as good, parallel to listening, to, excuse me, to reciting, well the reciter has read it from the book, but the hearer hasn't heard it from the book. What is this proof? This proof says that it's not that hearing is like reciting, is that hearing allows you to be considered a reciter, the recitation of the words, but he reciting it belongs to you as well. So he's reading from the book. You've read from the book as well, in which case, the Chazon is said, it should be considered to be out loud as well by all the listeners to him. Number of answers are given to this question. The simplest answer, which I think is implicit in the fact that the Beethoven doesn't say anything else, is that there's a difference between these two cases. When somebody reads from the book and you listen, you'll listen to the words read from the book. Notice the words are different words, they're not, it's not said out loud, it's being read. Same thing is true, for yayin al kiddush avayayin, kiddush, these words are recited over wine and those are the words which I'm relating to. But Cole Ram saying out loud is not a kind of a word, it's not that the word is said in a given context, it's in Beethoven understood that it was an extra thing, you have to not only speak, you also have to converse. And what the Beethoven was saying is that speech, speech over wine, speech from a book, that can be related to by Schumacher O'Nell. But conversing, cannot be done by Schumacher O'Nell, if I overhear two people talking, two people conversing with each other, I'm not conversing with either one of them. And even though the hallecha is Schumacher O'Nell, so it's as though I said the words of the one speaking, but I haven't said them to the other person, I think there are two different verbs here. Speech is related to in Schumacher O'Nell, but conversing with the Beeth ish imchabével, this is not said. He answered that the reason why you need cold rum is not because you need to speak outland, it's because the people have to hear the words, this is similar to the first answer I gave, but slightly different. He's saying it's not an aspect of the speech at all. You don't really have to speak outland. You have to speak in a manner that people will hear because that's what it means to each other in the Beeth ish imchabével. Well, it doesn't come to tell you how to speak. You have to make sure that they're here because bhikrat kallanim is not a mitzvah of speech. It's two parts, it's a mitzvah that I should speak and you should hear. It's very similar, before I said it's a mitzvah to converse, but I really thought they meant how you speak. Here he's saying, is that a cipher that you have to speak, they have to hear. And that's what it means, cold rum. So Shomair Kornesh says that you spoke, and frankly he's willing to admit you spoke out loud. But even though you spoke out loud, nobody could hear you. Shomair Kornesh means it's as though you spoke out loud, but you can't say it's as though they heard. So you spoke out loud, but nobody heard you and if you're not makainen mitzvah of bhikrat kallanim, which requires you not only to speak, and now to speak out loud, but also to be heard by the people to whom you are speaking. The nitzv, who's also in the family, slightly differently, the nitzv was the mahoutin of the Beethoven. Nitzv was the grandfather-in-law of Heim, the Beethoven son. The nitzv thought that the question was a really good question, and he really thought it proved that the Beethoven was wrong, that Shomair Kornesh could work. However, he thought it was another problem. As you know, bhikrat kallanim is said in schmaneshv. And it has to be said in schmaneshv, but Korneshv doesn't just meet you on the street, even ten people on the street, and give them bhikrat kallanim. It has to be either in the Beethoven mikdash as part of the avodat Beethoven mikdash, or today, when there is no Beethoven mikdash, it's said in tfilah. The nitzv claimed that now is it said in tfilah, it is tfilah. It's part of schmaneshv. It is not a ha that in tfilah, Shomair Korneshv doesn't work. The idea being, it's a very important idea, that tfilah is a conversation with God, it's pouring out your soul. Shomair Korneshv is a legal method of relating to the words, but you can't be said to be praying. You're not beseeching God, you're not speaking to God through Shomair Korneshv. And since the nitzv thought that the kartkornim was part of tfilah, part of schmaneshv, so he said the entire idea of Shomair Korneshv is excluded from Beakat Korneshv. The kazaneshv, I mentioned before, he was one of those who asked the question, he in fact reached a conclusion that you could have it. He thought that he had proven that Shomair Korneshv could work, I don't know if the kornim would agree. If you're a korneshv, I imagine you take a great deal of pride in saying the bhakha, not just listening to someone else say the bhakha. But as I pointed out the way today, it was supposed to be a very idea and thought that each kornim must say bhakha kornim himself. He must say it out loud and not rely on what's being said by the fellow kornim who's standing next to him. Bhakha kornim prapa, the first pasuk, there's three bhakha in bhakha kornim. The first bhakha, the first blessing, is bhakha Hashem veeshm recha. God should give you a bhakha. God should bless you and also protect you. Protect you from what? The nithivat, vyakavmivisa, answered a beautiful answer. He said, a bhakha, the first bhakha, God should give you a bhakha, means give you a lot of bhakha, to separate bhakha. But we know that sometimes the very fact of a bhakha can be detrimental, can be vera. The example is the pasuk in Hashenu, vai ishman, ye shirun, vaiivat, because Israel was rich, that's why it's in. In other words, bhakha, especially bhakha, bhalana, is there, it's sometimes difficult to take. If for the first bhakha, it's a bhakha, it's a bhakha, it's a bhakha, it's a bhakha. You should have a bhakha and be protected from the side effect, so to speak, the possible detrimental side effects of the very fact that one has a bhakha. Second verse, second pasuk, ye eir Hashem pannabe recha vihunnecha, where's the word vihunnecha mean? A very difficult word. The word is vihunnecha, the medrash, the mid-bhagaba, on this, on this pasuk has, I think, a dozen explanations for vihunnecha. It asks, but my vihunnecha, and then it is beh in our, in bed, in gimmo, a long list, it must be at least, at least a dozen. So I think it's possible that it can be twelve different explanations for the word vihunnecha. I think if there are twelve explanations in the medrash, what it means is that it doesn't mean any of them. I think what vihunnecha means is God will share himself with you. Lachon is different than latte, latte is to giv, so God can giv, but you couldn't just say and he will giv, you have to say what? So it could say, yiten lecha shalom, he will give you peace, or yiten lecha oshe, yiten lecha oshe, vihunnecha never appears in the Torah with a direct object. So we translate it as, well, grant, but in the pasuk has, and he will grant you, doesn't say what? I think what it means is not that he will give you something, but he will, he will be giving to you, he will giv of himself to you. We have an example of this in tafila, where we say, inshaAllah, say, we're talking about the vihunnecha, where we ask God to give us wisdom, as opposed to every other vihuncha, we ask for money and slihan and fuhu'a, etc. But by wisdom it says, atachon'en adamda'at, you grant man wisdom, hon'enum'e'itra, they abinavah scale. Grant us from within you, wisdom, because it doesn't know which God will create and give us, it's from within him. So therefore, usually vihunnecha appears without anything at all. So what is the madras talking about? The madras wants to know, how is that expressed? If God shares himself with us, what in the end do we have? And there, there are a lot of examples. It's bekhon'a, bitova, with simcha, there's a whole list of examples as to how it's expressed, because sharing God with himself, sharing God, sharing himself with us, will of course express himself in palpable things. And then for the madras says, bema, not what does he give, but what is it expressed with? Bema, with what is it expressed? And that's where you find twelve or more different ideas in the madras. Third verse. Yisah hasampanabe lecha veyas seim lecha shalom, yisah hasampanabe lecha literally means God will raise his face, raise his continents onto you. The expression la seit pannim in the Torah means something else. And the Gomara asked how this could possibly be said as a bhakr, la seit pannim means to show favoritism. So for instance, a judge is forbidden to la seit pannim. What's more about God specifically, it is stated that because he is a just judge, as lo yisah pannim, ve lo yi ka shalom, he will not show favoritism, he will not raise his face towards one of the two sides who were appearing before him and will not accept a bribe. There's a parallelism between la seit pannim and la ka ka shalom, to show favoritism is to take a bribe, which of course is forbidden. The Gomara expresses this as a question which the angels asked ta kalosh bahr, which means that's a very good question. The angels always ask questions which are objectively quite correct. Shalom alahre, shalom alahre, shalom alahre, yisah, la seit pannim is to say, "Why do you show your face, raise your face this way, when you've already said a shalom, you say you want, show favoritism to one side." So God gives a very interesting answer. He says, "How can I not show favoritism to Israel?" After all, in the Torah I wrote, the akhalta, the sabata, uve rahta. I wrote, this is the pasuc from which we say bakat amazon, benching. I said you should eat, you should be satiated and then you should make a bahra. So when does one have to say bakat amazon, when one eats a full meal? In the association, bisa vata, sviya. The haim, bakat kim, al atzman, al kizai, abhad kibetza, abhad dee, the Jews have accepted upon themselves and said bakat amazon for either kizai, abhad kibetza, two opinions in the gmabra, whether you say for an alvesworth or for an exworth that's a lot less than sviya. That's the answer. That's the answer. God says, "You're right, I shouldn't show favoritism, but okay, not show favoritism when the Jews have accepted upon themselves to be medactaik, to be strict upon themselves." They say bakat amazon even for amounts less than I told them. The Midrash itself is really strange. The point was that God shows favoritism to the Jews because they have humreut, a lot of other examples, all that didn't develop a nana bakhat shabat and in many other, almost every area. If you have an area where midrabanaan, you don't have extensions and additions to what the Torah says. What's the point of mention? So I think the answer is really obvious. First of all, it's bakat. God gives us a bakat of isapanim because we give him a bakat. That's somewhat too close. I think it's even deeper than that because what does it mean to make a bakat when you don't have to make it? When you make a bakat, you are creating shaime, God's name is in your mouth. The world is alienated from God. God is not in the world. But we bring God into the world by saying bakat. Mevahrim et Hashein. We bless God's name. It wasn't even the blessed God's name. You bless God's name by actually simply mentioning it and God's name is blessed in the sense that it's found, it exists, it becomes present within the world. So therefore, when you make bakat, God didn't command you to make a bakat, you're creating the basis for God's presence in the world. And I think that's what God says because otherwise you have a question. So what if God says they're nice to me, they're for nice to them? It's part of not to show favoritism, but lo yikach shaime. The judge always shows favoritism to the side which is being nice to him. Could a judge say, "How can natural favoritism after all they gave him money?" That would be lo yikach shaime. So what's God's answer? Well, they make bakat, they fight to show favoritism. But I think the answer is when you make a bakat, especially when you make extra bakat, you make bakat which God didn't command, but you felt unnecessary, hazathor was necessary, then you're the basis for God's presence in the world. So to that extent, that expression of God's presence, that manifestation of God, it's not favoritism anymore. You've made it, you're the chariot, so to speak, for the divine presence, it's called merka vadishrinah in a language of krazal. So to the extent that God is resting on you, on your mouth, on your bakat, how can he not show favoritism? It's not two neutral people who appear before him, Israel and the nations of the world. God is only here to judge because we are carrying him, so to speak, kaviyachal, the ha'vedil on our shoulders. So God said, "It's not favoritism to Israel, it's favoritism to myself. My presence in the world is the bakat that they make, and therefore it's not even a just question to ask why they should not be nisiat paniim." What I wanted to add is the following. Shabbat is the outside of a habihayim vadashana. I mentioned in the beginning, he dedicated it in the outside of one person, it's also the outside of a habihayim vadashana, the founder of the shivaam vadashana, the Talmud of the Dunagan. If habihayim asked about the madras, I just quoted about one word, God said that I told them to make a bakah, bahat, a savat, a dehraqtan, be haimidakt the kim al-at sman, adkazayat, adkabait sai. And they are strict on themselves even to a kazayat, even to a kabait sai, even to an al-uswet, even to an exweth. But Kaimas, why did they say, "The doctor kim al-at sman?" That they are strict and exacting on themselves. Shrutas said, "The doctor kim, adkazayat." They are exacting even on a al-uswet and not merely kaddaisviyya. So rahram gave the following answer, it's a very simple answer, very beautiful answer with an obvious lesson of mussah. rahram answered, "You know, what does it mean that you bench, you say bakatamazon over kazayat?" It's not that you say bakatamazon even though it's not a suda, it's not a meal. Because the fact is, you only do kazayat, if you eat less than a kazayat, you don't have a, you don't have bakatamazon, it's that the Jews decided that even a little bit of food is enough, is like sviyya, ajus samayr, ajus samayr, samayr kalkam. When we eat kazayi to kubitsa, we view that as being a suda, if I had more, I would eat more, but suppose I don't have more of them, not hungry now, whatever, you eat the smaller amount, but we view it as being a suda, God gave us the food and we're happy with God gives us. As though we've given us ajkudayi sviyya, we accept that we will be satiated with this little bit of antifood. So if that's the fact, he says, you know, they could have a side effect, a bad side effect. Suppose an ani, a poor person comes to my door, he's hungry, I have to feed him, I have to give him a suda, I'll say to him, you know, we Jews, we're very demanding, we're very exacting, I'll give him one kazayat, and I was worth a bed and say to him, this is what we call a suda, we call this a full meal. If that's what the Jews would do, that would not lead to God showing us favoritism, the fact that we, instead of giving an ani, a real meal, we give him one kazayat. But that's not what the Jews do, Medaktikim al-at-smam, ad-kazayat-ad-kabetsa, on themselves, they say kazayat is like a suda, for others, they say a suda is a full meal, for our courses. That's why God says, I show them favoritism, in other words, being magmio or being Medaktik in the language of this Midrash, being exacting, being strict, is a wonderful thing when it's al-at-smam, when it's on yourself, but you're not supposed to have these kind of humrat when you apply them to other people as well. We all know that there is a tendency sometimes for people to be magmio for others, and not for themselves. The favoritism of God to Israel was based on the fact that they on themselves are magmio or strict, but not on others. And if I can just conclude as to the, I think, the must of behind it, in this particular case, of course, it wouldn't be nice if you told the poor man, I think a suda is one kazayat. But how exactly would that pervert the idea that they were Medaktik on themselves were extremely forehand, that they had shaym shamayim in their mouths. They had God's name by making bhachat. No, it's immoral. So any immovality could ruin it, but I think it's deeper here. When you give only a little bit of food to the Ani, to the poor person, you're telling him that God has not provided enough for me to give you more. It's not just that you're not giving staka, you're being cheap on his expense. You're saying that, "That's all. What is bhachatamazan? It's bhachatavats. God gave us the good land, and we thank God for evits Israel, or for the land which has given us all this bountiful produce. It comes in Ani to me, and I say, "I'll give you a suda, but it's the minimum suda. It's one zaiya." I'm saying that God is cheap, not just that I'm cheap. Because bhachah is not in the world. If that's the way you be treating the Ani, God's bhachah is not in the world. You're doing the exact opposite of what you do when you make bhachatamazan on your own meal, and you're saying God's bhachah is in the world. It's the same action, eating a little bit, and viewing it as a suda. When I do it for myself, I'm saying, "I feel God's bhachah. I feel God's povenants. I feel God's bountifulness, even in one little kazaiya." When you give it somebody else, you're saying, "God doesn't have a lot to give us, so you have to eat only a little bit." But the main thing I want to say was of Hainesvat. You should be Medactik on yourself, then Shamshamayim is sanctified through you, and you merit a different attitude from God. You sappanim, God, looks upon you with favor. In Medactik on others, you have the exact opposite effect. And after today's havachayomit, we're getting very close to the Davening. Yesterday, we said, "Ashrei en abadatsiyyang," and then we come to Alainu. I'm Davenu Sakhashkin, as Alainu is the thingamit, the after-ubadatsiyyang. What is Alainu? Alainu was said at the end of Abitfila. The Gomor said that Alainu was originally written by Yahushua when he entered Ereti Suel. When they crossed from the desert into Ereti Suel, this is what Yahushua said, the prayer called Alainu. I think the reason why we say Alainu at the end of Davening is it's not actually part of Davening. Alainu is the prayer you say when you leave the house of Hashem, you leave God's pheasants to go into the world. When the Jews left the Medbah, we think of the Medbah as being a desert, but the way the Torah describes the Medbah, it's a desert, but it was God's desert. It was, you were in God's hands, the clouds of glory above you, you ate the man, everything was taken care of. You weren't living in the world, you were living in God's hands. Now they're entering Ereti Suel and they're going to have to build houses and plant vines and sit underneath the fig trees, they're going to have to work the land, they're entering the real world. They'll need a government, they'll need everything we can sit apart of the world. Yahushua's Phelal was to say Alainu. Alainu says, "We know the world first part is for the Bodazara, is for the idolatry, but we go with God's name. The second part, I think, is even more significant, Al-Kain de Kavelecha was saying, "We're going the world, but we want the world and we believe the world should and will look like we're just coming from." The world doesn't reflect the presence of God, but it will eventually let Akain Olam be malchut-shakai to correct, to fix, to build the world as the kingdom of God. Ahol be-nei-ba-sa yukabishmach and all mankind, all humanity, all flesh, will call out in God's name. And in order to enter the world, what's the head there? What's the permission? How can I leave Shul to enter the world? How can I leave God's presence to enter the world? The answer is because when we enter the world, it's with the hope, the prayer, and the mission to make the rest of the world reflect what we saw in Shul. And so in order to leave Shul, you have to say Alainu, Alainu is the permission to leave Shul. And that's why it's the end of every Davin. This explains the minag of not saying Alainu when you have two Phelal together. For instance, when you have the minag of together, or after Shahrith and Shabbat was followed by a Musaf, or Anyam Kippur, when you're in the presence of God all day, you never leave God's presence on Yam Kippur. So we don't say Alainu at all until the end of Davening, not after Shahrith, not after Musaf, and not after Minag. But Alainu isn't part of Davening, there are Shahrith and Musaf are two different Phelal. But Alainu is not there for the Phelal, it's there for going out the door. And that's why it's there at the end. In Nusach's part, it's said literally at the end, it's the last thing one says, which makes a lot of sense. In Nusachashkenaz, we say Shoshoyom afterwards. But I suspect that that's just an accident. Shoshoyom was added, it's also not part of Tfilah. It's said in memory of the Lavin, who said Shoshoyom, I think it defines the day rather than Tfilah. That's why it came out to be after Alainu. I think Musaf's part makes more sense, but Nusachashkenaz is really okay also, Alainu is still a very, very, very end. An interesting thing that's happened in Eretz Israel, in Nusachashkenaz, he did not say Encholokainu every day. The member already mentions that we don't say Encholokainu, he says the reason, it's a strange, he doesn't know why. He said you should say Encholokainu, specifically Peter Moktareth, and he gives a reason. Only Encholokainu is because during the week, people were very pressured to end up gathering in Russia to go work, and Peter Moktareth has to be said carefully, because you're reciting the ingredients of the incense of the ktareth, and there is a law that if you leave out, if the person making the incense would leave out one of the ingredients, he is Hayabmita, he incurs the death penalty, and by saying it is like making it, and we're afraid the member says that if you say it under pressure, however, you might leave something out, and that's as though you would be incurring the death penalty. Strange reason. That's what he says. Encholokainu, no one's any Russian Shabbat, if we only say Encholokainu, that's really the meaning of Encholokainu. In Eretz Israel, even in Nusachkenaz, we say it every day. The influence of the gra, who said, very nice reason the member is given, but it's not la-la-cha, and his influence took place in Eretz Israel, because of the year of the Tommy Deem of the gra, and everyone says Encholokainu in Eretz Israel. However, it's said after Alainu, it's said after even Shoshoyah. I think the reason is simply an accident, after Anshabbat in Nusachkenaz, you say Encholokainu and then Alainu, and during the week you say Alainu and then Encholokainu, there's no reason to explain it. What thing happened was that it was added, it was left out of the seat of Encholok, because the Encholok was not to say it, the grass that put it back, so they put it back at the end, and it got tacked on, and the tail end, if it came at the very, very last thing, then one says. But it should be said before Alainu, that's the papa, what Alainu should be last, only Shoshoyah in Nusachkenaz comes after Alainu. That's it for today. Wishing you Shabbat Shalom, you've been listening to KMTT, kimitsuyeon, tezeitora udvarashemigushelayim. The tower podcast of the Shabbat Shalachian, and you want to repeat our web address. If you're listening, you've probably been there, but remind you to give it to your friends. The address on the web is www.kimitsuyeon.org, that's kimitsuyeon, k-i-m-i-t-z-i-o-n.org. We also have a Hebrew broadcast, called keshit, which is found on the web at www.keshiton.org ill, that's keshiton, e-t-z-i-o-n.org.il/keshit, keshit stands for an Hebrew kol shidurayitora. And except for with one exception, four out of the five shuim and Hebrew are different than the ones in English. So if you can understand the sharing Hebrew when you have more time, you should be getting them both. So if we put both addresses into your part catcher, and you will automatically get not half an hour a day, but an hour a day of shuim. Why not? Sounds great to me. And tell your friends and spread the word, keshit is slowly, and KMT, it has slowly begun to grow every week to a few more people, but I admit I'm impatient, and I'd like to see hundreds more, because I think I think you can do it. And I think that there are people who would really want to hear about it. Koltur, Shabbat Shalom, will be back on Monday with the Shirah raftavari. The weekly mitzvah raftavari is on his very schedule. So next week's weekly mitzvah will be for Pashat Shlach. Until then, be bhi bhi khat, ha torah mitzion, kimitzion, te itzetah ra, ut varashem yu shalayim. [ Silence ]