KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - The Weekly Mitzva Beha'alotekha
KMTT - The Weekly Mitzva Beha'alotekha, by Rav Binyamin Tabory
KMTT. Kimi Tziont et cetera. And today is Monday. TET. Sivan. Today's share is the share of our Benjamin Tovoy, the weekly Mitzvah, for Pashat Baralotra. We don't actually read Pashat Baralotra in the Hutslavis this week. We read Pashat Baralotra in Eretesvah this week. We are following for the purposes of this year. We are following the schedule of Eretesvah, which is the schedule of Aftaboy. And therefore he prepares the share on the Pashat. Within a couple of weeks, Pashat Hukat, Eretesvah and Hutslavis will be saying the same Pashat. After the sure, I'll be back with the Alahayomit. The end of Harshat Baralotra, we have the story of Miriam and Aaron, who spoke Adot-eishah Bimoshek. They spoke somehow Bimoshek, Adot-eishah Kushitah Shalakah. In regard to the women's Kushits, there was a great makhlok at the Mandevishanim exactly to whom this is referring. It is referring to Sepulro referring to another wife. In any case, they spoke, apparently Miriam spoke before Mosheb, before Aaron, but to the Bim Miryamba, Aaron the Mosheb. And therefore, Vittorah tells us that Hakodish Baralot called them all three of them, Moshe Aaron and Miryam, spoke to them, then he spoke to Aaron and Miryam separately. And he told them how dare you speak about Mosheb, who is unlike any other Navi. The Torah enumerates the special characteristics of Mosheb, which are different than the other Navi. And Ba'isar Afashem Bama, Kaddis Baralot, appears very, very angry, leaves, punishes Miryam with leprosy, Aaron intervenes and pleads with Mosheb to intervene on Miryam's behalf. When Mosheb does, Miryam is to be punished, but at the end, she is going to be reunited with the nation. Exactly what the sin was that Miryam and Aaron did, it's traditional to assume that they spoke Lushan Hara about Mosheb, except before the nature of the Lushanar, exactly what they said, is a controversy among the Rishanim, Rashi the Ramban, the Meso, all the different infarishing have different ideas, exactly what they said. But they did speak, apparently, some sort of Lushan Hara, in fact, some of the laws of Lushan Hara and some of the details of Lushan Hara are derived from this incident. The Ramban in Hilchos tumas seraas, at the end of the section which deals with the laws of leprosy, the Ramban says, "Al yanzen las yibba tora," this whole issue is warned about the natura. Ramban, risham el benegat seraat, be careful about negat seraat, what do you have to be careful about this issue of leprosy? We translate seraat as leprosy, I don't know if it's exactly leprosy, but we'll use the word leprosy. The Torah tells us to be careful of the negat seraas, and apparently, the Ramban thinks this isur, or this admonition of his shaam el benegat seraas, be careful of negat seraas, refers to adherence to the laws of Lushan Haraat. And then the Ramban continues, "zachol eta shara sasham al-kassum bi-yamba-dara," one of the six plays in the Torah, where it uses the word "zachol" to remember, is to remember what Akar is brought to the Tamuriam, apparently. According to the Ramban, it means to remember the laws of misaras, what costs aras, blas al-hara, and therefore it seems to be a misa. According to Ramban, it really might be, a misaat should be counted among the Mignonah misas. According to the Ramban, it seems to be an admonition, but it's not counted among the misaat of the misas. And then the Ramban goes on to say what we would consider a "mushashm," the Ramban, the old discussion on "mushas," the Ramban says, "Harei alonah," it says in the Torah, "his bonanul mayir al-imiri yamannaviyyah." Would like you to reflect, "bina," his bonanul, "think." What happened to Miriam the Prophet, "Shidibraba ahi ashi-gidulamim, enubishanim," she spoke about a brother, and she's actually older than he. This might imply that there is some sort of a didn't, that "mushas" should respect her. But more than that, the Ramban says, "Gidlao-to-a-dil-kia," Miriam actually raised "mushan." "The sikna-bat smalat-sil-a-manayam," she endangered herself to save his life. "The lo-di-bla-di-gu-nuto," the Ramban says that Miriam did not actually speak to denigrate Moshe. "El-at-at-at-at," but she made a mistake. "She is vittel-to-lish-an-yaviyim." She compared him to any other nothing. "Vul-lawy-a-mak-pit al-kol-a-louat-ad-varim." And Moshe himself wasn't different to these things. He did not care. "Shinem-a-vish-mushan-a-moth-the-a-pihang," even though we know that Moshe was so modest, Miriam really made a mistake. "Aphat-a-pihang," despite all the mitigating circumstances, Miriam and Shabbat Sarah, she herself received the punishment of laparice. "Kab-a-kom-a-liz-ne-ad-a-m-hah-r-shayim-a-tipp-shim." Very strong language for the Ramban. "Aphorti-a-ri" would be for any people who are evil, "Rash-ayim-tipp-shim-t," who are foolish. "Shinem-a-vim-a-dul-a-bihl-dul-a-louat-vinn-a-slawat," who speak hearty language. "L'afir-sah-ra-ul-a-mish-i-a-sil-a-habir-n-o-habir-n-o-habir-liz-a-habir-liz-a-habir-liz-a-tayim-a-tayim-a-tayim-a-tayim-a-liz-a-pihang." Anybody who wants to mind his own demeanor should move away from their assembling, whom in the very moment should not speak to them, because they should not be somehow caught up with the group of people who are evil and foolish. When the Ramban said that Miriam did not really speak about the vinut of Moshe, what did she really do? So the Ramban says, "Tah-ta," she made a mistake. She was totally shunned the vin. She compared him to the other in the vin. This, on one hand, raises a very interesting problem. The Ramban, in the end of the time, in the Mesakosanhedrin, in his parish, in Shtayis, the Ramban wrote the Ikari Amuna. As is well known, the Ramban developed the 13 principles of faith and is said that anyone who doesn't believe in his principles is basically an Ikari. It's the person who removes himself from Qayis there. Among these 13 principles, there is a principle that one should believe in prophecy. One should believe in the vua in general. But there is a specific principle beside the principle of believing in prophecy in general, the Ramban says that there is a specific principle. Another you saw, another shawish, another Ikari in the Ramban, is not only to believe in prophecy in general, but to believe in the prophecy of Moshe, Abenu, Adonah Naveem. The Ramban in the seventh principle of faith. The Ramban says, "We should believe that who a vian shall call a Naveem, shall he will have found up." He somehow, the father, the forerunner of old Naveem, both those that came before him, Vashekamomakhara, and those that came after him, Kulaamintaktabimalah. All of them were below him in stature. Vulayana Yisrami Komenadam. He was the chosen of the entire human species. The Ramban says, "Enumerates the four characteristics of Moshe that are different than any other Naveem." For example, what we just are going to read in this pasha, "Pail, pail, pail, dabbebo." I'll speak to Moshe as it were face-to-face, mouth-to-mouth. Moshe's vision is in the daytime rather than when Naveem is asleep. It says, "En yen vi'a hem lo khan ab di Moshe pail, pail, dabbebo, dabbe lo dashe doto, tumna tashem yabit." So the Ramban says, "Anybody who doesn't believe in this is actually a caucer. It's actually an apicos, a person who is a heretic, renounces the basic principles of Judaism. The Ramban has, as we said before, 13 principles of faith. One of them is to believe in the incorporiality of God. The Ramban has no body, no kala gus, no gus, no qua ha gus. Anything that's mentioned in Torah about the hands, face of God is only in the Ramban anthropomorphism to use the language of human speech in order for us to understand things that otherwise we simply could not comprehend. It's well known that the Ramban, or not Ramban, says that there are many people gudolimbar abi mienenu. Many people, the actual text in the Ramban in the Ramban is well known, that it's not so simple. It's gudolimbar abi mienenu me. I mean, what it means exactly. The Rambans simply said there are people who believed in anthropomorphism. But moreover, the Rambans said that there were people who were very innocent, who went to learn chumish as simple Jews, and they read the words of the Torah and the Torah itself confused them. The Rambans seems to think that never the person who really is a good person, he went to shul, he goes here to Torah, and he's very simple. He did not learn in Yeshivas, he did not have a great education. Internet was not developed yet. How could he know the truth about shat, the little meaning of chumish, except for what he understood, and therefore, why should he be considered a heretic simply because he did not learn properly? He made a mistake. The answer the explanation, given in the name of Aprayim, was said very succinctly in Yiddish. He said, "An apikaiyas nebuhr, is achitin apikaiyas." A person who nebuhr, I feel sorry for him, he's an apikaiyas. But the bottom line is, he is an apikaiyas. In other words, in the concept of mishos in general, when we do mishos, or rather, when a person does not have aera. So there are different ways of transgressing a mitzvah, doing an aera. A person could do it amazingly, could do it intentionally, could do it the onus bay. Accidentally, or by force, could do it the shogig. The shogig means unintentionally. So in the different aera, from different laws of the Torah, the different sins of the Torah, we could distinguish between shogig and mazes and onus. The kind seems to have felt that in the questions of belief in Judaism, there's no such concept of shogig. A person either believes or doesn't believe. Why he doesn't believe is irrelevant in order to grant him, in order to label him an apikaiyas. So when the Ramam said, "A person doesn't believe in the incorporeality of God, is an apikaiyas," he simply means to categorize him as an apikaiyas. We're not even assigning blame to the person, but we're just saying the fact is he's an apikaiyas. The only domestication of this might be how would we treat an apikaiyas? It could be that an apikaiyas should not be dealt with at all. Perhaps we should somehow try to ostracize or even do some sort of worse damage to an apikaiyas in order to prevent his teaching the wrong ideas, the wrong issues to be made to help. So these laws might apply to an apikaiyas who is a apikaiyas intentionally. But an apikaiyas, I intentionally, maybe these laws don't apply to him, but that doesn't mean that he's not an apikaiyas. This, of course, raises another issue that, for our purposes, is extremely difficult. What was really what Miriam did, according to the Ramban, ta'ata? She made a mistake. What was the mistake? That she equated Moshe with only the imp. That itself is a direct clash with the Ramam's principle that we must believe that Moshe's nazula, Moshe's prophecy, is different than any other nothing. And the person who believes in prophecy in general, but somehow equates them, as Miriam obviously did, whatever Miriam said exactly, as I said before, is a controversy among the Bishonim. But here, the Torah says "di'brahba Moshe, and her statement that's recording the Torah's harak, arba Moshe, "di'brahshe, is it only Moshe to whom God spoke? Hello Gambano-di'brah, because this boy who spoke thus as well. It seems to be that she equated her prophecy, perhaps Ireland's prophecy, our Gambano-di'brah, with the prophecy of Moshe-Abeinu. According to the Ramban, not only is this some sort of Lushnhar, which we'll discuss soon, but it's also a problem of kfiras, actually heresy to say such a thing. The Ghannan Vastaman is the one, the first one that I know that pointed out this issue. And in his little safer, Kavitz-Nammariam, he says that the principles of Judaism are only principles once they become enumerated. It's not that the principles of Judaism preceded the Torah. We believe, for example, that the Torah preceded the world. But in the chronology of the giving of the Torah, according to the Ghannan, they did not become incarnate, so they were so stated. So actually when Miriam spoke to complain that Moshe-Navu was greater than anyone else, this was actually before Akhajbrah, who defined the navuah of Moshe as being unique. Before when she spoke, indeed, Moshe's navuah was unique, but it wasn't established as a principle of Judaism. And therefore, a person at that time who would deny the uniqueness of Moshe-Navu would be doing something wrong would not be right, because it should have been obvious to everyone that Moshe's navuah was unique. But at that point, it was not the foundation of Jewish belief that the Ramam later enumerated. It was only in the reply to Miriam when Akhajbrah, who actually said, "The words lo-hang-as-dimosh" had the whole basic namma, "No, Moshe is different. Moshe is one of a kind." "Pah-ta-da-de-bo." All the explanations of what made Moshe unique was only given after Miriam, or during this incident with Miriam. Therefore, what Miriam said was not really clear of God forbid. It was not a heresy, but it was the navayra of Leshe-Nhara. What was the Leshe-Nhara? According to the Ramam, lo did Rabbi Ginoso. It's not that she spoke to denigrate Moshe-Ravain. But she did equate him with other museums. Is that itself Leshe-Nhara? The fact that she said Moshe-Ravain. She said a true fact. In her mind, Moshe-Ravain was the same as anybody else's. According to the Ramam and simple reading of the Ramam, this is self-constitution to Leshe-Nhara. According to the other, it could be that what they spoke about Moshe-Ravain was the fact that he did leave his wife. It didn't leave his wife. He took a different wife. All the other issues that might have arisen. But according to the Ramam, it seems that the loshnaar itself, the tau-chish, the tau-tau-dushan-naviyim, and the Ramam goes on to say more than that. Vrul lohayamakpit. Apparently, the Ramam thinks the reason the Torah in context of the story with Miriam, the Torah added vish, Moshe-Ravnod, Moshe's extremely modest, to imply that Moshe himself totally ignored what Miriam said. It did not serve him in the least. And Moshe perhaps really thought at that time that he was not unique. He was the same as Miriam. Maybe the principle that we said is going to be explained later. Even to Moshe, it wasn't that clear. But Yish Moshe-Ravnod, Moshe himself was so modest, he simply did not take notice, did not mind at all what Miriam said. The Torah then goes on to tell us that Moshe-Ravn turns to Moshe and says that to me seems quite enigmatic. Biyadoni, we would translate that as please. Al-Nata Shaita-Linuchetat. Don't place the sin upon us. In the translation of Yishim Shaita-Ravnod, Yishim Shaita-Linuchetat. In the translation of Yishim Shaita-Ravnod, Yishim Shaita-Linuchetat. As the great sin of we are thoughtlessly done and Miriam we have sinned. Do not reckon unto us. Do not consider this a terrible sin. It's in a way, this seems to be a form of asking Moshe-Ravnod, some sort of asking for forgiveness for Moshe-Ravnod. And perhaps to lessen the severity of the Azaira. According to the translation, don't consider the great sin. We did it thoughtlessly. We did not mean to do what seems such a severe Azaira. So it could be that this is a form of asking Moshe-Ravnod, which of course raises the issue of asking Moshe-Ravnod in general for any Azaira bin-o-da-mahavaro. We know from the Ram-a-man-hir-shuva that generally a mis-o-bin-o-da-mahavaro will any Azaira between one person and his fellow man will not be forgiven until the person asks him for forgiveness. And this law is learned from various sources of Natura. If you should, when the Azaira was told to return the wife of Azram, and ask him to dive in for you, ask him to dive in for you implies that you should appease and make up with him and tell him to actually to pray for you, to interfere with that kind of sparkle in your bath. By Lushnara, a person who would speak Lushnara, it would seem the same way, we should seem obvious, that a person that spoke Lushnara about someone else should ask Moshe-Ravnod. However, there might be a difference in the case of Lushnara as opposed to other types of Azaira. In, for example, if a person stole from somebody, it's obvious that the person who stole is blocking the money that he had, and therefore, he should obviously return the money to him, and when he returned the money, he should ask Moshe-Ravnod. The problem with asking Michaela from somebody from whom he stole from Lushnara could be a very severe moral issue. When a person heard smoke Lushnara about someone else, and then goes to that person, "By the way, I spoke badly about you. I spoke to so-and-so, and I said such bad things." Actually, when you tell him that, you are hurting his feelings. If the person did not know that you spoke Lushnara about him, so informing him of such a thing, informing him that you did speak Lushnara about him would actually cause him more anguish. Is that correct? Is that the proper thing to do? The Shari Chuva of Rabinerona says that even in the case of Lushnara, a person should go and speak to the person about whom he spoke and ask Moshe-Ravnod. There's a well-known story that Rabin-Sallabhic told us about the Khafikskheim. Whenever we talk about Lushnara, it's obvious that the Khafikskheim is the Roshamadabhian. The Khafikskheim is the main source of the laws of Lushnara today. He wrote this magnificent work about what, about Lushnara, calling it the Khafikskheim. And, when he first was about to print it, he went to the Gedoldum of his generation and asked them for us to come on the safer. He went to Rabbi Srel Solanter, and he asked Rabbi Srel Solanter if he would write us to come on the safer. Rabbi Srel Solanter said, "I can't give you Askama until I read the manuscript. If I agree with what it said in the manuscript, then I'll be happy to give you an approbation Askama." After a while, the Khafikheim came to the house of Rabbi Srel Solanter. He had left him the manuscript, and he asked him if he's now prepared to give the Askama. Rabbi Srel Solanter said he read the entire safer, and it's a wonderful safer. He approves of everything in the safer, but there's one thing that he disagrees with. And he says, "It cannot be that a person about whom you spoke Laxanara should be approached and said, and you should say to him that you spoke Laxanara, because this will only cause him more pain, more anguish." Rabbi Srel Solanter suggested to the Khafikheim that he omit this piece from the book, change his plaque in this particular issue, and then Rabbi Srel Solanter would write him a letter of approbation. The Khafikheim answered that everything I think, that everything that he wrote in the book, he had a direct source for. And the source for this halakai called, he mentioned the name of the Khafikheim, in the name of the Shari Chubha, of Rabaniyana, where Rabaniyana says clearly, "A person who spoke Laxanara about someone else should approach that person and ask Makhila from him." So if you saw Solanter said, "That must be in the case." When a person knows that there was Laxanara spoken about him, he doesn't know who spoke Laxanara. And therefore, you should go to him and ask him Makhila. But if you don't know at all that anyone spoke Laxanara about him, then Rabbi Srel Solanter saw that not only should you not ask Makhila, but even the Shari Chubha even Rabaniyana himself did not think you should ask Makhila in such a case. He said, "In that case, the pain of the person who would be wounded by telling him that you spoke about him would be greater than the concept of asking Makhila and therefore you shouldn't do it." Even though the Khafikheim said that the simple reading of the Laxanara, of the Rabaniyana, the words of the Rabaniyana imply the interpretation of the Khafikheim, is that really you should ask Makhila. But Rabbi Srel Solanter thought it would be impossible to assume such a position. And therefore, he could not write his Haskama in this book. Byron added that the Khafikheim suggested to Rabbi Srel Solanter that he would like him still to write Haskama, and write him Haskama that he disagrees with this particular sack. And apparently Rabbi Srel Solanter's answer was that once his name appears among the people who give Haskama, he assumed that most people would not read Haskama directly. They would just assume Rabbi Srel Solanter wrote a general approbation, a general Haskama to say. He would be therefore misleading people, and therefore he felt that he should not write Haskama because he disagreed with one particular issue of the Khafikheim. And he felt that it wouldn't be a type of a listener, either. He would be tricking people by saying you approve of the Safer when there was one particular Allah, and that's Safer, that you did not agree with. And even if you wrote a Catholic emperor, and even if you wrote, and know to say that you disagree with one sack of the whole book, he felt it still would be wrong to write Haskama. In our case, when Aaron spoke to Moshe and did have some sort of Moshela, this is not one of the issues that would be raised by the Khafikheim, because the story that Miriam told may have been told directly to Moshe. In the Torah itself, it's unclear whether it was said to Moshe, or about Moshe. This Torah says that the Dabir, Aaron, the Moshe bin Miriam, bin Miriam might be about Miriam. About Moshe. It does not necessarily mean that Moshe was there, but when it says hello, Gambano di Beri spoke about to us, maybe the us could include only Aaron and Miriam and Moshe wasn't there, but perhaps it could be there to Moshe directly. In fact, if we would interpret, as some Rishonim explained, that Miriam was implying that Moshe should remain as husband in full sense of the word to Sephora. According to some interpretations, Moshe abandoned living with Sephora as a husband, and Miriam apparently felt this was improper. If that would be true, the presumption is she told directly to Moshe. So Moshe did know about this particular piece of Lushina. But moreover, in the Torah itself, it could as well call them out. And it could as well who said, "El Moshevela un del Miriam, sush lost the camel and one Moshe could as well call them all out." And then he spoke somehow more directly to Aaron and Miriam, but apparently Moshe did know of the Lushina heart that was spoken about him, and therefore we could not infer from this particular parasha, that you should ask Moshela from the person about whom you spoke Lushinaara. The main issues that we have discussed are exactly what was the nature of the rate of Miriam. With Miriam's rate really just Lushinaara, it seems from the story itself that it could be that Miriam denied one of the 13 principles of the Ramban, got a bit to say that Miriam somehow espoused some form of heresy. We explain that according to Abraham, the question of this question was actually raised by him, but the answer that he gave is that Miriam, at the time that she said that there was nothing inherently he rhetoric about this particular issue. He couldn't as well who had not defined the nature of the Lushina, unless you have been with being unique, until this incident happened. And therefore what she said wasn't really heresy. On the other hand, there seems to be some parable Easter of Lushinaara involved here from which we are enjoined, and we learned this from this parasha, we are enjoined from speaking Lushinaara, and we should always remember the issue of Miriam. Moreover, in this particular case, Miriam was asked from Moshe, at least some form of Miriam, which was asked that Moshe did intercedent back with Miriam. From here, we have a general question in the future, are all issues of Lushinaara to be told to the person about whom he's taught Lushinaara? Or are we afraid of adding fuel to the fire and making things worse by actually telling him? The kafetraim was strongly of the opinion that you should tell the person, even though it might create some sort of bad feelings, but yet you should ask Miriam's trust that a real request for Miriam will only lead to peace and harmony among the people. Whereas, so don't yourself, in such a case, Miriam was should not be asked. Obviously, we should always remember the issues of Miriam and refrain from speaking Lushinaara in such a way that we will never have to ask Miriam. And therefore, we will fulfill the ideas of Nisallushans from Miriam and will be the people Miriam and the people who seek the elixir of life to be careful of speaking Lushinaara. And now for today's halaqayomit. We've finished Shmaneshvay, after Shmaneshvay comes tachanon. There is a tendency not to take tachanon 100% seriously. To belittle or to somehow take it lightly, something which you can drop and forget about whenever it's inconvenient. I'm not sure what the reason is. It's true that tachanon is not said every day on days with special significance. The meaning is not to say tachanon. Shabbat, you don't say tachanon. There's a whole long list of other days which you don't say tachanon. But on the other days, the days which are not special in that way, you are supposed to say tachanon. So, I'm also sure that see them expanded rather enormously the list of days on which one is not say tachanon. So, perhaps that's the sociological reason why Sama tachanon in our minds has less of a place. But I don't think that excuses the fact that for instance, in many schools children don't even talk to say tachanon at all. And I've been to many minyanim, not shoals, but other kinds of minyanim. Where people just assume you don't have to say tachan and they skip it. If you look in the Ramban, the Ramban has a list of laws of Shmaneshvay, which if you don't fulfill them, they don't invalidate the entire Shmaneshvay. But they are very important halakhat, for instance, standing. If you don't have to sit down, you don't have to dive in again, but this is one halakhat that Shmaneshvay should be said standing. Or bowing, the Ramban calls kriot. So, the Raman says there are five kriot in Shmaneshvay. We talked about this two on the first bakhat, two on the bakat modim, and one at the end, or sashalom. If you don't bow, you don't have to be picturing Shmaneshvay again, but everyone knows you're supposed to bow in Shmaneshvay. If anyone is not doing it, one of those halakhat in that list is called "Hishtachhahvayah". Bowing is called in the Ramban kriot, which literally would probably translate it as kneeling. There is another halakhat in the Ramban called "Hishtachhahvayah", which literally means making oneself prostrate. What is "Hishtachhahvayah"? Ram says, when you finish Maneshvay, you fall down on your face, and if you let up, and you say tachanun. So it's a real halakhat in Shmaneshvay, true doesn't invalidate Shmaneshvay if you don't say it, but Shmaneshvay is supposed to be said in such a way that it's completed and concluded with tachanun. What is tachanun? So the Raman Francis has no set text, that's what the word tachanun means, tachanun means beseeching, pleading. The idea being that when you finish saying the formal text, you fall on your face, and you just plead, you just beseech God to help you. So there is no standard text. In fact, in the middle ages, there were a number of different menhagim. Today, there's more or less only two menhagim left, two prokim of inteim, one by staradim, one by ashkenazim. But the idea remains to say what's on your heart. And in fact, it's indicated by the end of tachanun, where we say, "Bhanachnulon e'dahm nah asak kyalachainenu." And the shalal explains that you've dahve, and you've said shmaneshvay, so you've said, "Oh, it's filah, just supposed to say." And you still feel that, you know, "Bhanachnulon e'dahm nah," and I say, "We don't know what to do. We haven't really fulfilled, we haven't really gotten to what we want. Ky'elachainen, if our eyes are on you, God." And that's what I have to say now, just, I don't know what else to do, but I need you to help me. That's the basic idea of tachanun, and it's the basic idea of dahveening. Dahveening has a formal side, which we've expanded on, I guess enormously, over the last few weeks. But intrinsically in the end, tachanun is simply saying, "Everything depends on God, and I can't help myself if I need God to help me Ky e'elachainenu." And the position, the physical position, in which one says something like that, would be theoretically to be pushed right on the ground. So, for lachic reasons, one does not fall directly on the ground, it's a sur, and the way tachanun is said, leaning on one arm, on one side, suggests, nonetheless, the idea of saying, "I've lost my strength to stand before you, I've lost my strength to stand on my own. "Everything depends on you, and I fall, so to speak, at your feet, and ask you, Akraspocho, to help me in every way, for all the needs and deficiencies that I have." That's it for today, you've been listening to KMTT, the shear on the weekly mitzvah, Raftavari, tomorrow the shear of Ha'vah, Moshe Tarigan, on the essentials of Aloudat Hashem. Until then, Kortav, vipakata tora mitzvian, u meitzvian. This has been KMTT, Kimmitzvian, Tetze Torra, Uddvah Hashem, Yerushadaim.