KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Berachot #05
KMTT - Berachot #05, by Rav Ezra Bick
Wednesday, you'd have to see one and this is KMTT, Kimmitzi on today's show, I will be giving this is as a book, show on the second brahjo to the third brahjo to the other side, the agadha, for today's marriage we're going backwards slightly in the sakhat. The gomara and the afkimara with bed is referring to the fact that in the Mishnah, the first Mishnah of Bakhat, so different times having to do with the night I mentioned. Middle of the night, the end of the night, the beginning of the night, and there's a gomara which talks about how the night is divided up. There's some sort of metaphysical division of the night into either three parts or four parts, and in the context, the gomara quotes a pasucun t'ilim in t'ilim kufutet, where the vidamelach said, "Hatsalt Leylah a kum la hodot nach haa almish patei tse kar." The vidamelach inseper t'ilim says at midnight, "Hatsalt Leylah at midnight. I advise to praise you, to praise you God for the rules of your justice." So the vidamelach said, "They used to get up in the middle of the night, used to get up exactly at midnight." The gomara then questions whether or not that's true. The gomara says, "Vidavid bepala get the Leylah haa bekai." Is it true that the vidamelach would get up at midnight, at half, half the night? We know that he used to get up early in the evening. The gomara says in the same peric in kufutet. If you remember kufutet, it's the pericun t'ilim that has eight times the alafet. So the pasucut "Hatsalt Leylah a kum la hodot nach haa almish patei tse kar" is a het. This pasuc is a kuf. It's much further away, but it's still in the same peric. I would get up early. I would proceed in the neshef and I would pray. The gomara explains that the word neshef means the evening, the beginning of the evening. I'm going to skip how the gomara knows that. We're now facing a contradiction to the vidamelach get up at midnight. What did he arise early in the evening? The gomara gives two different answers. The first one, "Nabizaira ama" ad hatsalt Leylah aiyamit namm named kesus. From the early evening until midnight, he would doze like a horse. Mi kanda aiyamit kabir kabir kabhi. From that point on, from midnight in on, he would arise strong like a lion. What does it mean to doze like a horse? What do I say with Rashi says? Rashi says "Mitt namm named kesus" "Osek battara kesuhu mitt namm named." He would learn taller while dozing. It means he wasn't asleep. He wasn't sharp and 100% awake. In fact, he was in some sense learning Torah, like a horse who does never fall steep completely, but is dozing and awake at the same time. I'm not sure about the physical, biological basis for the statement, but Rashi has a picture of a horse standing up, not going to sleep entirely, half asleep, half awake, and that's what the man would do for the first half of the night, the second half of the night. "Mitt kabir kabir kabhi" he would be like a lion, awake, and and that's what he was He is going with Gabeir Kharri. "Rav ashi amar, adh katsaat lei lei haiya o seig vidivari torahmikan veidach mishirat vatush bahat." What you said, he in fact he got up the whole night. The first half of the night he would learn Torah. The second half of the night, shirat vatush bahat. Songs in praise. In other words, say for tealim. Okay, these are the two answers given in the Gomorrah for this question. The first answer is really very difficult to understand. What exactly is the Gomorrah trying to say? What's the point? If it was historically true, it would be interesting. But what is the Gomorrah trying to say that David Amelach divided nine into two parts? Half he, half dosed, half learned Torah. And then at midnight he would arise fresh, powerful like a lion. It's really hard to claim that I know the right answer to this question. I'm going to make a suggestion. It's rather associative and I think everyone is free to suggest something else. But I think what the Gomorrah is describing, the idea of being mittinam named Kisus as opposed to mitt kabir kali. At all, the Pasuk says that at midnight, David Amelach would get up to praise God for the rules of his justice. What are you doing the first half of the night? He wasn't active. To make a declaration, as he did at midnight, is to know exactly what you think, to get up and to state it. I praise God for his rules of justice. The first half of the night, David Amelach was, we would say, half conscious, half awake, both not so much I think the idea that he was resting, but that you really have to be deeply asleep, but rather he was sort of letting his mind float. And the idea being that David Amelach would bite the night or two, and the half he basically ingested. He meditated on God's justice. He meditated on the world. He meditated on Torah, as Rashi says. Not with a directed thought. I'm going to solve this problem, I'm going to say A, B, C, D, and E. But the bit of Amelach in his greatness, the bit of Amelach in the fact that he was, after all, the author of Sephatee Limb, but Khazal portrayed him as a Talmud Racham, as one who learns Torah. And I think what Khazal was saying is that that he was the regular Talmud Racham that we're used to. But the bit of Amelach learned Torah with his son. And therefore, he sort of combined the attributes of Sri Rabitava, of Song and Torah. And the combination was that he let his mind freely associate with in Torah. And then at Khazal, having done the half the night, he had indeed a conclusion. He wasn't merely floating along. And then he would get up and draw distinct conclusions about Mishpatate Zidkara, Mishpatate Zidkara, the rules of your justice means Torah. It's the rules of the Torah, the rules of Halacha. But he was able to praise Mishpatate Zidkara because he had a deep inner soul-based connection and not merely a conscious mental connection towards those rules. So Khazal here presenting a very, very special picture of the bit of Amelach, as what he doing is waking up. The bit is waking up. He's going to tell everybody else. And in his night hours, the bit of Amelach engaged in some sort of an open-consciousness relationship with Torah. Half dreaming, half asleep, half meditating, musing, drowsing, dosing, kesus. I'm not 100% sure of what this this similarly means. Like a horse, while she says never asleep, even when he's not fully awake. And then that created a difference which wasn't present at the end of the day. But now at midnight, he was able to praise the rules of God, the rules of justice, the laws of the Torah in a way that he couldn't have done earlier because these rules had somehow sunken into his consciousness, into his subconscious consciousness in a manner that wasn't true in the light of day. That's my suggestion for the first answer in the Gabbra. I'm really interested in the second answer to the Gabbra. The second answer is given by Rabbi Ashi. "Ama Rabbi Ashi, Rabbi Ashi, Ama, Adhrat Saut, Laidah, Yau, Seghbideh, Vrait Torah. Mikan, Vailach, Mashi, Rott, Patush, Bakhod. Rabbi Ashi said the first half of the night, he was learning Torah. The term "Oseghbideh, Vrait Torah" is one we're all familiar with when the bakhai means to learn. We make a bakhr on the morning, "Oseghbideh, Vrait Torah. Classic learning is, Oseghbideh, Vrait Torah. At midnight he would switch to, "Oseghbideh, Patush, Bakhod." The very matter switched to saying to Him in the second half of the night. And here we have a classic juxtaposition in Chazal of two personalities, of two ways of relating to God, which can be called Torah and Shira. What of Ashi said was that David Amedach split a night between the two of them. Midnight was the point where David metamorphist from the civil, intellectual Tamachacham to the poet, to the person who engaged, created, and saying, "Shirot Vraitushbahant." There's an interesting marriage found in the bakhai shidraba concerning yakobavinu. Yakobavinu, when he's getting ready to leave Aram, getting ready to leave his father-in-law, tells his wives, "Oseghbideh, how he had to work so hard, for lavan," and he goes up all night, taking care of the sheep. The matter says, "What did he do all night?" Yakobavinu is taking care of the sheep all night, but we know it's yakobavinu. What is he doing all night? And there are two opinions in the midrash. Very interesting. The matter says he's playing with these two people who got their opinions. Family, Sune, got it out of their own hearts. One opinion is, yakobavinu, what do you do all night? You learn Torah all night. What else does they, Tamachacham, do in the middle of the night? The night is wonderful. Great time for learning Torah. Yakobavinu stayed up all night, taking care of the sheep, who didn't really need much taking care of it. Basically, Yakobavishbahant has enormous amounts of time on his hands, and he was learning Torah. The second opinion says, "Tongue the middle of the night on the hills of Aram, the hills of Syria." What did Yakobavinu, excuse me, what did Yakobavinu do all night? He said, "Say for to you then." He was saying praise and song for God. In other words, you have two pictures in Hazal of a spiritual and ideal spiritual personality, especially when you talk about the middle of the night. During the daytime, one engages in all sorts of rational activities, but what does one do in the stillness of the night on a hill, outside of nowhere, a bunch of sheep and nobody else, the wind softly blowing in the hills through the trees? What does the ideal personality do when he's all alone with God? No lights, no other person, no humanity, no civilization. There are two pictures. I think there are two sages who are probably speaking about their own ideals. One says, "You learn Torah. You and God learn Bhakavuta." The other one says, "What does one do?" One sings the song of the song. One says, "Say for to you then." First half of the night he learned Torah. The second half of the night he said to you then, "If I may speculate, why is the order? Why is that the order?" So that's similar to the previous answer. First, one is rational, clear, cerebral, and intellectual. And that itself, the ingestion of Torah into one's personality, then comes out. It seeps into the soul, and then the second half of the night it's expressed in poetry, in song, in shirn, in tush pahot, in hallel, in zimrah, in saffatiilim. The Gomara, a few lines later, comes back to this question and expresses it somewhat differently. The Gomara wants to know how David Amelach got up exactly at midnight. There is a well-known, the Gomara is found here, it's a well-known Gomara, which many of us learned when we learned Shmoop the first time. Mosharabhenu tells Paro that approximately at midnight I'm going to come to kill all the firstborn in Egypt. When God does come, he comes, it says, "At midnight." So why did Mosharabhenu tell Paro, "Kiratzalt" about midnight? So the Gomara answers, because a human being can't be exact, and Mosharabh is afraid that Paro's watch will say five to twelve, and God will come because it would be exactly midnight, then Paro will say, "God can't tell time." So therefore, when dealing with people, you don't say exact times, but the Veremalach said they got up exactly at midnight, how was he able to get up exactly on time? The answer to the Gomara is the following. Mosharabh is saying, "We don't know what he knows exactly, it's a wind instrument, but for most of us in our minds, we see the hop." The Vere had a hop hanging over his bed. Kivanchi Giratzalt Leide at exactly midnight, Baruach Zafonit, Vinoshevitbo, the northern wind would come and blow over the kino, "Omen again me a elav," and it would play by itself. Miyada ya omeid wa osek batora achia a la amudashaha. Miyada ya de veremalach would get up and learn Torah until the break of dawn. Here again, I think you see the combination, although the water here is the opposite. David is going to get up at midnight and learn Torah according to this version of David's nighttime activities. He's going to learn Torah from midnight until the break of dawn. That's going to wake him up, he fell asleep, he had a busy day, he's exhausted, he's sleeping in bed. What's going to wake him up to learn Torah? Music, the sound of the kino being played by the northern wind blowing at midnight over the kino that's hanging over his bed as he sleeps. The order here is the opposite. The song goes into your ears, it's not David Amelach's song, it's the song of the night wind, it's the song of nature, it's the song of the outside world, it's the song of Ruach of spirituality, it's going into David's ears and in response, he is learning Torah. Both of these pictures that we just read are not as simple as the two opinions that I quoted before concerning Yakovina in the middle of the night. One opinion is that he learned Torah all night and one said he said to them all night. Here you have two pictures which are complicated, David Amelach is for Khazal, obviously the author of Sepatteelim, he who is known as Nihim Izmirot Israel, the sweet one of the song of Israel, but Khazal always insists that David Amelach was a great Tamatra. So David Amelach has both of these things running around in his soul, but nonetheless we have two different opinions which I think are in a much less extreme fashion, still the same two opinions. One says The Peter Amelach learns and that's expressed in song, and one says The Peter Amelach hears song and then expresses it in learning Torah. Does the Torah serve the ultimate purpose of the creation of Sepatteelim or the song of the world, the song of the wind, the song of the Ruach, the song of the night, is that serve the purpose of bringing out the Torah of David Amelach. We have two different opinions here, one places indeed song and Torah are combined, but there's a song serve the Torah, the Torah, or serve the song. This reminds me of it in Sanhedrin, where there's a dispute between Rab and Shawal, for whom was the world created? Which figure? In other words, who is the ideal spiritual person? One opinion is Mosheh, the world is created for Mosheh. Rashi immediately explains, Shenitna, Torah, Al-Yado, Mosheh is a Rabbeinu, Mosheh gave us the Torah. The second opinion is the David, Rashi understands immediately what it's talking about. The Imh is Myrot Israel, Mosheh Rabbeinu is the paradigm of Torah, David is the paradigm of Shira, and the Gomara has an argument between two, Amoraim, Rab and Shawal, who is the ideal of the world. Raviachan, and there, has a third opinion. Raviachan says, "Luvry alma elo leh, Mosheh, the world was created for a third character, the Mosheh." End of Gomara. Obviously, we all know how we're supposed to explain. It's the third opinion. The third opinion has has to mediate between the first two. So apparently, Raviachan is a combination of Torah, but very, very beautiful. I always thought, when you get to that point, you look at the people who are learning it, you say to them, and how do you understand this mediation, this combination of Masheach, of Torah and Vasheva? So obviously, there are two possibilities. And I'm sure there's going to be a controversy, not as extreme as Raviachan, but the same point. One will say, Masheachan's Tamat Krakamu can also sing. And one will say, "The Masheach is a Mishoreya who also can learn." And so we've softened the sharp, we've softened the edges of the dispute, but it continues. And that's the two things we have here, in terms of the bit of Malach, who's doing both at night, but how is he doing it? But this leads us to another question. What in fact does this come out indicated by the relationship between Tilym and Torah? It once saw someone, a Raviachan Yushalayim, who didn't understand, he thought there's a contradiction in the first half of the Gama'ana's second half. The first half of the Gama'ana said that David Amelach would learn Torah in the first half of the night. That's what Raviachan says. He learned Torah in the first half of the night, and he said to him in the second half of the night. But Amelah just quoted, Mabishim and Hasidah said, that when David Amelah got up at midnight, he then spent the best of night learning Torah. It's a contradiction. I have to admit, I don't think it's a contradiction. It's two opinions. That's how I explained it. But someone asked this question, and he tried to prove from this we see that Tilym is also Torah. There's no contradiction. He in fact said Tilym, but Tilym is learning Torah. And this leads us to a very, very famous medrash found in the medrash Tilym. The medrash is quoted by Vraim Balajana in the Nefeshahayim as part of his polemic against vidigiacity, pietism, taking the place of learning Torah. In other words, his pedemic against Hasidah. What does the medrash say? It's found in the 19th chapter of the Alkut Medrashantilim, on the Pasek Yewd al-Ratsan in Rafi. The vidah medrash said, "May the words on my mouth be acceptable. Meet with God's grace, Yewd al-Ratsan in Rafi." The medrash explains, "Tavirah medrash is praying. He's making the following request, shayayah sulydawat, that my words," obviously it means the words of Sayyidim. My words should remain for generations, vie haqakundidawat, and they should be engraved for generations. Vahal yew korimbahem, korimba sifrei, homelos. People should not read to him the way they read a different poet, Homer, the Greek poet Homer. But what should they do? Yew korimbahem, they should read it verhogindbahem, and engage themselves. Rehagot be de verhay Torah is an expression in Khazar, to muse and to hover over these words. Vinot lin sahah al-Aihan kina gahimba al-Ratan, they should, the people who are doing this should receive a reward, like one who is engaged in nina gahimba al-Rat. Nina gahimba al-Rat, or tum-a-sah-tot-in-say-de-tarat, nina gahimba al-Ratan, it's fair to say, rather obscure, technical, very un-spiritual, nina gahim deals with leprosy, deals with swords on a body, and all that deals with dead bodies, with the tum-a, that comes with death. Now, verhayim in a famous comment, verhayimba al-Ratan's famous comment, said the father, said, first of all, you see the Deborah Malach is saying, hala-vah, he's praying, they say pataylim, the most deepest, most spiritual, most religiously uplifting of books that was ever written, should be like, should be the equivalent of, to the driest misech-tot-in-shas. So, first of all, haramsa, you see, you see the basic framework here, ta-wa is ta-wa, and the verhayimba al-Ratan is trying to get the grandest of religious visions to be the equivalent of nina gahimba al-Rat. And you know what, we don't see that God granted his request. What Ahai was trying to prove is that ta-ilim, for all of its content, for all of the rat-shamayim that's found in it, for all of the emotions, for all of the soul that's inherent in every word of sappati-ilim, doesn't, in fact, become the equivalent of even the driest, most apparently non-spiritual, non-religiously motivated misech-tot-of-tombot-ta-wa. That was the verhayimba al-Ratan's comment. The question I asked before, how we, do we understand the contradiction, the gamawah was answered by the sappati-bikurei arats, a book written on misech-t, burech-hot by saying, the opposite. You see, the davana mal-Ratan will not sappati-ilim, he asked that it be the equivalent of nina-gimba al-Ratan. And apparently it is the equivalent of nina-gimba al-Rat, because we all said, "Okay?" And that's why the verhayimba al-Ratan understood it, that's why he said, "People should read it and also be hoegebo." If he just reads sappati-ilim, then you sing the song, but no, people should learn sappati-ilim, but learning sappati-ilim should be like learning nina-galimba al-Ratan. So in all honesty, I think that the, what I was learning says the opposite, because if in fact, learning sappati-ilim is like learning tara, then why the verhayimba al-Ratan, is with the nina-galimba al-Ratan. What's the difference between learning tara in the first half of the night and shilimba al-Ratan. In the second half of the night, the very expression indicates that verhayimba al-Ratan divided his nine to two very different activities. And as I've tried to say before, I think Chazal in general speak of two different personalities, two different kinds of relationships. One is through the mind and it's called tara, and one is through the soul and it's called te-ilim shirah, vatish bahot. The truth is that verhayim, in a state of an official hyahim when he quotes this madras, he quotes it in a different language. I don't know if he had a different version. I was never able to trace the exact source of the madras she's quoting. I think he simply was quoting it by heart, and therefore he changed, he changes the language and he says that verhayimba al-Ratan asked of God that in God's eyes, he who says te-ilim should be like one who engages in the game verhayimba al-Rat, and then verhayim says God didn't say yes. The truth is our version of the madras, I think, is even clearer. What the bit of madras asked was that people should receive a reward for te-ilim like nagayimba al-Rat. I don't think he even imagined that it would be the same thing, if it's the same thing, then of course they would get the reward. He wondered then that God should also consider also favour people for whom this is their derhayim just as he favours those whose path in life is through Torah. Any firm crime is right, even that, denies even a firm advance, so be it, but it could be even a firm advance. In terms of the sachah, there are two ways to God, this has all say many, many times. There are two ways to serve God derhayim, derhayim, derhayim, and derhayim, and derhayimba. I have to admit that it's important that I say this, the thing I've just said now and I'm going to continue it for a few more minutes, is very controversial. I've never met anybody who agrees with me about what I'm saying, and I want you to know that. No one should imagine what I'm saying now is simple. For 30 years I've been saying this often on in the ishiva, and everyone who I've ever imagined it to has told me that I'm wrong, including Pabluchenstein, including Darshay Ishiva, but nonetheless I think it's a simple chart of what we just read. The hilim, expressing yourself to God, is not Torah. It's very, very important. It's abodata-shem, but it's a different kind of abodata-shem than Torah. That precisely was Raphayim's argument with Hasidud, and it's quite clear from the story of the bitamelach, I think, in my opinion, that that's what Khazan thought as well, without any way denigrating, say for Thilim. Say for Thilim is David's accomplishment, but David divides his day into two, and the interesting relationship we saw before, as to what happens, how do the two of them interact? Does learning Torah express itself later on in Shira, or does a connection to Shira express itself in Midgabelka-arine, jumping up a Goliath and learning Torah? That's an interesting question. You have two different parts of the human personality, which are interacting, and expressing, one is expressing itself in the end through the other. Nonetheless, I think Hazal kept the two of them very, very separate. There is a simple, nafcamin, a distinction, halachalam, ish. The mitzv of Tamut-tara, you make a block in the morning, the asap with the Vay-tara. When you make that, you learn Torah afterwards. You don't make that before saying Thilim. He who goes out into the middle of the night in the forest, in order to commune with the Khadish-Bakhul to let his soul spill out in the glories of God, shouldn't that be making a block out of the asap with the Vay-tara before he does this? Thilim is the outpouring of the soul, Tamut-tara is the activity of the mind, both of them connect to God. Thilim is the outpouring of the soul, Tamut-tara is the activity of the mind, both of them connect to God. Thilim is the outpouring of the soul, Tamut-tara is the activity of the mind, both of them connect to God. Thilim is over the keynote of David, it plays by itself, enters David's subconscious mind, whether he is being named Qasus, or whether he is sleeping, but enters into his ears and becomes part of his personality and later on is expressed in the glories saver, saver Thilim, nim zmirot, nim zmirot Israel. The Gamaa states concerning a different kind of shiva, rina, mina means song, but apparently a little bit different than the word shir, kumirani valayla, the rosh ashborat, and the V yumiyau said, arise and engage in rina, sing out in the middle of the night, and the Gamaa says, ain rina elitara, the word vina means tova, apparently a different kind of tova than regular tova, it's the tova of the night, ain rina elitara, the tova that one learns in the stillness of the night, it's tova, but it has a song aspect to it, it's another attempt to somehow combine it to, only if you understand it to a different, and you see how Khazar was trying to combine it to, it's not identical, but there's something called rina shaltara, an intellectual activity in the middle of the night, which the soul is engaged in, in a manner that perhaps is different in the Torah of the daytime, kumirani valayla, the rosh ashborat, shif rina, mina elitara, nim zibir, nocha, kumirani elitara, pour out your soul before the presence of akadosh bohokhu. And now for today's havaha'i yomit, we're still in tachlanan, on Mondays and Thursdays is a long tachlanan, but eventually you get to the core of tachlanan, the core of tachlan is the part in the sitar it says, nafilat apayim, as I mentioned two days ago, the vambam defines tachlan as being hishtach havaya, prostration, there is a bit however, a halachic problem with prostration, the mother says that it's forbidden to prostrate oneself on stone, medioraita, this prohibition means one is completely prostrate, peashut yadaimer aglayem, hands and feet out on a stone floor and face down to the floor, there is a dispute among the bishan, what is asumid wa bannan, how many of those conditions, I just mentioned three conditions, completely prostrate, face to the floor and stone, can you eliminate and there should still be a prohibition medwa bannan, for this reason when saying tachlanan, you avoid all three, you don't flatten yourself out, you tilt to one side so your face is not directly facing the floor and three, something should be between you and the stone, so you should cover your face with cloth or if you don't have a stone and perhaps it won't be necessary on a table or on a rug, but if it's a stone floor then you should make sure that your face is also covered by a garment, talit or sleep or something like that, some you should not think you don't have to eliminate all three and they would settle for eliminating only two out of the three, but what that means is that tachlanan ne filat apayim falling on one's face is done in a limited manner to avoid the prohibition of outside of the matamiktash being totally prostrate before God, but nonetheless that's what it symbolizes, in filat apayim tachlanan is, yes, bowing down, prostrating what's up before God in a manner which doesn't involve a prohibition, despite this statement, this chris statement in the rambam and the language used by many of you showing them calling tachlanan, in filat apayim, there are in fact menagim not to do in filat apayim for tachlanan, most svaradim, following the rambir, do not do in filat apayim, the isr, the prohibition of falling on one's face out of the bait miktash with svaradim that they eliminated the filat apayim in tachlan completely, there are different menagim in ashkenaz, some people don't do it only when there's a shul and a sephatara present, many people following the rambam's lead will always do in filat apayim in one manner, in kennen, a somewhat stylized manner, even where there is no sephatara, it's an interesting point because, again, according to the rambam in many of you showing them, that's what tachlanan consists of, the rambam doesn't say sephataraan after svaradim, he says duhash tachavaya, after svaradim, well as svaradim, it's the bow down and sephataraan, it's called hishtachavaya, but again, as I pointed out, there is this prohibition in the background and it is led to a situation whereby, in some manner again, this part of tachlanan has been eliminated. So again, just to sum up this particular point, the hulachum of mothers and Thursdays is said standing because of an ancient tradition, that's how it should be done and tachlanan is either set sitting or leaning on one side, on one arm and covering one's face for the actual part of nephlata pine, which is, in al-minagim today, one of two trachim that are taken from tehilim, one peck is commonly said in ashkenaz, one peck is commonly said in the svarad, in the svarad, there is a dispute as to if one leans to one side to which side should one lean. The common minag among ashkenazim is to lean on the right side. However, that is in the morning, the real minag is to lean on the left side, which would be the right side of God. But if you're wearing tachlanan on your right arm, it's not proper, some machronan thought it wasn't proper, to lean one's head, best one head on the tachlanan, and therefore, in chacharit, they lean on the right, and in l'chad, they lean on the left. Other possible thought, there's no problem leaning on the tachlanan, and other possible thought that you should always do it on the right. So there are, in fact, three different opinions, the common ashkenazim is to lean on the right in chacharit, and on the left in mincha. In principle, the most important thing is to lean to one's side, in order to do one more step to avoid the issoo de orata of falling flat, face towards the ground outside the Vedamic dash. Once you're leaning on one's side, it's not that big a difference, it's more of a hint as to which side is better, partially capitalistic reasons, and partially kneeling an extra hint at which is the more appropriate side to lean, so it doesn't make that much of a difference, and therefore, basically, whoever you want, but this is the mincha game, is what I mentioned before, and the common mincha ganazim is right in the morning, left at mincha. Since I mentioned it, I just wish to reiterate, there's absolutely no reason not to say tachlanan et mincha, just as at chacharit, I know there is some sort of a minute not to do that, I think it arose, I don't know when it arose, but it's against all the postkim, tachlanan is, I said, an important part of post schmaness re-davening, and it said both at mincha and et chacharit, but not at a mare. And that's it for today, you've been listening to KMTT, the Wednesday shear on the second brachot, hada hababa bagada, as well as hada hai yomit, this is, as we've been wishing you koltuv, we'll be back tomorrow, with the shyum in poshata shavua, for poshata nassau, and until then, koltuv, enjoy your learning, enjoy your day, have regular times for learning, whether it was with KMTT or in any other place. Wibokat, hato rah, mitzian. This has been KMTT, toggle podcast of the shivat arachian, kimitzian, tezeitorah, ud varashhem mirushalaim. [BLANK_AUDIO]